06/12/85 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I :1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I Council and Anoka County lift the moratorium; Ramsay would be putting the cart before the horse; Metro Oouncil and Anoka Gounty put the moratorium in place and they should be the ones to lift it; Waste Management of Minnesota should be approaching the (bunty and Metro Oouncil. City Attorney Goodrich stated that a more appropriate Council action at this time would be to request that the County lift the moratorium; once it is lifted, Ramsey can review Waste Management of Minnesota's application, put oontingencies on it and reconsider it. Mr. Douglas Fountain asked Councilmember Cox how granting the grading and excavating permit would enhance the ~on-selection of Site P. GounciLmember Cox stated that the moratorium preserves area around the landfill for Site P. Mr. Fountain stated that if Waste Management of Minnesota is allowed to grade to a mean level of 9' below the present mean level, Waste Management will have created a large depression suitable in which to place a doUble clay liner and proceed with Site P. Councilmember Cox stated that lifting the moratoriun would render landfill expansion inappropriate. Mr. Fountain stated that it is knc~n that Waste Manag~nent of Minnesota's intent and purpose is to excavate that soil and use it for oover in daily operations and closure/post closure of the present landfill site; would that intent and purpose be changed any by the granting of the grading and excavating permit. Councilm~nber (Dx stated that the soil oonditions that can be provided by that property to the south of the landfill would provide for good future use of the present landfill site. Motion failed. Voting Yes: Councilmember Cox. Voting No: Mayor Hei~nan, Gouncilmembers Sorteberg, Reimann and Scklueter. G. Proposed Re _sponse Order By_ Consent: Case Of Sanitary_ Landfill: City Attorney Goodrich stated that the oonsent order puts in place a plan or formula to identify groundwater oontamination problems; a procedure to solve the problems when and if they are identified; a t~hle for action that needs to be accomplsihed; provisions for arbitration. Mr. Goodrich stated that Staff sees three areas of concern in the consent order: 1. It addresses 4 Anoka municipal wells and not the Ramsey municipal well. 2. It does not contain provisions to deal with emergency situations. 3. It does not put Ramsey on the mailing list for communications between Pollution Control Agency and Anoka County. Discussion ensued regarding 'cost effective remedial action' language on Page 11 of the consent order and Mr. Goodrich asked Mr. Otter if Waste Management of Minnesota would not perform remedial action if it were too expensive. Mr. Otter stated that the language intends that the best engineering practices will be used in the most cost effective way in evaluating the problem and the solution to it. Mayor ~{eitman noted that the consent order also uses the language 'cost benefit' and inquired as to the par~eters for judging 'cost benefit'. May 28, 1985 Page 30 of 31