Hobart says no to waste station The Village Board unanimously voted to rescind its agreement with the county and object to its proposed location By Christopher Clough News-Chronicle HOBART - After hearing more than one hour of unanimous opposition to a plan to locate a waste transfer station at a former landfill site, the Hobart Village Board voted unanimously to rescind a memorandum of understanding with Brown County. The memorandum, from the village board's March 11 meeting, conditionally allowed the county to construct an indoor transfer station at the former West Side landfill on State 54. It would have been used as part of the agreement with Brown, Winnebago and Outagamie counties to share waste disposal facilities. The motion to rescind the memorandum stated the board's objection to the location. Brown County Planning, Development and Transportation Committee chairwoman Alice Daul said the issue will be addressed as an agenda item at the committee's next meeting. Numerous objections were raised in a variety of areas by the people crowded into the meeting room. They included whether the Brown County Solid Waste Board has the authority to select the location without the approval of Planning, Development and Transportation (its oversight committee) or the full County Board. A special Solid Waste Board meeting to address the issue last week awarded a $1.3 million contract to a construction company to build the station. Corporate Counsel Ken Bukowski has since issued an opinion stating Solid Waste can make the decision without county board approval. But a letter to Hobart resident Jim Reigel from Madison law firm Garvey & Stoddard, which specializes in municipal ordinances, refuted Bukowski's opinion. Attorney Glenn Stoddard noted Section 12.01(5)(k) said the waste board is specifically bound to any ordinances or resolutions adopted by the County Board. "It is clear that if the (County Board) wishes to... control or prohibit any further development by the (waste board) of the proposed station... it has the authority to do so," Stoddard wrote. Reigel spoke of environmental concerns with the site, concerns that are different from when the site operated as a landfill. He said a Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources hydrologist told him landfills are unstable ground for years after they close. "This landfill could be leaking right now," Reigel said. "We are examining data from the monitoring wells. The Department of Transportation says the wear and tear from one semi is equal to 5,000 cars. I guarantee that site is not equipped to handle 560 semi trucks a day." He also noted Duck Creek, which leads to the Fox River, passes within 150 yards of the roads the trucks will use on the site. "The Environmental Protection Agency is not interested in a sudden new source of pollution for the Fox River," Reigel said. "It's incumbent on the Village Board to take a stand on this matter, to stand up and say, 'This is where we say no.'" Another concern was a county resolution signed May 19, 1976, that stated the landfill would become park land after operating for 20 years, which it did in 1996. "It's the obligation of governments to keep their promises to the people," said Mary Pieschek of Hobart. "The government of today has to respect the wishes of the government of yesterday; otherwise, the U.S. Constitution is garbage. "The county says it might use the land for 'passive recreation.' I don't know about you, but watching 250 garbage trucks going in and 250 garbage trucks going out isn't recreation to me." Also mentioned was the $14,000 the county would pay the village for the site. The county has said savings from the tri-county project would be about $43 million. Evelyn Hendricks said she lives just north of the landfill, on Riverdale Drive. She said since it closed in 1996, she has developed a farm property that now is the site of 30 residences. "When I saw that ($14,000 figure), I thought there must be a couple of zeroes missing," Hendricks said. "You'll lose a lot more from the property taxes of homes that are not filled if the transfer station goes in." County Board Chairman Ken Simons advised the Village Board to rescind the memorandum in his speech at the meeting. "Just because it's 2002 doesn't mean the 1976 resolution shouldn't hold up," Simons said. "This issue should have gone to Planning, Development and Transportation. I don't want (the Solid Waste Board) to circumvent proper protocol. It should be go to Planning, then to the full County Board." Village president Len Teresinski said when the memorandum was passed in March, the board was unaware of the 1976 resolution. He added the memorandum has no contractual obligations. After the meeting, Reigel said his interest was piqued not only when he found out about the plan, but when he learned none of his neighbors knew about it either. "When I first started researching this, I thought (not knowing about it) was my own ignorance," he said. "But I talked to probably 60 people in the neighborhood, talked to the Oneidas, and they didn't know it was coming. "The more I followed it, the more I realized it's a conscious plan. The station was turned down by Allouez and Ashwaubenon, so they learned they have to do this in secret."