12/14/88 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

t- WMMI indicated that they had reactivated their transfer station in Blaine which increAsed their costs but due to the competitive market envirorunent have not been able to pass these increa.ses to the consumer. To the cont.rary, the restricted operations and imminent closure of the AnokaLandfill has helped to heighten the awareness that alternative methods of dealing with our solid wastes are required. Proposed .End Use The entire discussion of the proposed end use is relegated to approxi- mately one page and in essence says the landfill will be open green space with perimeter fencing ",'ith a possible ski facility on a portion of the site. Open green space generally connotes something that is viewed as an amenity due to its uniqueness, aesthetic or other characteristics. A side benefit usually associated with this is the ability to serve as a recharge area or sedimentation area with permeable surfaces. The landfill with or without expansion does not connote such an amenity. The end use and ultimate productivity of the landfill site has been an issue that the City has raised repeatedly. Yet, the EIS, as usual, passes this off with only superficial discussion. At some point, and there is no more appropriate time than this, the Metropolitan Council has to come to grips with the end use of landfills, if indeed, they are to be constructed in this manner. Although if ~t is possible to develop.andoperate a viable ski hill on the landfill, it would bea benefit to the city. This proposed concept, however, is yet subject to approvals by the regulatory agencies. Alternatives The description ofal~ernative actions also relies almost in its entirety on the CON application and Me's review of that application in 1986. As previously indicated, actions which were determined by MC as neither feasible nor prudent have been in place for six months. Further, the discussion regarding whether Elk River Landfill is capable of accomodating the demand forced on it by the closure of Anoka Sanitary Landfill is dated. Most of the factors which MC indicated as restricting Elk River Landfill's abilities have already been alleviated. The assessment does not take into account the impact of the restricted crossing at theY.ississippiRiver bridge, its impacts on alternative routes or landfill destinations imposed by the bridge restrictions and, therefore, dis~o=ts the actual costs of waste hauling when comparing alternatives to the expansion. The traffic/economic impacts created by the bridge restrictions may be readily available to Me through Anoka County's EIS on Site P. We would assume the county is evaluating haul routes with the bridge restrictions as a consideration. 3