Becker County debates how to secure landfill after township says it will remove long‑standing gate

Becker County commissioners devoted a lengthy portion of their meeting to determining how to secure the county landfill after township officials said they intend to remove a gate that has for decades blocked a township road across landfill property.

The discussion, which stretched across multiple agenda items, focused on how the county can meet Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) access and security requirements while avoiding a six‑figure fencing bill. Commissioners and staff reviewed options that included chain‑link fencing with electronic gates, barbed wire or log/rock barriers, camera monitoring and negotiating road status with the township so the county would not be required to build expensive permanent fencing.

Commissioners and staff said the MPCA had asked the county to submit a plan showing how the landfill would be secured if the gate were removed. A county staff member reported an early estimate for the chain‑link option that had been discussed last summer of about $114,000 and a subsequent rough estimate closer to $200,000; an MPCA response during the meeting said barbed wire could be acceptable in some circumstances, raising cheaper options.

"They're taking the gate down," said an attendee during the discussion, summarizing the township's stated intention and the urgency that created for the county. Commissioners noted legal and operational constraints: county attorneys and staff said township roads that are public cannot be permanently barricaded, and recording or vacating the road would require additional legal and surveying steps before it could resolve access questions for the landowners who say they need continued access.

Board members debated alternatives, including asking the township to pass a temporary resolution to permit controlled access while the county develops and files a plan with MPCA; building a hammerhead turnaround at the gate; installing cameras at the access points; and using less expensive fencing such as a multi‑strand barbed‑wire line or log barriers in the short term.

Despite differing views over whether to pursue a costly chain‑link fence or a low‑cost alternative, commissioners reached consensus on immediate next steps. They directed staff (environmental services and county administration) to return to MPCA with a revised, lower‑cost proposal that would meet minimum MPCA requirements and asked staff to continue cooperative talks with the township to avoid unilateral action. Several commissioners requested a provisional timetable and suggested aim for a firm plan by early September to avoid repeating the delays that stretched the issue out last year.

The meeting record shows no final contract award or immediate vote on a specific fencing option; instead, the board instructed staff to pursue a plan with MPCA and the township and to report back with concrete options and costs, including cheaper barriers and monitoring solutions.