Laserfiche WebLink
existing ]ar. d i:il.t. This dioes not take into account any value for <br />property de~al, uatJ. on, but does include costs associated with adminis- <br />tration, cost. of sewer and water assessments and lost development <br />opportunity. ?!~e EIS states on page 128 that "there will be a period <br />of perhaps 20 year~ that will elapse before development will be <br />attempted os the landfill site." This is naive or terribly optimistic <br />considering -li~. height, the proposed slopes, the depth of refuse, <br />generatior~ oJ' qa~t, settlement and long-term post closure concerns. <br /> <br />In our discu.~ )n, the city believes that development limitations <br />associated wjk!l ~-;tte P as well as Site P, itself, would have a much <br />greater f~scal imlpact on the Community than does the expansion. <br /> <br />Fiscal Im~act.~ <!n ._S~rrqu_n~inq communities <br /> <br />Page 139 add~'e_~:,;e.~; the fact that Elk River has improved their <br />facilities and .!~as expanded_ their operations. The document points out <br />that "increasinq the active fill area 'at Elk River Landfill could lead <br />to a reasses~'~me>~t for this landfill" The document fails to point <br />out, however, hi,at a short-term use of the Elk River Landfill could <br />infuse addi-i~i~-~.~l capital for any monitoring and subsequent clean up <br />action that may be necessary thus benefitting the operator as well as <br />the environm<~i~t If the concern for a financially stable operator <br />expressed e~r<i¥ in the document was sincere, it would seem to be <br />prudent to d ir,~t waste flow to a landfill which would help assure the <br />financial r~l~-'~n,~ents to address adequate clean up and closure. <br /> <br />Aesthetics <br /> <br />The EIS add]~.s~s visual impacts and correctly points out that the <br />landfill at iui'e~ent is an "anomaly" and is uncharacteristic of this <br />region. Th~_ ;~;~essment, however, seems to conclude that since the <br />existing f~].i J~ already a major negative visual impact, "a little <br />more won't ~i~,t '~ <br /> <br />Fish and Wi.i{(~l.i~e <br /> <br />No discussi~.,~ of impacts on l. ish or wildlife resulting from borrow <br />or remediall ~<~t~on activities was contained in the document. <br /> <br />Traffic <br /> <br />Traffic im]~¢~ ~]ue to the change in level from a sharply curtailed <br />landfill act]v]'i-¥ to a landfill operation were not addressed. As was <br />pointed ou~. earlier, the impact of restricted loads on the Mississippi <br />River cros~.i.n~t ~t Anoka and Champlin also was not taken into <br />consideratSo~,, <br /> <br /> <br />