Minutes - Council - 10/04/1988 - Special

Home

Underlying the entire landfill siting and expansion processes, there appears to be some perception at the Metropolitan Council (MC), the County and MPCA that the Community and residents are simply suffering from the NIMBY syndrome. This is not so. The City and its residents have done their share and more to accomodate the region's waste. There simply has to come a time when, like it or not, a landfill must close in conjunction with its permitted life. Need for Project The EIS largely depends on the Certificate of Need (CON) application/ analysis conducted in 1986. That process portrayed a near crisis situation with respect to the region's landfill capacity and specifi- cally the need for capacity between 1987-1990. The CON process con- cluded that no feasible or prudent alternatives to expansion exist to serve the region's needs during that time period. The CON was reissued (by MC)in January of 1988 at the same capacity as was applied for by WMMI in 1986 to serve 1987 through 1990 (635 acre- feet). We now are nearing the end of 1988, still discussing the same capacity even though two years have elapsed in that "window of need" (1987- 1990) until the RDF facilities and Resource Recovery Systems were to come on line. Anoka County's Elk River facility is anticipated to be on line by mid-1989 - approximately six months after the expansion of Anoka Landfill would be initiated. Since the CON process, an MC staff report indioates that there is potential capacity within the existing system to provide the Metro Area needs for the next 18 years (Landfill Capacity Evaluation, Caswell and Rafferty, May, 1987). In our discussion, Mr. Don Otter pointed out that the MC's capacity evaluation of 1987 was no longer valid (this has not been confirmed with MC) and that a new Anoka County Landfill most likely would not be developed within the 1990 time frame assumed in the EIS. Both parties agree that circumstances have changed since the CON. Whether these circumstancesilend validity to the project need or would indicate a reduced need ~s unknown by either party. A major issue on the part of the city is that regardless of the outcome of any updated evaluation of need, both the City and the applicant for the CON are in agreement that the capacity evaluation in the CON and as updated (hence, the data in the EIS) is no longer valid. Since WMMI significantly increased its landfill fees earlier this Spring, the system has readjusted and now those alternatives that appeared to be neither prudent nor feasible have been, in fact, operable for the last six months. We are not hearing a great hue and cry from residents that the quality of service has declined nor that price increases were unbearable or unwarranted. Neither has there been a marked increase in illegal dumping (8 incidents in 1988, 7 in 1987 per Cityiof Ramsey police records). Similarly, traffic impacts attributable to the landfill have decreased, thus any new activity would increase over existing conditions. Further, the restricted Mississippi RSver crossing between Anoka and Champlin has served to further distribute hauling vehicles to the region's other landfills.