Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />statements on page 124 regarding site P development. limitations <br />interprete~ which also leads to the conclusion that the <br />effective delayrepresent-sone Year~ . The last sentence of the first <br />paragraph appears to Jndicate .that Me concurs that landfills and <br />airports are mutually exclusive. The City also takes great .issue <br />with theconunent on page 124 that "negotiation with the landfill owner <br />maybe the most effective way to minimize the actual period the <br />landfill continues to operate". This is well within the authority of <br />Me to address through the CON process 'and facility permitting as well <br />a.st!hrough the city's local permi 't process. \~'edo cOl1curthat impacts <br />may be mi'tigatedby a contractural corr.n-.itment to close the landfill by <br />a certain date. <br /> <br />Fiscal Impact <br /> <br /> <br />projected revenues to st.ateand local governments <br />over the 1987 to 1991 time period of the expansion. 'l'heprojected <br />revenues indicate an estimated $2.0 mill::.on revenue base to the City <br />basedohtaxesandroyalties. Themajori-:.y.of the fees received from <br />pastlal1dfill activity have been placed ina landfill trust for . mi ti- ' <br />gationpu~osesanddo.not.serve as .abasisfo:: the City's operating <br />budget ~.. within. tl1e past eight months , the City has expended landfill <br />funds for community . projectsincluciing .installationof a.civil defense <br />systelIl,fire . department and park improvement expenditures . . This <br />Shoulcibere.flected .on page 128 .ofthefinal E:I;S. The socia-economic <br />impact study conducted for the City in 1988, however, indicates a <br />Ininimumcostto.. the City of over $12 million dollars for hosting the <br />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<?fga~. s~ttlement andlong-te:::-m post closure concerns. <br />.-;-..( < ,_ -< ~ ~Wl';-r..f.Jkt:-=- <br />IIlt"ln~. disr""s~ien vith WHKI ,1.~..t::vt::L ,both pc.. ~ie.:3 are inaE,3..eement <br />~. development limitations associated with site P as well as site P, <br />itself, would have a mueh greater fiScal impact on the Community than <br />does. the expansion. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Fiscal Impacts on surrounding Communities <br /> <br />Page 139 addresses the fact that Elk River has improved their <br />facilities and has expandedtheiropera-:.ions.The document points out <br />that "increasing-r.heact.ive fill area at ElkRi ver Landfill could lead <br />toa reassessment for this landfill". Thedocumentfailst.opoint <br />out, however ,thatashort-tenn use of the Elk Rive.r Landfill could <br />infuse additional capital for any monitoring and 5ubseguentclean up <br />action that maybe necessary thus benefitting the operator as well as <br />the environment. If the concern fora financially stable operator <br />expressed early in the document was sincere, it would seem to be <br />prudent dtodirect .waste . flow to a landfill which wouldhelp a.ssure the <br />.i financial regui:-ementstoaddress adequate cleanup and closure. <br /> <br />7 <br />