Laserfiche WebLink
existing landfill. This does not take into account any value for <br />property devaluation, but does include costs associated with adminis- <br />tration, cost of sewer and water assessments and lost development <br />opportunity. The EIS states on page 128 that "there will be a period <br />of perhaps 20 years that will elapse before development will be <br />attempted on the landfill site." This is naive or terribly optimistic <br />considering the height, the proposed slopes, the depth of refuse, <br />generation of gas, settlement and long-term post closure concerns. <br /> <br />In our discussion, the City believes that development limitations <br />associated with Site P as well as Site P, itself, would have a much <br />greater fiscal impact on the Community than does the expansion. <br /> <br />Fiscal Impacts on Surrounding Communities <br /> <br />Page 139 addresses the fact that Elk River has improved their <br />facilities and has expanded their operations. The document points out <br />that "increasing the active fill area'at Elk River Landfill could lead <br />to a reassessment for this landfill". The document fails to point <br />out, however, that a short-term use of the Elk River Landfill could <br />infuse additional capital for any monitoring and subsequent clean up <br />action that may be necessary thus benefitting the operator as well as <br />the environment. If the concern for a financially stable operator <br />expressed early in the document was sincere, it would seem to be <br />prudent to direct waste flow to a landfill which would help assure the <br />financial requirements to address adequate clean up and closure. <br /> <br />Aesthetics <br /> <br />The EIS addresses visual impacts and correctly points out that the <br />landfill at present is an "anomaly" and is uncharacteristic of this <br />region. The assessment, however, seems to conclude that since the <br />existing fill is already a major negative visual impact, "a little <br />note won't hurt". <br /> <br />Fish and Wildlife <br /> <br /> . ,~ ....... s .... n= from morrow <br />or remedial action activities was contained in the document. <br /> <br />Traffic <br /> <br />Traffic impacts due ~o the change in level from a sharply curtailed <br />landfill activity to a landfill operation ~ere not addressed. As was <br />pointed ou~ earlier, the impact of restricted loads on the Mississippi <br />River crossing at Anoka and Champlin also ~as nut taken into <br />consideration. <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br /> <br />