Minutes - Council - 10/04/1988 - Special

Home

The statements on page 124 regarding site P development limitations are interpreted which also leads to the conclusion that the effective delay represents one year. The last sentence of the first paragraph appears to indicate that MC concurs that landfills and airports are mutually exclusive. The City also takes great issue with the comment on page 124 that "negotiation with the landfill owner may be the most effective way to minimize the actual period the landfill continues to operate". This is well within the authority of MC to address through the CON process~and facility permitting as well as through the City's local permit process. We do concur that impacts may be mitigated by a contractural commitment to close the landfill by a certain date. Fiscal Impact The EIS portrays projected revenues to state and local governments over the 1987 to 1991 time period of the expansion. The projected revenues indicate an estimated $2.0 million revenue base to the city based on taxes and royalties. The majority of the fees received from past landfill activity have been placed in a landfill trust for miti- gation purposes and do not serve as a basis for the City's operating budget. Within the past eight months, the City has expended landfill funds for community projects including installation of a civil defense system, fire d'epartment and park improvement expenditures. This should be reflected on page 128 of the final EIS. The socio-economic impact study conducted for the City in 1988, however, indicates a minimum cost to the City of over $12 million dollars for hosting the existing landfill. This does not take into account any value for property devaluation, but does include costs associated with adminis- tration, cost of sewer and water assessments and lost development opportunity. The EIS states on page 128 that "there will be a period of perhaps 20 years that will elapse before development will be attempted on the landfill site." This is naive or terribly optimistic considering the height, the proposed slopes, the depth of refuse, generation of g~s~.set~lement and long-term post closure concerns. · ~ ' , , ia, arc in %ha~ developmemt limitations associated with site P as well as Site P, itself, would have a much greater fiscal impact on the Community than does the expansion. Fiscal Impacts on Surrounding Communities Page 139 addresses the fact that Elk River has improved their facilities and has expanded their operations. The document points out that "increasing the active fill area at Elk River Landfill could lead to a reassessment for this landfill". The document fails'to point out, however, that a short-term use of the Elk River Landfill could infuse additional capital for any monitoring and subsequent clean up action that may be necessary thus benefitting the operator as well as the environment. If the concern for a financially stable operator expressed early in the document was sincere, it would seem to be prudent to direct waste flow to a landfill which would help assure the financial requirements to address adequate clean up and closure. 7