Without having read the original, the first amendment and the second one, I can't offer any insights beyond what I read in the papers. (Just being honest here.) But I still have some real questions.
A past article in the Daily News suggested the new provision would provide the following protections. The agreement presented tonight might be slightly different than the one outlined in the article, since the mayor has still been negotiating with New Ventures, but I suspect the two are close enough.
My questions follow in italics.
The city would have a full release from 21E regulations by New Ventures. Is this really full release? Is there anything preventing a third party--say a shadow company set up by New Ventures or even the state--from going after the city?
New Ventures will maintain the landfill for one year after closure. I'm not quite clear on how this could be enforced. Since we don't have the appetite for lawsuits, I don't see how we'd have any leverage to ensure this happens if NV decides it doesn't want to comply. At that point, NV will have already dumped everything it's wanted to dump.
Then the city would undertake all post-closure activities at the landfill for 30 years, including mowing, maintenance and monitoring. The mayor said estimates for that work are about $10,000 a year. This sounds low. And we'll be maintaining private property? The city still won't own the landfill, correct?
New Ventures will be responsible for paying the inspector retained by the city to inspect the truckloads during the closing.Is NV hiring the inspector directly or reimbursing the city. I hope the latter.
New Ventures may transport up to 35 trucks per day, with the approval of the mayor, in addition to the current 35 trucks per day that are now allowed under the host agreement.So NV is getting the 70 trucks it wanted initially.
New Ventures will allow the city to install a pad or platform on the landfill where the city can build a cell tower or wind turbine and will pay $50,000 toward the design and construction of the pad or platform. To what end? Wouldn't a cell phone company normally pay for the construction of the platform? As for the turbine, where would the power go to? Will it be connected to a school building?
This isn't an easy matter. I know the landfill needs to be closed sooner rather than later, and the city doesn't have the funds available for a prolonged court fight.
I don't know how much faith to put into the Attorney General's sudden interest in New Ventures, it may amount to nothing but perhaps we should give the legal wheels some time to spin. I worry that accepting this new agreement would stop the spinning.
What would make me feel better? Perhaps a little upfront money from New Ventures--in the form of a bond--to cover the costs of closing the landfill or at least pay for that first year of post-closure maintenance.
My questions follow in italics.
The city would have a full release from 21E regulations by New Ventures. Is this really full release? Is there anything preventing a third party--say a shadow company set up by New Ventures or even the state--from going after the city?
New Ventures will maintain the landfill for one year after closure. I'm not quite clear on how this could be enforced. Since we don't have the appetite for lawsuits, I don't see how we'd have any leverage to ensure this happens if NV decides it doesn't want to comply. At that point, NV will have already dumped everything it's wanted to dump.
Then the city would undertake all post-closure activities at the landfill for 30 years, including mowing, maintenance and monitoring. The mayor said estimates for that work are about $10,000 a year. This sounds low. And we'll be maintaining private property? The city still won't own the landfill, correct?
New Ventures will be responsible for paying the inspector retained by the city to inspect the truckloads during the closing.Is NV hiring the inspector directly or reimbursing the city. I hope the latter.
New Ventures may transport up to 35 trucks per day, with the approval of the mayor, in addition to the current 35 trucks per day that are now allowed under the host agreement.So NV is getting the 70 trucks it wanted initially.
New Ventures will allow the city to install a pad or platform on the landfill where the city can build a cell tower or wind turbine and will pay $50,000 toward the design and construction of the pad or platform. To what end? Wouldn't a cell phone company normally pay for the construction of the platform? As for the turbine, where would the power go to? Will it be connected to a school building?
This isn't an easy matter. I know the landfill needs to be closed sooner rather than later, and the city doesn't have the funds available for a prolonged court fight.
I don't know how much faith to put into the Attorney General's sudden interest in New Ventures, it may amount to nothing but perhaps we should give the legal wheels some time to spin. I worry that accepting this new agreement would stop the spinning.
What would make me feel better? Perhaps a little upfront money from New Ventures--in the form of a bond--to cover the costs of closing the landfill or at least pay for that first year of post-closure maintenance.
Yeah, I know, good luck with that.
4 comments:
Anyone know how last night's vote went on the "new agreement?"
If someone with info would be so kind as to post it on the Everett blog, it would be most appreciated.
http://bbeverettma.forumco.com/
Boy, I bet the mayor is driving a hard bargain with New Ventures, just like he took a hard line to make the unions vote on getting into the state health insurance program or holding the line against a new clothing allowance in that new contract. Uh, never mind...
If the cty loses the landfill case, maybe the mayor should say he lost those legal bills as well.
Why do you think the Mayor did not even bring it to the table?
Re the first anonymous posting: it's in Wednesday's Daily News. Why the delay on such a big issue?
Post a Comment