Agenda - Council - 09/27/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

We now are nearing the end of 1988, still discussing the same capacity even though two years have elapsed in that "window of need" (1987- 1990) until the RDF facilities and Resource Recovery Systems were to come on line. Anoka County's Elk River facility is anticipated to be on line by mid-1989 - approximately six months after the expansion of Anoka Landfill would be initiated. Since the CON process, an MC staff report indicates that there is potential capacity within the existing system to provide the Metro Area needs for the next 18 years (Landfill Capacity Evaluation, Caswell and Rafferty, May, 1987). Since WMMI essentially curtailed operations to all but WMMI haulers earlier this Spring, the system has readjusted and now those alterna- tives that appeared to be neither prudent nor feasible have been, in fact, operable for the last six months. We are not hearing a great hue and cry from residents that the quality of service has declined nor that price increases were unbearable or unwarranted. Neither has there been a marked increase in illegal dumping, similarly, traffic impacts attributable to the landfill have decreased, thus any new activity would increase over existing conditions. Further, the restricted Mississippi River crossing between Anoka and Champlin has served to further distribute hauling vehicles to the region's other landfills. To the contrary, the restricted operations and imminent closure of the Anoka Landfill has helped to heighten the awareness that alternative methods of dealing with our solid wastes are required. Proposed End Use The entire discussion of the proposed end use is relegated to approxi- mately one page and in essence says the landfill will be open green space with perimeter fencing with a possible ski facility on a portion of the site. Open green space generally connotes something that is viewed as an amenity due to its uniqueness, aesthetic or other characteristics. A side benefit usually associated with this is the ability to serve as a recharge area or sedimentation area with permeable surfaces. The landfill with or without expansion does not connote such an amenity. The end uss and ultimate productivity of the landfill site has been an issue that the city has raised repeatedly. Yet, the EIS, as usual, passes this off with only superficial discussion. At some point, and there is no more appropriate time than this, the Metropolitan Council has to come to grips with the end use of landfills, if indeed, they are to be constructed in this manner. Alternatives The description of alternative actions also relies almost in its entirety on the CON application and MC's review of that application in 1986. As previously indicated, actions which were determined by MC as neither feasible nor prudent have been in place for six months. Further, the discussion regarding whether Elk River Landfill is capable of accomodating the demand forced on it by the closure of Anoka Sanitary Landfill is dated. Most of the factors which MC indicated as restricting Elk River Landfill's abilities have already been alleviated. 2