My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5.4. SR 09-14-2009
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2009
>
09-14-2009 SP JT
>
5.4. SR 09-14-2009
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/11/2009 10:44:01 AM
Creation date
9/11/2009 10:36:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
9/14/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ver <br />MEMORANDUM <br />TO: Mayor 8~ Council <br />FROM: Lori Johnson, City Administrator <br />DATE: September 8, 2009 <br />SUBJECT: Elk River Landfill Expansion <br />At the August 17, 2009, Council meeting, the Council scheduled a worksession with the <br />Elk River Landfill (ERL) for September 14. At that same August meeting, ERL <br />distributed a report titled: Is the Landfill Expansion a Good Investment for Elk River? <br />The Council directed staff to review the report and report back by September 8. <br />The report, prepared by Richard Voith, PhD, Econsult Corporation, has now been <br />reviewed by the city attorney, consultant, and staff. The report focuses mainly on the <br />host fee and surcharge revenue and does not address property tax revenue. Therefore, it <br />addresses only part of the future revenue equation that itself is only one factor in the land <br />use decision the Council must make. In staff s view, property tax revenue is an important <br />factor as it continues on long after the landfill closes; the use and value of the property <br />affects the tax collections forever. Plus, the report takes into account both the City and <br />County host and surcharge revenue. The City in its analysis is taking into account just <br />the City revenue since it does not have control of the County revenue and thus does not <br />benefit from the revenue received by the County. Further, the report assumes that the <br />City would not spend any of its host fee revenue for many years and would invest it in <br />stocks and annuities. Both of these assumptions are erroneous. First, the City would <br />most likely use the host fee revenue to benefit the city and the residents who are dealing <br />with the impacts of the landfill during its operation. Second, the revenue remaining after <br />offsetting the impacts could not be invested in stocks or annuities as those are not <br />allowed by State law. The report briefly addresses land development, but does not <br />analyze the land use request made by ERL. The report states that the City has plenty of <br />other property to develop making this area less important but fails to take into <br />consideration that there is a limited amount of properly zoned property and an even more <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.