Loading...
CR 92-116 7th Street Landfill .... ~ , \ y 0 m Iy CO o P K \ ~ Cill<'l ,;,..1111I0.(;\"1" I .. '.. ~:. '7. ~' '\ '. .' I!r~ ~JI May 26, 1992 council Report 92-116 7TH STREET LANDFILL INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL/METHANE REMEDIATION PHASE II Proposed Action. Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move that Council authorize staff to continue neaotiations with the ABJ and Rutledge propertv owners for the express purpose of land acquisition as an insti tutional control towards methane remediation at the 7th street South landfill site. Overview Council at its December 17, 1991 meeting was presented a landfill update that among several issues discussed institutional remediation as a means to address the problem of methane migration off the 7th street South site. Staff and representatives of Doherty Rumble and Butler sought and won Council approval to negotiate with ABJ and Rutledge property owners at the north end of the site for either acquisition of parcels or pollution easements. Staff now approaches Council for more specific authorization in those negotiations. Primary Issues to Consider o Is land acquisition necessary? o Funding sources o Staff procedures SUDDortinq Information o Jon Scoll memorandum dated 5/15/92 o Site Map '1 ()" Ue2./'Wl~ '7/.:~~ James Gessele Engineering Superintendent ~ CR92-116 Page 2 Analysis o Is land acquisition necessary? Attached is Jon Scoll's latest memorandum concerning four options toward achieving institutional controls at the north end of the landfill site. Property acquisition is not the only means at the City's disposal to meet requirements set down by the 1988 Closure Order. Because the options listed are themselves fraught with sub- issues, that the MPCA is constantly reminding us to proceed with a Phase II Methane Remediation plan, that the agency now looks with disfavor on the pollution easement concept, that the agency is indeed unhappy with the City in the first place for having sold the two parcels in question, have led staff and its legal counsel to recommend emphasis on outright title acquisition. Council should be aware that this approach will not preclude consideration of the other options should the need arise. o Funding sources. The most probable source of funds for land acquisition would be the City's General Fund. Another source could be claims against previous insurance carriers. A final, but remote, source would be through special legislative action on the state level. o Staff procedures. with Council's concurrence in hand staff will approach the affected property owners with greater detail as to City goals in addressing methane migration issues. (The two owners have been notified concerning this report on the agenda.) Staff will require the city Attorney to become involved in all aspects of negotiations. The first step is for the City to undertake appraisals. Council will be kept informed through progress reports. .r MEMORANDUM TO: Jim FROM: Jon Scoll DATE: May 15, 1 RE: options on ABJ/Rutledge Properties Institutional Controls As we discussed on Thursday, May 14, 1992, there appear to be several options for "institutional control" on both of these properties as required by the MPCA: (a) Negotiated acquisition of title; (b) Condemnation (we may assume that a public purpose exists; (c) Negotiated acquisition of a "pollution easement" which would leave the title to either or both of the properties in the current owner(s), but would restrict development, as required by the MPCA, to outside storage so that the properties could never be further developed, would grant the necessary access for monitoring and other purposes related to the Closure Order and ratify any existing contamination; and (d) Condemnation of the easement described in subparagraph (c) . It has been our assumption that the price (either negotiated or in. condemnation) of a pollution easement would be less than the fee title of the property, since the owner would retain the surface use value. It should be noted, however, that the MPCA (Ken Meyer) has advised me that the preferred pollution from its standpoint is outright acquisition. r ~o a !\ 1 , ~(~)15 \ 14 s:l(2e)rn n lR (27), TI. '.,~ 379.: 5a7"42' ~( . '" '" .. ~ ~ ~ ~ Ol e (67) ~ ~ ~ <D .. 195. e.4 * CURRENT MARKET VALUE AS ON FILE IN CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE <0 N '" N I'- 1 I I g' I, "2'''' I ~ --':rrrn~ · · ~ r ' ~ -~, , l 3 =fOOt~ ~": ~ ,; ~ J ?7ij 171 . , ??l - (9J-C}C) " I (10-61) : !l I ~'1rll <'~ J;;mllI! .7 - - - ,,'~ ~! ~ (92) ""II> !l~ :..3 NN E;- , I 195.M sar'n'OT"E 8 (66) 8 ~ OlA ~ NeT n'07'I 195.M ill.58 S87'Z2'45"E 2 (6) ~w~~ ?b ~ ... :: If A r a. ... ~ ---~4 ... 14 ;\.; 13 N " r' ~ --- ~!!! I ~ ~-1iJ ~ lr~[E ~~[LLL~ , (3) t11 --- l' 29-4 t..!L... m: