Agenda - Council - 03/24/1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Public site acce~s as a recreational area conflicts with WMMI's security i~r~visions as outlined in their Certificate of Need Appl'lcat~or, Document, Section 3.3.2, p. 39. obviously, tile b~i.9 question is exactly what constitutes a ski/s.ledding are~. Jn WMMI's proposal? We (Dave Hartley and Merland Otto) di~c~ssed this with Don Otter, WMMI, and share his thoughts at '~;hJs point. The area designated as ski/$1, edding are~ would be graded and turf established. Addit[onally~ th~ I>erimeter of the ski area would be fenced width chain link ~:fencing in order to restrict access to the remainder of the sJ_te~ WMMI would incur additional costs due to placement of approximately a foot of additional cover materli, al in the ~;kJ area and perimeter fencing. Ail other ~ite amenit~i_es such as tow ropes, lighting, grooming, maintenances, etc. wou~i.d be the responsibility of the City. Tow ropes or tow bar stru¢Itures, lighting standards and trees are not permitted to penetratc~ the final cover cap. Thus, installation of each of these item~ would require special measures to assure the integrity of the ]iandfill cap. Technically, installation is feasible, whether J.t ~akes sense from an economic standpoint is unknown at this time° In addition, landfill venting systems may emit noxious fumes which, recreational users may find undesirable resulting Jn little u~;e of the site. Access to the s].~.e wo~;ld have to be managed by the City (e.g, city personnel at the gate during hours of operation, enforcement of use r~strictions dt~ring unauthorized hours). The issue of ci't~ liability is significant. Without enume~ating all a~reas of potential City liability by operating the ski hill/sledding area, suffice it to say that once the City un~.ertakes any activity related to the landfill, on lane. fill property, the City exposes itself to far g~'eater liability than were it to not participate'in any use oi' the landfill property. For example, .the City would be liable for negligence related to injured recreational.~ users such as broken legs, etc.,, but also the-City'may' -..-~ assume liability for someone injured by landfill fumes, or other uniquely laadfill hazards. Perhaps & far greater potential liabiliky issue the City would assume is if the ski hill use advecsaly affects the landfill cover which'.fn turn permits infiltration which then causes~groundwater contamination. I;.l other, words, the Ci~ywould:~subject itself to an enviconmental hazard liability potenttal~ similar to that o~ the operator and the licensee, Anoka County° 5