Laserfiche WebLink
Erika Sitz (Continued) - All these things have to be done and it <br />is not a plus that you are gaining anything. What are you buying <br />in the agreement? There really isn't much in it for the City of <br />Ramsey. First, liability indemnification -- and it's just <br />indemnification, it's not any transfer because that can't happen <br />under Super Fund. Why does Ramsey have liability now? In the <br />Super Fund law, it is either the owner, the operator, the transporter <br />or the generator; we are not the latter and we are currently not <br />the owner or operator. Unless we buy ourselves a landfill, we <br />are not in that chain of liability. I don't know why we want to <br />buy a landfill; why don't we just drop that suit against Anoka. <br />Anoka is in the chain of liability now; they are the owner and <br />they do have a municipal cap so there is a limit to their <br />liability and most of the liability will probably end up with the <br />operator. Are you buying any remedial action that you would not <br />get elsewhere? PCA can and will force remedial action if it is <br />necessary and they are really not required by any law to ask <br />Waste Management Incorporated if they can fill it with garbage <br />in order to make the remedial action pay, which is what this <br />agreement seems to say. PCA has acted in that manner in other <br />cases and there is no reason that they would not act in the same <br />way here and require the necessary remedial action. As far as <br />environmental improvements, if you are going to make contour <br />improvements on the North side for water infiltration as part <br />of a remedial action, you can do that with dirt -- you do not <br />have to extend the landfill in order to make better contours. <br />Why aren't we worried about the slope on the West side; that <br />looks pretty steep. Bringing in the parent company, Waste <br />Management Incorporated, for $15,000,000 - the way this part <br />of the contract is written, it almost looks like that's a cap <br />on what Ramsey can ask for. Currently, Waste Management Inc. <br />has no cap; there is a cap for municipalities. Waste Mangement <br />Inc., the parent company being brought in, in addition to Waste <br />Management of Minnesota -- in other actions in which remedial <br />action has been required by PCA, if there is a parent company <br />they can be traced back; You are not gaining anything you will <br />not get under law now. The fifty year guarantee has a disclaimer <br />which says nothing contained herein shall shall be a waiver of <br />the termination of liability of permit holder with respect to <br />closure, post closure and environmental response or costs <br />associated therewith at such time as the permit holder is not <br />liable under any Federal, State or County law or ordinance for <br />closure, post closure or environmental response or costs associated <br />therewith. The disclaimer says once there is another law they <br />are not liable under, they are out from under this agreement. <br />In the Waste Management Act amendments that passed this year, <br />there was a 20 years after proper closure/post closure and <br />financial responsibility according to rules the PCA is <br />going to promulgate; so 50 years may not be 50 years. The <br />environmental improvements, the liner and those things that are <br />being required -- PCA has told the County in 1981, during the <br />siting process, that any Anoka County Landfill, particularly <br />this one, would have to have all this great technology. The <br />money in the agreement, compensation dollars -- Metro Council <br />will be seeking legislation for money to compensate communities <br />that host waste facilities, as it was recommended in a report <br />prepared for them by their Advisory Council which contained <br /> <br />Council/P & Z <br />Public Hearing <br />Page 14 of 23 <br /> <br /> <br />