"Where Fillmore County News Comes First"
Wednesday, September 28th, 2016
Volume ∞ Issue ∞
- 5:26:29, Sep 27th 2016 - Thomas E. H. - @ Kim Wentworth, ^the last post was from me. I just wanted to be c ... [Read More]
- 3:44:00, Sep 27th 2016 - Kim Wentworth - @Thomas E. H.- the planet's temp changes, goes thru cycles, a tweak u ... [Read More]
- 1:58:02, Sep 27th 2016 - @ Kim Wentworth - That previous post was directed to Mr. Schwartzentruber. If you ha ... [Read More]
- 10:10:34, Sep 27th 2016 - Kim Wentworth - @ Thomas E. H.- I will have to rely on you to tell me if you are jok ... [Read More]
- 9:15:13, Sep 26th 2016 - Patriot - Hello Hum. I disagree with your view on running K9 officers by vehicles in ... [Read More]
- 2:44:07, Sep 26th 2016 - Thomas E. H. - I would like to thank Mr. Schwartzentruber for illuminating Agenda 21. ... [Read More]
- 2:06:32, Sep 26th 2016 - Aaron Bishop - @ Kim Wentworth, Thank you for your comment. I did indeed mull that ... [Read More]
- 1:26:51, Sep 26th 2016 - Kim Wentworth - From the top: while neither side is perfect in the area of "facts" fo ... [Read More]
- 1:08:55, Sep 26th 2016 - Kim Wentworth - I think in the beginning you should have used the words "democrat" an ... [Read More]
- 12:45:42, Sep 26th 2016 - Hey Hum... - Is it rummer or rumor? ... [Read More]
Fri, Nov 7th, 2003
Posted in Features
Posted in Features
On Wednesday, two days after the Preston City Council denied a building permit to Bob and Elaine Maust, owners of Heartland Energy & Recycling, LLC, to modify their warehouse located in the Preston Industrial Park, lawyers for Heartland filed a writ of mandamus in Fillmore County District Court against the city of Preston.
In the suit, Heartland is asking the court to order the city to issue the permit or show cause before the court why they have not issued the permit. They are also seeking to recover any court costs as well as other relief the court may chose to award. Heartland plans to construct a 21 megawatt power plant, generating electricity through the combustion of tire-derived fuel. The plant is estimated to cost somewhere around $50 million. In their petition to the court, Heartland states that they applied for a building permit on September 26, 2003 to remodel a section of their existing facility to allow the energy company to install two diesel generators. They also state that the building permit is in compliance with the conditional use permit issued by the city council on April 21, 2003 and abides by the city’s zoning ordinances. Monday’s action by the city council denying the building permit to the Mausts was the third time the council has taken such action. On three occasions, by a three to two vote, the council has denied issuing the building permit. The primary reasons given by the majority view of the council is that the city should wait until Heartland produces all required permits they need to operate the facility and until any litigation involving the Heartland plant is completed. SEMEP has appealed the MPCA’s decision not to require the plant to complete an Environmental Impact Statement. Heartland has intervened on the side of the MPCA in the case, while Preston has applied to be an intervener on the side of SEMEP, although the court has yet to officially act on that request. This case will be heard on December 2. In court papers filed by Dorsey & Whitney, Heartland’s lawyers write that the actions of the city jeopardizes the very existence of the plant because financing to build the plant cannot be secured until the building permit is issued. They also state that Heartland stands to lose a valuable state tax exemption if construction does not begin prior to January 1, 2004. They also claim that the action of the city has jeopardized Heartland’s ability to enter into a peaking power agreement with Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Authority, where the Heartland plant must begin providing power by May 1, 2004. No date has been set by the District Court to hear the Heartland suit.