04/13/88 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Under Article VIII, the City would have access to the Deve10pnent Property to in~ct the construction of the Improvements and access to the books to determine if the Project is breaking-even, "except as may be otherwise provided by operation of law,...". In the past, the City has discussed the Waste Management Act which was adopted by Legislature and pertains mainly to siting of new landfills. Council and members of the public know that the City has little local control over siting of new landfills. Council should be aware that it is not certain and there is some debate on whether the City has lost it's control, because of that Act, with regard to an expansion of existing landfills and siting new landfills. Council may be thinking that the City should be entering into this agreement with Waste l'anagernent because Anoka County, PCA and Metro Council will allow the vertical expansion anyway. That vertical expansion will be permitted by these other governmental units, even though Ramsey objects, should not be a foregone conclusion when deliberating whether or not to enter into this agreement with Waste 11a.nagernent. Edward Moersfe1der - Attorney for Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc. - Made the fOllCMing comments: Waste Management and the City have corne a ;. ,)ng way in preparing the agreement and there isn't anything f rom Waste i'1a:nagement's standpoint that would present unsurrnountable obstacles. Waste Management is very interested in building the ski facility. Waste Management has operations allover the Country and in the cour se of those operations,. has done similar projects in other cities. The recreational facility would be good for the citizens of Ramsey and a demonstration of what Waste Management can contribute after operations and that they are responsible citizens of the communities in which they operate. Waste l'anagement also recognizes that there a lot of other people besides the City and themselves that have a hand in deSigning the expansion of the landfill. When talking about giving and taking, Mr. Goodrich is correct in saying that in order to move forward, the City has to agree to it and then Waste l-anagement can perform. It is conceivable that once Waste !'anagement has gone through the process with the City, PCA can determine that a ski hill is not an acceptable final use of the facility. The alterr.ative for a recreational facility was included in the agreement as an attempt to say to Ramsey that if Waste Y~nagement cannot construct the ski hill, Waste !'.anagement will make sanething available for another facility. In regard to concerns with reference of the 1984 purchase price agreement and the 10% of gross revenue collected by the City from the landfill, there is no intent for .this agreement to say those terms would fall by the wayside. If the vertical expansion goes forward, with or without the agreement with .Ra.ilSey, Waste ~a.'1agernent recognizes that the terms of the 1984 agreement ;'71.11 be carried out throughout the ve~tical expansion time frame and there is no intent to take any of that back. l'~. Goodrich's concerns regarding 'cooperation' on the part of the City go beyond what he and Waste }~nagement intended to co in drafting the agreement; the City's I cooperative' role was intended to be one of non-compete in a cO!l1Inerci al sense. Tnere is nothing in the agreement that Waste 1>lanagQ'1lent intended to take away the city's police power to regulate landfills in Ramsey. Waste !/.anagernent \>las trying to avoid a situation where the City would grant a City Council/!I.arch 9, 1988 Page 7 of 14 4?