Minutes - Council - 10/04/1988 - Special

Home

The proposer, according to the EIS, is looking at a schedule for placing final cover as the site is brought to proposed grades. The EIS further indicates that the cover placement will take two years and be completed in 1991 and concludes "Therefore, the length of time to complete final cover placement may not be extended by implementation of the vertical expansion." This can only be true if the expansion and capacity limits are time restricted as well as volume permitted. Concurrent with this process, WMMI is seeking a CUP from Ramseyo WMMI through that process is not indicating an expansion period of 2.5 years but has indicated that they need~F~-{~a~-five years. The additional time would also contribute to leachate production as well as create other adverse impacts on the Community's development schedule and extend the burden of an operating landfill on residents of the Community. Economic Impacts The EIS presented data addressing the impacts on market values of residential properties and we believe erroneously concludes that "the landfill appears to have no adverse impact on residential property valuation." The sampling was done on a very limited basis and list versus sales price or sales versus assessed values may not necessarily be the best barometers to assess impacts on property values. The City Assessor's office trys to assess all residential improved properties at approximately 93-95% of market value. Thus, all properties should sell at a "premium" to assessed value. Similarly, the potential sales price typically is taken into consideration prior to a property listing. Thus, a significant variation in selling vs. listing price shouldn't be reflected. In the April 30, 1988 study of "Socio-economic Impacts of Regional Landfills on Host Communities", area realtors expressed several difficulties in selling properties near the landfill. These ranged from lower listing prices to eliminating portions of the market from even considering a house near the landfill. Thus, the"no adverse impact" conclusion is, at best, speculative in the EIS. Gateway Airport The operation of a landfill within 5000' of an airport serving piston aircraft has been determined to be an incompatible land use by FAA. The state of Minnesota as well as the MC supposedly acknowledges federal policies and regulations yet continues to violate them with respect to both expansion of existing fills and siting of new landfills. Whether the airport is improved or not, it does exist as part of regional, sta~e and national systems plans. The proposed landfill expansion both serves to create a greater hazard to air navigation by increasing its size, but also would extend the period of time where hazardous conditions could occur due to continued operation of the landfill.