Grand Lake mulls bids for ‘pay as youo throw’ trash facility
April 30, 2010
GRAND LAKE – The town is inching its way toward a “Pay As You Throw” trash system at a future facility located near Hancock Street.
The town received estimates for the cost of a 34-foot by 12-foot building to house two 8-yard Dumpsters and one possible 8-yard recycling Dumpster. Preliminary cost estimates came in at around $29,000 for a completed Pay As You Throw facility, according to a memo to the Grand Lake town board from town staffer Dan Korkowski.
With this estimate, Korkowski estimates that consumers’ cost to buy a Pay As You Throw trash bag (no other bags would be permitted) would be just under $2 a bag. Ready to accept bids for the project, the town is looking at having a contracted operator construct the building on town land and run the Pay As You Throw system.
Other options include the town constructing the building and a contracted operator running the program, or the town taking the entire project under its own wing.
A public hearing on Grand Lake’s waste disposal ordinance authorizing the Pay As You Throw system has been reset for May 24.
Board rejects developers’ request
A proposal from the developers of Grand Camp was turned down by Grand Lake’s town board on Monday.
The developers of the 14-unit planned commercial development across Highway 34 from the Conoco station at the entrance to town asked the town to allow payments on a $97,500 plant-investment fee.
Grand Lake’s plant investment fee is both a repayment of the town’s previous water-system investments and is used to finance the construction of water collection, transmission, storage, treatment and distribution, according to at town memo.
The fee “shall be paid in full prior to the issuance of any building permit for new construction,” according to the town’s code. Developers Morris King and Jeff Green asked the town to allow a 20 percent down payment with additional payments made over a period of two years in the form of a promissory note.
Town board members rejected the proposal six votes to one, saying the town was not in the position to finance developers, that the overall precedent would not work for the town, and because the code would need to be changed to accommodate them.