Minutes - Council - 10/04/1988 - Special

Home

WMMI indicated that they had reactivated their transfer station in Blaine which increased their costs but due to the comgetitive market environment have not been able to pass these increases to the consumer. To the contrary, the restricted operations and imminent closure of the Anoka Landfill has helped to heighten the awareness that alternative methods of dealing with our solid wastes are required. Proposed End Use The entire discussion of the proposed end use is relegated to approxi- mately one page and in essence says the landfill will be open green space with perimeter fencing with a possible ski facility on a portion of the site. Open green space generally connotes something that is viewed as an amenity due to its uniqueness, aesthetic or other characteristics. A side benefit usually associated with this is the ability to serve as a recharge area or sedimentation area with permeable surfaces. The landfill with or without expansion does not connote such an amenity. The end use and ultimate productivity of the landfill site has been an issue that the City has raised repeatedly. Yet, the EIS, as usual, passes this off with only superficial discussion. At some point, and there is no more appropriate time than this, the Metropolitan Council has to come to grips with the end use of landfills, if indeed, they are to be constructed in this manner. Although if it is possible to develop.and operate a viable ski hill on the landfill, it would be a benefit to the City. This proposed concept, however, is yet subject to approvals by the regulatory agencies. Alternatives The description of alternative actions also relies almost in its entirety on the CON application and MC's review of that application in 1986. As previously indicated, actions which were determined by MC as neither feasible nor prudent have been in place for six months. Further, the discussion regarding whether Elk River Landfill is capable of accomodating the demand forced on it by the closure of Anoka Sanitary Landfill is dated. Most of the factors which MC indicated as restricting Elk River Landfill's abilities have already been alleviated. The assessment does not take into account the impact of the restricted crossing at the Mississippi River bridge, its impacts on alternative routes or landfill destinations imposed by the bridge restrictions and, therefore., distorts the actual costs of waste hauling when comparing alternatives to the expansion. The traffic/economic impacts created by the bridge restrictions may be readily available to MC through Anoka ~ounty's EIS on Site P. We would assume the County is evaluating haul routes with the bridge restrictions as a consideration.