10/12/88 Special - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

At a recent public hearing for a Conditional Use Permit, WM~I stated that they have since revised the height of the proposed landfill to 1020' mean sea level (MSL). This elevation would be below the hori- zontal surface of the existing airport and aside from the period of time when vehicles are operating on it should not infringe on pro- tected airspace. This proposed elevation should be reflected in the final EIS. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the responsible agency for making a determination regarding whether the proposed landfill expansion would create a hazard or greater hazard to air navigation. On page 120, the excerpt from the draft airport master plan indicating that "A check with area pilots and Mn/DOT relative to bird strikes, close calls or 9ther related problems, indicates that the existing landfill has not been a bird attractor or created a hazard area" is a statement that FAA specifically raised an issue with. The EIS on page 121 refers to "extending the hazard potential over the landfills new operating life-something less than three years". This can only be true again based on a time limit to complete the landfill expansion as well as a permitted volume. The point that the EiS fails to consider is that the potential hazards associated with the continuation of the landfill will increase, not soley because of the landfill itself, but also due to the increased number of operations that have occurred and are expected to occur at the airport. The statements on page 124 regarding Site P development limitations are interpreted which also leads to the conclusion that the effective delay represents one year. The last sentence of the first paragraph appears to indicate that MC concurs that landfills and airmorts, are mutually exclusive. The City also takes great issue with the com~.ent on page 124 that "negotiation with the landfill c~ner may be the most effective way tom_n~ ..... ~ze tn~' actual period the landfill continues to operate".. This is well ',~'%~ ..... n the' authority of !~C to address through the CON process and facility permitting as well as through the City's local permi~ process. We do concur =ha~ impacts . . lan .... 1 by may be mitigated by a contrac=ura! cor~.itment to close the ~ a certain da=e. Fiscal The E~S portrays projected revenues ~o state and local governments over the 1987 =o 1991 time ~ ~ ' ' ' de_.o_ of the expansion. The pro~ected revenues indicate an es~ima=ed $2.0 ~: m_._~on revenue base ~o =ne City ~ =~ ~%~ j i=v of ~= fees received --s~ on taxes and rcya!ties ..... ma or . . ........ past landfill activity have been placed in a !an~fil! trust for miti- gation purposes and do not ser%,e as a basis for the City's operating ~ ..... n t~n past e!gh= months, the City has expended landfill budge~. ~'~ ' ' .... as forcommunity'- projects including installa=ion of a c~v~_ __ defense system, fire depar=ment and park improvement expenditures. This should be ref!ec=ed on page 128 cf L_ final E!S. ~= socic-econcmic impact study conducted for the City in i98S, ho~ever, indicates a mlnlmum cos= =o the City of over $12 mi!!icn dc!fats for hcs.lng 75