Laserfiche WebLink
Anoka Count',' and which site it should be. The Siting Authority is made up of 5 <br />individuals appointed by the County Board, the Count2,, Board and one individual <br />appointed bv each of the local units of government affected. The Siting. Authority Board <br />has 90 days to come to a conclusion. <br /> <br />Mr. H:mley stated that the position he has been taking on behalf of Ramsey is that none of <br />the 3 sites in Anoka County are suitable for landfills primarily because of the soils they rest <br />on. Mr. Hartley noted that no formal position has been stated by the current Council with <br />respect to Site P :md requested direction from City Council with regard to the stance they as <br />the governing body of Ramsey wish to take. <br /> <br />Mr. Terry Miller, manager of Anoka Sanitary Landfill in Ramsey, was present and <br />suggested that the question be posed to Anoka County regarding whether it is their <br />intention to site a landfill in Anoka Count2,' and if it will serve the region versus just Anoka <br />County. <br /> <br />Mr. Terry Miller also noted that Mr. Hartley was correct in stating that none of the sites in <br />Anoka County were suitable but it was determined that with engineering, they could be <br />made to become suitable. <br /> <br />Mr. Otto noted that intrinsically suitable refers to the natural capability of site. Despite the <br />best technology, engineered pro,ams are only 85% effective at containing leachate. Site P <br />has 3 characteristics which State law prohibits as sites for landfills: a) wetlands within the <br />site; b) shoreland areas; c) airport within 5,000 feet of proposed landfill site. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley noted that expenses incurred in the technical review of the EIS are eligible for <br />reimbursement up to $100,000. In addition, City Staff believes the City could incur as <br />much as $100,000 in costs associated with opposing Site P that are not eligible for <br />reimbursement and there would be no promise of succeeding in the effort. Mr. Hartley <br />inquired if Cit.',, Council is willing to authorize expenditures to oppose Site P. <br /> <br />Councilmember Peterson stated that he is not in favor of writing a blank check to oppose <br />Site P; that he has researched and been advised that Ramsey's resources would not be <br />v.'isely spent trying to overturn regulations; if the City chooses to take on the fight, it <br />should join forces with other communities. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley replied that in the areas ',,,,here local control over landfills is challenged <br />unreasonably, he does not intend for it to be a sole effort on the part of Ramsey, Mr. <br />Hartley stated that the format for expenditures he is proposing is one of quarterly reviews <br />by the City Council with he and a councilmember authorizing expenditures on an interim <br />basis between quarterly reviews. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Cich to appoint <br />Mayor Reimann and the City Adminisu'ator as a review body and authorize them to approve <br />expenditures to oppose the selection of Site P on an interim basis between quarterly <br />reviews. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Reimann, Councilmembers DeLuca, Pearson, Cich <br />and Peterson. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />City Council/January 16, 1990 <br /> Page 4 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />