Resolution - #88-190 - 10/06/1988

Home

In our di~;ct~:~.~;i.on, Mro Don Otter pointed out that the MC's capacity evaluation of ].987 was no longer valid (this has not been confirmed with MC) eno that a new Anoka County Landfill most likely would not be developed wit%ii_,] the 1990 time frame assumed in the EIS. Both parties agree that circumstances have changed since the CON. Whether these circumstanc~.s .].end va].idity to the project need or would indicate a reduced need i.s~ unknown by either party. A major issue on the part of the City is t. hau regardless of the outcome of any updated evaluation of need, both t!~e city and the applicant for the CON are in agreement that the cs~p~c.'i i~y evaluation in the CON and as updated (hence, the data in th~-. }~',iii,~-~) ~s no longer valid. Since WF~[]i .~ig~i~ficantly increased its landfill fees earlier this Spring, the ~_~y~kem has readjusted and now those alternatives that appeared t.o be ~e~.ther prudent nor feasible have been, in fact, operable ~ou '.ai~ l[~st six months. We are not hearing a great hue and cry from zeside,~ts that the quality of service has declined nor that price inc~:ea~-~,q were unbearable or unwarranted. Neither has there been a maz'ked i,]crease in illegal dumping (8 incidents in 1988, 7 in 1987 per City of Ramsey police records). Similarly, traffic impacts attributabl~ ~<~ the landfill have decreased, thus any new activity would inc~ea.~.',~ .~ver existing conditions. Further, the restricted Mississippi ~-%iv~r crossing between Anoka and Champlin has served to further dis?,rib:~te hauling vehicles to the region's other landfills. WMMI indica c~d i?~at they had reactivated their transfer station in Blaine whic)~ il.n~:reased their costs but due to the competitive market environmert i-~aw: not been able to pass these increases to the consumer. T.~ '~f,~e contrary, the restricted operations and imminent closure oi '~_ ~noka Landfill have helped to heighten the awareness that alte~na~i.v',~ methods of dealing with our solid wastes are required o Proposed En<t. ~:5;~ The entire ~[i~c~ion of the proposed end use is relegated to approxi- mately one ~)~[~ie and in essence says the landfill will be open green space with [~n~[meter fencing with a possible ski facility on a portion of the site. (>[~en green space generally connotes something that is viewed as an ~m~nity due to its uniqueness, aesthetic or other characteri~3~ic~. A side benefit usually associated with this is the ability to ,~,~.~ v~ as a recharge area or sedimentation area with permeable ~c[acc..~s. The landfill with or without expansion does not connote suc?~ ~. amenity. The end use and ultimate productivity of the landfill s i.'[.~ i~,.~i~ been an issue that the City has raised repeatedly. Yet, the El.~. a.~ usual, passes this off with only superficial discussion~ A'[~ :i~ome point, and there is no more appropriate time than this, the !i.~(.~oiio]~tan Council has to come to grips with the end use of land~ili.~-~ 5 ~ indeed, they are to be constructed in this manner. If it is po~s,iblc'~ to develop and operate a viable ski hill on the landfill, il ,,.,~o~.:ld be a benefit to the City. This proposed concept, however, i'.~ 5,,~,t .~ubject to approvals by the regulatory agencies.