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

Home

At a recen{~ N~l~}~i¢ hearing for a Conditional Use Permit, WMMI stated that they he~va ~ince revised_ the height of the proposed landfill to 1020' mean s~e~ Level (MSL). This elevation would be below the hori- zontal ?~u]:fac? ,.~f the existing airport and aside from the period of time when vd]ii~[es are operating on it should not infringe on pro- tected aJ~r~[,ac~-~ This proposed elevation should be reflected in the final EIS. ~.1'?1~. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the responsible ~,~<,~cy for making a determination regarding whether the proposed ]a~c{f~'~il ~_xpansion would create a hazard or greater hazard to air navig~t'.~o~'l ~ On page 12.0, 'tl~.~ excerpt from the draft airport master plan indicating ti,~at "A check with area pilots and Mn/DOT relative to bird strikes, ¢'.los,~-~ <rolls or other related prob].ems, indicates that the existing ]~.df.~ L1 has not been a bird attractor or created a hazard area" is ~ .~{'-~'L~ment that FAA specifically raised an issue with. The EIS or., !}~,,.-p_ L211_ refers to "extending the hazard potential over the landfills m}~ ~>perating life-something less than three years". This can only be t~.'~..~: again based on a time limit to complete the landfill expansion as w~}~L], as a permitted volume. The point tibet q~!~ EIS fails to consider is that the potential hazards associated witi~ the continuation of the landfill will increase, not soley becam~e oi! the landfill itself, but also due to the increased number of ope}'.:~'~.ions that have occurred and are expected to occur at the airport The stateme~l[is ~] page 124 regarding Site P development limitations are interpn~L~.d which also leads to the conclusion that the effective d~l_~y represents one year. The last sentence of the first paragraph {,i~}~'s to indicate that MC concurs that landfills and airports an~ ~i~'ii~al].y exclusive. The City also takes great issue with the co]~}~{q~'t on page 124 that "negotiation with the landfill owner may be the ]~{~ ef!fective way to minimize the actual period the landfill com~i~s to operate". This is well within the authority of MC to addr.~b~:} t~rough the CON process and facility permitting as well as through '[.l~e {'Jty's local permit process. We do concur that impacts may be miti~[~,t~o~ by a contractural commitment to close the landfill by a certain d~,~~. Fiscal The ElS po~,~]-~,/~'~ projected revenues to state and local governments over the ].987 {.~ 199] tJ_me period of the expansion. The projected revenues im'~:~u;~,(e an estimated $2.0 million revenue base to the City based on ta>~r~. ;~d ~'oyalties. The majority of the fees received from past ]_andf.i ] } a~ tivJty have been placed in a landfill trust for miti- gation pur]~o~,~ and do not serve as a basis for the City's operating budget. With}~ the past eight months, the city has expended landfill funds for (~oP,~}~-i[ty }projects including J. nstallation of a civil defense system, fir{'~ ~Nartment and park improvement expenditures. This should be ]~-e31{~ted on page 128 of the final ElS. The socio-economic impact st~¢i.y ~o~d~cted for the City in 1988, however, indicates a minimum co,~:L !.~o hhe city of over $12 million dollars for hosting the