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

Home

The EIS pre_s~rv;_..ad data addressing the impacts on market values of residential pr~0erties and we believe 'erroneously concludes that "the landfill apr_,~,ar:; to have no adverse impact on residential property valuations" ~1t'1. o. sampling was done on a very limited basis and list versus sales pr.i_.ce or sales versus assessed values may not necessarily be the bes;t barometers to assess impacts on property values. The City Assessor's'. office trys to assess all residential improved properties at approxJ.mateli¢ 93-95% of market value. Thus, all properties should sell at a '~'pr~'~mi_um" to assessed value. Similarly, the potential sales price typical [y is taken, into consideration prior to a property listing. Y'~u~;~ a significant variation in selling vs. listing price shouldn't be :,.'~i~lected. In the AprJ [ ~(~, L988 study of "Socio-economic Impacts of Regional Landfills on ';-to_;t communities", area realtors expressed several difficultie:; i~ selling properties near the landfill. These ranged from lower' [~;ti.ng prices to eliminating portions of the market from even consideri.q~[ a house near the landfill. Thus, the "no adverse impact" cc~clu?.~on is, at best, speculative in the EIS. Gateway_ A~ r])o','h The operati()a ,'~.:: a. landfill within 5000' of an airport serving piston aircraft ha.~; b~en determined to be an incompatible land use by FAA. The state oi'f Mi~,nesota as well as the MC supposedly acknowledges federal poi J.,~i~ and regulations yet continues to violate them with respect to b,~>i.l~ expansion of existing fills and siting of new landfill s. Whether th~ .~:;.~:'f.,ort is improved or not, it does exist as part of regional, ~;t;',.t~ and national systems plans. The proposed landfill expansion bo'~:b ~erves to create a greater hazard to air navigation by increasing J.t.~: s~ize, but also would extend the period of time where hazardous c~:]cJ'[ions could occur due to continued operation of the landfill. The EiS on p~t!e ].16 refers to the possibility of a temporary delay of two years ~'~,:~ airport improvements which would occur as a result of the landfill o-,~_~'~!~t. Jons. This again could only be assured through a time limit impo:~o~(i or~ the landfill expansion rather than simply approving WMMI'.~; re.q',~:~;t~d volume for the expansion. The EIS on I,ao~ ~116 also refers to the development restrictions imposed du~ ~:o ~ite P. Those restrictions apply only within the area of the cand.i(!at.~: sites and buffer areas (MS 473.806 subd. 1) not to land outsid~ ,~-~ these areas. This is .further supported in 473.831 subd. ! req~]'d.i?g debt obligations and 473.840, purchase of certain property. Lhou]d this be interpreted in any way to be a development restriction ¢,~ ihe airport, Anoka County may find itself in a situation wbe~a it would have to compensate the current landowners for land requi3'~¢l [o~ airport use 'through acquisition of temporary development, ri(?~t's.