Laserfiche WebLink
In our discussion, Mr. Don Otter pointed out that the MC's capacity <br />evaluation of 1987 was no longer valid (this has not been confirmed <br />with MC) and that a new Anoka County Landfill most likely would not be <br />developed within the 1990 time frame assumed in the EIS. Both parties <br />agree that circumstances have changed since the CON. Whether these <br />circumstances lend validity to the project need or would indicate a <br />reduced need is unknown by either party. A major issue on the part of <br />the City is that regardless of the outcome of any updated evaluation <br />of need, both the City and the applicant for the CON are in agreement <br />that the capacity evaluation in the CON and as updated (hence, the <br />data in the EIS) is no longer valid. <br /> <br />Since W]~MI significantly increased its landfill fees earlier this <br />Spring, the system has readjusted and now those alternatives that <br />appeared to be neither prudent nor feasible have been, in fact, <br />operable for the last six months. We are not hearing a great hue and <br />cry from residents that the quality of service has declined nor that <br />price increases were unbearable or unwarranted. Neither has there <br />been a marked increase in illegal dumping (8 incidents in 1988, 7 in <br />1987 per City of Ramsey police records). Similarly, traffic impacts <br />attributable to the landfill have decreased, thus any new activity <br />would increase over existing conditions. Further, the restricted <br />Mississippi River crossing between Anoka and Champlin has served to <br />further distribute hauling vehicles to the region's other landfills. <br />~TC~I indicated that they had reactivated their transfer station in <br />Blaine which increased their costs but due to the competitive market <br />environment have not been able to pasg these increases to the <br />consumer. To the contrary, the restricted operations and i~inent <br />closure of the Anoka Landfill have helped to heighten the awareness <br />that alternative methods of dealing with our solid wastes are <br />required. <br /> <br />Promosed End Use <br /> <br />~...e entire alscuss!on'' ' of the proposed end use is relecated to approxi- <br />mate!v one Doge and in essence says the ~a-~ wi!l'be omen creen <br />space, with .merimeter fencing with a possible ski _a ~ ~''~y on a mort!on' <br />of the site. Omen. green space generally connotes some~ -h--. =~ is <br />v~',~_-~_. as an amenity due to i~s' uniqueness,' aesthetic or th__ <br />characteristics. A side ~-~:~ ~ .... tn~s is the <br /> b ....... usually associated '.~-~ <br />ability to serve as a ~=ch~-c~ area or sedimentation araa <br />Dermeab!e surfaces. ~h~ ~1 with c- '~-% ,-- <br />.............. ~ .... o,, expansion ames not <br />connote such an amenity. The end use and <br /> . u~ ..... =.e productivity cf the <br />~ ~=~ site has been an issue "-- .-= . <br />_a ........ n=. -k_ City nas raised repeatedly. <br />v~t,-- the EiS, as usual,.masses this off "{-~_.~ only. supe___c___, ~={ <br />discussion. ~..'' some _Dc''-,i~.- and there is no~m~-__e appropriate <br /> t~.~e than <br />this, the ~'=--c-c~-~- Council has to come ~o cribs '~-~ -= ' <br /> ~=n~__~_s, ~ ' ~ ~ be this <br />........... , they are ~o constructed zn m-nn_r. <br /> <br />however, <br /> <br />it .....--.--~ b~- -~ s' en-_i~=~ ~ ~o the' Citv.o This proposed concept, <br />is ye~ subject to approvals by the requlatory agencies. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br /> <br />