Laserfiche WebLink
<br />entering into an agreement with Ramsey. Inquired who will have the <br />responsibility for monitoring pollution on the ski hill area. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley - Replied that there are two agencies that monitor landfills <br />and pollution. Anoka County rnoni tors the landf ill operation. Because of a <br />Consent Order entered into with Waste Management, PCA has exclusive <br />authority to regulate pollution that exists. If that Consent Order did not <br />exist, both the County and PCA would be involved in monitoring. <br /> <br />Larry Phillips - Inquired if vertical expansion of the existing landf ill <br />might increase the probability of Metro Council selecting Site P. <br /> <br />Jack Ippel - 16443 Jaspar - Stated that the EDC discussed the ski hill <br />proposal on the morning of March 9. Stated that he is conce rned with the <br />liability aspect fran two standpoints; who is responsible for injuries that <br />occur on the ski hill and who is resp:msible for the on~oing liability of <br />contamination and needed water systems resulting. Maybe the City would be <br />better off negotiating for a waterrnain to encircle the landfill. A ski <br />hill would be nice but the vertical expansion will encroach on airport <br />height zoning. Comments have been made that encroaching airspace is not a <br />problem because the landfill will compact and settle; what will compaction <br />and settling do to any improvements constructed on the facility? Anoka' s <br />~wmy Acres Park is on top of a landfill and there are problems with <br />garbage resurfacing. Another problem is the time frame and there is no <br />definite closure date; just as Waste Management is currently proposing to <br />do with the existing site, they can extend the life of the vertical <br />expansion by limiting use of the site to their own trucks. <br /> <br />County Commissioner Natalie Haas-Steffen noted that intake at the existing <br />landfill has been curtailed by raising prices so that haulers will choose <br />to dump somewhere else. <br /> <br />Jack Ippel - Stated that 2-1/2 years of vertical expansion can be stretched <br />into 5 years with limited intake at the site; how long does the City have <br />to wait for the ski hill; what type of recreational facility could there be <br />if Site P is develop:d next door. The proposal would be improved if Waste <br />1>Enagement were agreeing to a definite closure date with no additional <br />landfilling activity. Suggested that some consideration be given to <br />developing a recreational facility with a year-around capability to it. <br />Consider the consequences if selection of additional landfills sites <br />becomes the decision of persons in the landfilling business and Waste <br />!t.anagement owns one of the inventory sites which is located in the middle <br />of an industrial park. <br /> <br />Douglas Fountain - Stated that he was aware of the landfill's existence <br />when he built his hane o~ Garnet Street in 1976. At that time, his wife <br />called City Ho] 1 and she was told the landfill would be closing in 1978 or <br />1979. Stated that he also has copies of ~usey City Council meeting <br />minutes in which Don Otter indicated t.l1e l2.1'1dfill would be closing in 1979 <br />and certainly by 1980. <br /> <br />Natalie Haas-Steffen - 7007 l64th Lane N.W. - Stated that the bill before <br />State Legislature to which Mr. Larry Phillips referred to is not to cap <br />. Ci ty Cou.T1cil/1>1arch 9; 1988 <br /> <br />Page 10 of 14 <br /> <br />C5\ <br />