07/03/84 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. DOn O~ter - It was not our intent to do so at that time. Rogeri~er~anson - As far as I can see, there is no value to your ~p~op~sals; water flows to the South. I see no value to diggii~ ~~ land that is better used as a wildlife refuse. Solvents ~nd shifting could break up the liner. You are going right 'oVe~ a pond that could be a spring and causing direct pollu~fonlto ground water as well as aquifers. Resident - 15308 Sunfish Lake Blvd. - What's in it for Ramsey? Do we'have the option not to approve this? Can we split this option ~be~ween the North and the South or is it all tied together? MayorlGamec - Waste Management makes the presentation and we have the option; we can put conditions on it. What they present, we don't hay~ to say yes or no to. Mr. G°~dr$ch - The applicant has the right to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. They own the property and we have laws govern,$nglhow and when a Conditional Use Permit is issued, similar to a b~au~y parlor for example. When a person applies for a permi~!toloperate a beauty parlor, the City has no gain but is obligated~to hear that person because that person has property rightS'an~ interests. One fact the City has to gain, of course, is theipo~sibilities and why the Council initially got into this ~mbj~ct, why we considered the contract and why we negotiated the cohtract for the past year almost. We never discussed the North~id~, that was never part of our negotiations until June of this y~arf always our emphasis was on the South side and concern about, Site P. The fact that we could not get the size of Site P redu¢~4 a~ the Metro Council, we couldn't get the buffer changed, the fact }hat no one here tonight or anyone anyplace else can tell uS t~at Site P will not come in the City. Then Waste Manag~men~ applied for the Conditional Use Permit. The possibilities if Council issues a Conditional Use Permit: the exist%mg landfill would be purchased, we would be rid of having the Ci~yi~f Anoka own a landfill in our City with the variations there~ ~A ~on-resident owner is a difficult situation, they have everythin~ to gain, they can collect fees and Rmmsey cannot. That wouldresDlve that issue. We considered the possibility of Anoka County!!bU~ing the existing site; we spent several months negotiating somethSng!!there. We discussed with the City of Anoka the possibility of 'tWo!'ci~ies owning a landfill and trying to work out some resolve there $o that Ramsey could to some extent control our own destiny on the~la~dfill issue given, as always, that the existing site is there..' YOu can't take it away or do anything with it. We have an ~extSti~g site and some liability concern, we have concern with closure a~d post closure and what's going to happen to that site. It will a%ways be in Ramsey -- should it be a park, should it be passiWe o~ active. The City felt we should have some control over it; iti~is~in the center of our City. We are concerned now with the possibility of almost 420 acres, in the heart of R~msey's indus%rial area, being considered as landfill. With the conditional use p~rmi~ there is a possibility for the City to gain some control. The City the eXlst ~an gain some funds; we would obtain 10% of the gross from ing site, we would receive $10,000 per month with a CPI Council/P & Z Public Hearing Page 19 of 23