December 28, 2014
Times-Tribune, Scranton

Louis DeNaples “gift” is actually a self-serving “benefit” to the DEP Harms/Benfit analysis according to this article. Not only did residents bring the present value of the agreement mentioned in this article to the attention of the Dunmore Council prior to them voting yes to it, but during those Dunmore Council meetings the Times Tribune also reported residents wondered why the DeNaples brothers would choose to negotiate a new contract fee now, when council members say they’ve been unwilling to do so for years. Many feared it was only to pad the “benefits” section of the Harms/Benefits Analysis. This article confirms those concerns were true as DEP spokeswoman Colleen Connelly states, “…in the past we have asked the host municipality of a landfill what the fee they get from the agreement means to their municipal budget. The answer was negligible, so its intensity (or value) was negligible. In another municipality, the host agreement was a significant portion of the budget, so it was considered as a significant benefit [to the Harms/Benefit Analysis].”

So how does the DEP weigh the value of the host municipality agreement when it has a very short term positive impact and a very, very long term negligible impact on the municipal budget?

http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/expert-keystone-landfill-deals-less-attractive-over-time-1.1809260