Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Commissioners and residents split on county-owned Elm Creek quarry; board asks for outside analysis
Loading...
Summary
The commission heard a lengthy debate over a proposal to develop a county-owned rock quarry at Elm Creek. Supporters cited potential savings and local supply; opponents asked for a third-party economic and environmental analysis before moving forward. The board tabled the item for further study.
A proposal to develop a county-owned rock quarry at Elm Creek prompted extended discussion at the Sept. 5 meeting. Proponents argued that owning a quarry could reduce the county’s dependence on leased quarries and private suppliers, citing lease savings of about $26,000 per year and an estimated royalty of $0.20 per ton. County estimates in the packet put production costs at $3.88 per ton (with a higher-end estimate around $5 per ton); private-sector retail prices cited during the meeting ranged from about $9.30 to more than $14 per ton depending on product.
Opponents — including residents and a speaker who identified himself as a former licensed professional engineer — urged a comprehensive third-party analysis before any move to convert county land to quarry use. Concerns included environmental impacts, traffic and noise, the proximity of the quarry footprint (about 13 acres) to the lake (described in the packet as about 170 acres), long-term effects on recreation and property values, and whether the county could run a quarry economically once capital and operating costs were tallied.
Commissioners and members of the public asked for a formal cost-benefit study and an independent environmental impact review. One commissioner said he had approved initial exploration under prior commissions but would not support moving forward without an independent economic and social impact analysis. Another commissioner noted the county’s existing leased quarries might be nearing the end of their productive life, increasing the importance of a rigorous review.
The board did not approve development. Instead it asked staff to obtain an outside feasibility and impact analysis or to convene a citizen advisory committee with relevant technical expertise; the item was tabled for further study.

