Agenda - Council - 09/13/1982 - Special

Home

I I ! I I I '1 I I ,I I I ,I I I I I I A variety of methods are available to reduce the visual blight usually asso- ciated with landfills. Adequate setbacks and buffer zones, construction of berms, and planting trees and shrubs can help reduce visual problems. Use of topography and certain fill techniques are also possible screening methods. 'Increased road maintenance and repair, water and sewer hookups, safety inspec- tions and care of the site after closure are all public service burdens that may result from hosting a landfill. It makes the most sense to spread such costs among those who benefit from the facility--the owner and its users. Methods include user fees for services provided during the operati.on of the landfill and contingency funds Ior similar provisions~ to compensate for possible problems after a landfill is closed. Where a landfill is located on public land--for example, in a park--large buffer zones may be necessary to screen concurrent activities from the waste facility. In cases where there are historical or archaeological sites on land being developed for a landfill, the area and buffer zone could be realigned to prevent disruption of the site. Also, historical stuctures could be moved out of the landfill area and reinstalled in the buffer zone. There are basically three methods of compensating communities and individuals for negative impacts that cannot be entirely eliminated: 1) monetary payments, 2) contingency funds and 3) in-kind replacement or restoration of property affected by a waste disposal facility. Monetary payments can include direct cash payments to host communities or individuals, increased property taxes on waste disposal facilities, tipping fees or surcharges on waste dumped at a facility and tied-impact payments, which relate compensation to a specifically identified impact--for example, road repair costs. Contingency funds ensure that money is available if negative impacts occur. They include liability insurance on a facility, surety bonds and emergency response funds. In-kind replacement or restoration does not necessarily involve a cash trans- fer. The emphasis is on bringing the affected property back to its condition before it experienced the adverse impacts attributed to the waste disposal facility. When is compensation appropriate? It seems appropriate, first of all, where adverse impacts are unavoidable. Such impacts include loss of farmland, increased truck traffic near a facility, odors, loss of taxes if waste disposal property is taken off the local tax rolls, increased public service burdens on the host community and loss of public lands. Other impacts may be difficult to measure but may require compensation nonetheless--the stigma a community may acquire for having a landfill, aesthetic considerations and lowering of pro- perty values. Unpredictable impacts may not occur, but if they do, would require compensation of some form. Such impacts include groundwater con- tamination, accidents or explosions. The way to ensure those who benefit from a waste facility pay for all miti- gating measures is to. make such measures the responsibility of the facility owners. Mitigation costs will be incorporated into the cost of doing business-- through higher user fees.