Agenda - Council - 08/14/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

iHefin p n trash'-'retu ;ns tO andT , by Ch.r~bJe ]~bn"ra. aco nies into a ftmd for post-closure Hennepi~ County res~e dump~g ~ estimated 16~ ~ns of ga~e per day at · e E~ver J~n~ll We~es- y, Aug. 1 ~rthe She~u~e Co~ Bo~d of Commission- e~ ~d ~e CiW ofElk ~ver ~t ~ ~ s~har~ s m h alffor w~ ~sposed at ~e site. The tim's re.cling center, ]vca~d in ~e Elk ~ver Ind.. t~ Park was reopened last We~es~y. The employees who had been ~mpora~ly l~d have re--ed ~ work. ~Hennepin Co~ty is co~ng back ~d eve~ngworked out o~y a~er Mi,~ s~d Chis ~egei, ~ce president of ~e l~dfiI1. ~ow we'll j~t have see ~ ~oka does ~ing ret~afion." ~t week the was~ si~ faced possible clos~e ~r Hennepin Ca~W suddenly ~ed i~ ~e~ ment ~ ~e faciti~ July 17. Wi~out wing, Hennep~ Co~e]ec~d ~ d~p~ was~ ~t ~e ~o~ey citing economic conside~fions ~ ~e ca~e for ~e E~ ~ver ~dfill's open- ended ~eement ~th He~e- pm Co~ held no penalW cla~e. ~ a result, ~e lost 70 percent afi~ bu~ess one day. Tl~e Elk River I. eno'fill Is once el~aln running at capacity after Sl~erl~urne County anti the City of Elk River lowereC their surcharges on waste clumpecJ at the site. (Star News photo) In a desperate attempt to win Hennepin County back, the Kreger~ made an appeal to the Sherburne County board and the City of Elk P~ver to cut in half their surcharges per ton of waste disposed at the site. The landfill's attorney Tom Larson cited the surcharge re- duction as a way the landfill could 'remain competitive" with other waste disposal sites. Despite urgent pleas from the Kregers July 18, the' county board, the first governmental body to be approached regard- Lug the matter, chose to table it until its next meeting in an at~empt to further delve intO the landfill's financial records. Because of the delay, many of the landfill's cash drains had to be cut, including several em- ployees and the firm's recently opened recycling center. "I decided to reopen the recy- cling center and bringthe people back after the city cut their surcharge LU half," said Kreger. "EverythLugis basically back to normal The city's surcharge is now $1.65 per ton of waste dumped at the landfill. About 25 cents of the surcharge is used for waste abatement purposes. The count', on the other hand, places ail of its surcharge mo- and closure costs of the landfill, a responsibility which falls solely on it. The estimated cio. sure cost is about $3 million. With the county's surcharge monies currently at about $2,400,000, some commission- ers expressed concern during their July 18 meeting when they were firmt approached by the Kreger~.: .....: ................... Az requested by th~' board,, County Attorney John MacGib- ben and County Planning and Zoning Administrator Brian Bensen met with the Kregers. MacGibben told the commis- sioners that the additional fi- nancial forecasts provided for the third and fourth quarter were reviewed. Hefurtherinformed them that the county would receive a wind- fall in lieu of the state clean.up fee, which could be used to offset the loss in the surcharge reduc- tion. The windfall, amounting to $158,184 for the months of' January through April, is the re.~utt ora deletion in state stat- ute authorizing the tax to be returned to the state. The amounts for May and June wiI} also be included in the windfall. %Ve have,in effect two quar~ tars of state tax in hand with Windfall, continued to page 3 Elk RJver City Beat II I I Windfall kept books 'whole' Continued from page 1 obligation to remit back to the storm,' said MacGibben..~e could utilize that ~ndfall by either underva'it~ng or discard- ingthe surcharge fora per~od of time fnat wou]a not exceed the money on hand from the wLud- fall. In that way, fiscally the county would still be whole and thrm~gh' to the landfill's cus- Anissue arose as to whether or not ~-allow the sm-charge re- du~uu ~ ~ rer~a~Jve ~ ~Y !, 1990. It p~sed ~Sth ~r- m~ ~ Ayers of Haven To,reship and Ca~ssioner Lyle S~ ef Big ~e yang a~a~ns% it. Commissioners S~ph~ie ~Um~lk~r, aucmon, ira>' F.~edl of Clear Lake and T'ne beard unauimous]y ap-.' l~ke Johnson of ~me~ prov~ ~e ~ha~e ~du~on were ~ favor of in j~v 25. ]owe~g ~e ~ &om ~e ~m~smone~ ~e ex- ~.%0~'~2.20per~n ofg~ . pe~d w renew ~e d~ped at ~e si~. ~ne s~- siz~on al ~e ckarce is entirely 'passed ~ee~n~inOc~r.