COMPLIANCE INFO_1972-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BoardOK's .,,� 31, �q".3 ne H orne la Y Dump Plan OW By HUGH WRIGHT q Of the Record Staff A long-range plan entailing a went, the county p r county takeover of the Harney cent of the cost of operating Lane Sanitary Landfill — and the dump. calling for continuation of the Asserting the facility is los- dump's $1 per car user fee — ing money, Lodi councilmen was unanimously approved by ordered a $1 per car user fee the Board of Supervisors yes- beginning Dec; 6. Subse- terday. quently, they accepted a super- The only element of the plan, visors' proposal that any prof- d r a f t e d by County Public its be divided and held for pos- WorksD i r e c t or Charles B. sible future use in an alterna- Wong, that did not receive im- tive solid waste disposal pro- mediate approval was a gram—the one agreed to yes- suggestion that the c o u n t y terday. begin charging fees for use of The talks were stalled mo- its other dumps. m e n t a r i l y when Easley & And the only disagreement Brassy Corp. of San Francisco between supervisors and Lodi urged supervisors to lease city councilmen over the plan them the 127-acre site for $1 was the question of when the olper ,year or sell it to them for city should quit operating the $15,000 and allow them to oper- dump and when the county ate it, rather than continuing it should take it over. as a governmental function. Wong terminated the discus- DIFFERENT DATES sion abruptly when he asserted Lodi councilmen want to rid that Cie firm's proposal ulti- mately would cost the public the city of the operation July 1, more, not less. city but Wong believes the Based on the firm's proposed city ss to operate it six dumping fees, Wong insisted, months longer, until Jan. a the c o m p a n y would receive 1.975, to allow sufficient time more than $500,000 a ,year at for engineering and other stud- the Harney Lane site—more ies. than the annual cost of operat- The amicable discussion be- ing all the county's ,sanitary t w e e n supervisors and Lodi disposal facilities. representatives was a marked contrast to the outset of the dump issue last March, when Lodi councilmen began insist- ing that the county should pay more of the cost of the facility because non-Lodians account for 80 per cent of its users. ,�Un�gr a;long�tan¢i,� e�