Laserfiche WebLink
Council or anyone in the City; it says that the City will not get a ski <br />hill and may have damages that could be punitive or cost the City a lot of <br />money because it took those actions. <br /> <br />Natalie Haas-Steffen - Noted that the County has tabled any comment <br />regarding development of a ski hill at the landfill; PCA has indicated that <br />they don't know if it will be feasible. Ms. Steffen stated that she is <br />sorry that Waste Management has tied vertical expansion to a ski hill; they <br />both have merits and should stand on their own. If the landfill hill <br />cannot be removed, it is hoped that something positive would happen at the <br />site but there are some real questions. Stated that she does believe Waste <br />Management is serious in their desire to make something positive occur at <br />the landfill site. Ms. Haas stated that Waste Management has been more <br />reasonable in their approach than others in the landfill business. <br />Haas stated that she is concerned that Ramsey look very carefully at the <br />agreement it considers so as not to open the door for horizontal expansion <br />and tie the city's hands in their ability to get what they need as a city. <br />Ms. Steffen stated that years ago, she and Councilmember Cox served on a <br />committee to address mitigation and she believes cities and their citizens <br />got overlooked; a proposal for a positive end use of the landfill could do <br />for the city what that committee was supposed to have provided for. The <br />health and welfare of the citizens of P~msey should be a number one concern <br />in what happens and the City should wait to see what is going to happen <br />with the remedial actions being proposed and their affect on the current <br />landfill site, if any at all. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley noted that no action is necessary this evening and reviewed <br />Council's options as follows: a) accept or reject the agreeement as <br />presented; b) try to correct those areas of concern in the agreement that <br />were raised by members of the audience, the City Attorney, Council and <br />himself; c) begin negotiations on a different agreement. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich - Stated that the most important aspect for City Council to <br />consider is whether they want to consider performing first and take a <br />chance on getting performance from Waste Management; what controls the city <br />is willing to give up; whether the city is willing to give up it's <br />responsibility and opportunity to consider questions like remedial action. <br />Mr. Goodrich reiterated that the city is not selling a conditional use <br />permit and that the permitting process will be gone through if and when <br />Waste Management applies. <br /> <br />Mr. Jack Ippel - Stated that there is a zoning ordinance that will be put <br />to a referendum vote; if it passes, it will take effect immediately. That <br />ordinance would preclude Waste Management from infringing on airspace <br />zoning for the airport; supporting vertical expansion would then conflict <br />with the city's own zoning ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley confirmed that the airport zoning ordinance does regulate the <br />height structures can be built and the landfill is a structure. Adopting <br />that ordinance could be construed by Waste Management as a condition of <br />default but the outcome of that referendum on the zoning ordinance would <br />easily be known prior to entering into any ski hill agreement and issuance <br />of a conditional use permit. Adoption of the zoning ordinance is the kind <br />City Council/March 9, 1988 <br /> <br />Page 12 of 14 <br /> <br /> <br />