Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />! <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Oouncil and Anoka County lift the moratoria;- Ramsey would be putting the cart <br />before the horse; Metro Council and Anoka Oounty put the moratorit~ in plaoe <br />and they should be the ones to lift it; Waste Management of Minnesota should be <br />approaching the County and Metro CoLa3cil. City Attorney Goodrich stated that a <br />more appropriate Council action at this time would be to request that the <br />County lift the moratorium; once it is lifted, Ramsey can review Waste <br />Management of Minnesota's application, put contingencies on it and reoonsider <br />it. Mr. Douglas Fountain asked Councilm~nber Cox how granting the grading and <br />excavating permit would enhance the non-selection of Site P. Gomcilmamber Cox <br />stated that the moratoriu~ preserves area around the landfill for Site P. Mr. <br />Fountain stated that if Waste Management of Minnesota is allowed to grade to a <br />mean level of 9' below the present mean level, Waste Management will have <br />created a large depression suitable in which to place a double clay liner and <br />proceed with Site P. Councilm~aber Cox stated that lifting the moratori~ <br />would render landfill expansion inappropriate. Mr. Fountain stated that it is <br />known that Waste Manage3ent of Minnesota's intent and purpose is to excavate <br />that soil and use it for cover in daily operations and closure/post closure of <br />the present landfill site; would that intent and purpose be changed any by the <br />granting of the grading and excavating permit. Councilm~mber Cox stated that <br />the soil conditions that can be provided by that property to the south of the <br />landfill would provide for good future use of the present landfill site. <br /> <br />Motion failed. Voting Yes: Councilma~ber COx. Voting No: Mayor Beitman, <br />Councilme~bers Sorteberg, Reimann and Schlueter. <br /> <br />G. Proposed Re _sponse Order By_ Consent: Case Of Sanitary_ Landfill: <br /> <br />I <br />i <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich stated that the consent order puts in place a plan or <br />formula to identify groundwater contamination problems; a procedure to solve <br />the problems when and if they are identified; a timetable for action that needs <br />to be accomplsihed; provisions for arbitration. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich stated that Staff sees three areas of concern in the consent <br />order: <br /> <br />1. It addresses 4 Anoka municipal wells and not the Ramsey municipal <br /> well. <br /> <br />2. It does not oontain provisions to deal with eaergency situations. <br /> <br />3. It does not put Ramsey on the mailing list for communications between <br /> Pollution Control Agency and Anoka County. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding 'cost effective remedial action' language on Page <br />11 of the consent order and Mr. Goodrich asked Mr. Otter if Waste Management of <br />Minnesota would not perform remedial action if it were too expensive. <br /> <br />Mr. Otter stated that the language intends that the best engineering practices <br />will be used in the most cost effective way in evaluating the p~oblem and the <br />solution to it. <br /> <br />Mayor Heitman noted that the consent order also uses the language 'cost <br />benefit' and inquired as to the parameters for judging 'cost benefit'. <br /> May 28, 1985 <br /> <br />Page 30 of 31 <br /> <br /> <br />