10-12-81 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL MEETING, OCTOBER 12, 1981 -2- -Landfill - Continued, - Mottaz — Lake Elmo has one landfill site have problems with that site now. Concerned -have this one potentially explosive problem from a sanitary landfill site and now we may be blessed with another one. Do not see any honest,sincere effort on the part of the State Legislature, Met Council or PCA to come up with alternative to burying these poisonous chemicals in the ground. In addition.to not wanting the Park Reserve being made a dump/ we're very concerned about having two time bombs in Lake Elmo. --Levi - When passed the Waste Management Bill in 79-80 put into motion the first step in a scenario that will lead to resource recovery and energy generation from our solid waste. Takes time for these things to become cost effective - cannot pass in 79-80 and expect to see results in 81. Funds in the legislation for pilot studies, various experimental cases, also the mechanism for flow control. Inaccurate to say no one has recognized the problem orr%.that no steps have been taken to deal with the problem. Takes time - dealing with the short term solutions right now, which is our landfills are filling up and we have to deal with -.:hat - are going to have to find other sites. No one wants them in their community - but short term is what we are going to have to deal with. Mottaz - Its a cop-out to say it is not cost effective now. It is cost effective. Charge the individual what it costs to dispose of the trash safely. It is cost effective if handled properly. Charge has to be according to what it costs. --Levi - Feels if individuals were notified they would have to pay what it actually cost to safely dispose of refuse -would cause a very negative reaction. Agrees should be looking for better ways of disposing of trash; but there are some realities that have to be dealt with. Realities are -no mechanisms, up until now have just put in place the basis to begin to look at this. All takes time. --Whittaker - What happens when the Met Council get this? The Council has to make two decisions: 1. Are the sites that the County submits, ok. 2. Have they submitted enough. Understands that the County should submit 5 - at this point there are only 2 sites that are ruled suitable. --Hauser - Not sure could hang the County up on enforcing 5 sites. --Whittaker - Not trying to hang them up; but are trying to encourage them to look for alternatives. One way to do that is to require they have those other three sites. --Hauser - Noted has talked to Artie Schaefer, who has indicated that some of the alternate sites have been washed out, Some of County Park members are chipping away at the same theme as Lake Elmo about. siting in the Park Reserve area. Cannot answer the number of sites question. Most crucial thinq is finding a suitable site. Does not know what the legalities are on requiring the County to identify 5 sites. --Whittaker - hard to believe that in a County this size, and this rural that there are not 5 sites. And that of the oriqinal 30 sites.originally chosen 25 were eliminated politically and 5 had to have an enviromental review, which eliminated three of those. Feels if they went back and looked again at the ones politically eliminated they might find they were enviromentally suitable even though they may not please the folks in the neighborhood, and come up with 5 sites. Understands Ramsey County is going to have no sites, so it cannot be narrowed down to far or we are not going to have near enqugh!A adequate landfill.