Minutes - Council - 07/14/1988 - Public Hearing

Home

Peter Nieder - 16'203 Jaspar Street - There are many issues here, some well thought out and some hastily. It is fine that Ramsey is looking for new businesses but there has to be a limit on what type of businesses the city shoud acquire. There are many opportunities that Council and Planning and Zoning have bypassed for businesses to come into Ramsey that were declined. This type of business has too many unanswered questions. We have a large pollution problem in our city. When I moved here 15 years ago the dump was only 25 feet high; we were told the dump would not get higher than 90 feet; it is over 300 feet high today. If you let a business come im and make a 3 million dollar investment in their facility; the business then wants to branch out to recapture their investment even though they said they would not be requesting any additional permits; the city then approves the expansion so the company doesn't move and take that tax base with it. It is economic blackmail. If a majority of the citizens say they don't want Atlas, our City Council should do what the citizens want them to do. Bob Schwartz - 5600 142nd Avenue - I am a manufacturing representative for manufacturers of plastic processing equipment. Not one of these manufacturers do contract plastic processing to improve their equipment. am under the impression that Atlas already purchased the Ramsey site; why did they d~o that prior to knowing they would be issued a permit? Can the State override the decision of the Ramsey City Council? Atlas has already applied for a permit and the decision seems to be resting on the MPCA rather than on Ramsey. People are being advised not to purchase land in Ramsey because of the landfill and the incinerator. It will be a hardship to sell lamd im Ramsey in the future. Jacki~. Eastwood - 15855 Juniper Ridge Drive - I have lived in Ramsey for 6 months and our management of waste has not been so great judging from what I hear about the landfill. I would like to submit an article entitled "In£ectiou~ Waste A Heap Of Trouble For Many Hospitals". Some quotes from that article are: "'It's as bad as it's ever been,' said Jim McLarney, director of the American Society for Hospital Engineering in Chicago. 'A lot of hospitals and other health care facilities are losing alternatives for managing this problem.' Some haulers charge hospitals up to $1.50 a pound to remove infectious waste - or what appears to be infectious waste, consultants said. That's about 10 times the price haulers charge the hospitals to dispose of their benign waste, experts said.'" The article also points out the lack of uniform definition, state or federal, for infectious waste. It appears Atlas has misspoken or misrepresented. One of the specific responses in their July 5 edition of answers and questions says that they will not be handling hazardous waste. In a letter Atlas received f~om MPCA dated May i0, it says infectious waste is considered hazardous. Atlas makes a statement that they need contract burning to help fund the organization. Is Atlas really that shakey financially? To whom does Atlas contract for removal of their ha~.ardous waste? Do they have a long term contract with Waste Management. Just prior to the meeting, a representative of Atlas was giving an explanation of the facility and he said "we do not want our employees digging around in some of the waste we get in"; what is that waste and why don't they want employees coming im contact with it? City Council Public Hearing/July 14, 1988 Page 9 of 15