Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 06/27/1984

Home

I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I I I Case #10: Metro Interceptor Second Connection: Council noted receiving memo dated June 5, 1984 from Metro Council Staff to Managers, Administrators and Clerks regarding Metropolitan Waste Control Commission 1984-1988 Development Program Review. Case #11: Landfill: City Attorney Goodrich read the proposed resolution #84-109 as it relates to the proposed contract for the sale of the City's interest in the existing landfill site and 80 acres immediately south. Mr. Goodrich introduced Mr. Moersfelder, Mr. Otter and Mr. Miller of Waste Management. Mr. Goodrich stated that Waste Management has submitted application for a conditional use permit and a public hearing by Planning and Zoning and City Council is scheduled for June 25, 1984. After the public hearing, the Council will make the critical decision whether or not to allow an expansion of the landfill. Mr. Goodrich stated that the proposed contract provides that Ramsey agrees to give a quit claim deed to our interest in the whole 160 acres; if Waste Management is denied a conditional use permit by the City or Waste Management cannot obtain necessary licensing, there is the possibility that Waste Management would not elect to go forward and purchase the existing site and the south 80 acres but they would still have the option to do so. With the signing of this contract, Ramsey does sell it's interest in the existing site and the adjacent south 80 acres. Mayor Gamec stated that his understanding is if we enter into this agreement and the conditional use permit is not approved, we have still sold our interest in the existing landfill to Waste Management and Ramsey will get 10% of the gross from that site; nothing will happen on the south 80 acres. Mr. Goodrich stated that it is not likel- that Waste Management will buy the existing site if they don't have rights to go into any other area, but they have the option to do so. Councilmember Van Wagner stated that she feels very strongly that references to the Westphal property in the proposed contract should be deleted. Mr. Moersfelder stated that the conditional use permit refers to the Westphal property as well. During consideration of the conditional use permit, if the Council decides that inclusion of the Westphal property is not appropriate -- then Council should bite the bullet and not issue the proposed resolution. The proposed resolution is a contingency to closing. Mr. Goodrich stated that Mr. Moersfelder is saying that this agreement (the proposed contract) is contingent upon Council passing the conditional use permit as well as the resolution referred to in paragraph 6.b of the purchase agreement. C/June 12, 1984 Page 6 of 9