Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.A SKB Discussion4ROSEMOUNTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session Meeting Date: July 10, 2013 ISSUE Representatives from SKB have requested an opportunity to present their recent application to the Council. The application is for an expansion to the existing waste management service, which requires filling of a wetland and associated mitigation. Additionally, SKB is requesting approval of their 5 -year IUP renewal. The timing for the two requests coincide although, formal action for the 5 -year permit is requested in fall. SKB would like to have the expansion part of the 5 -year permit if possible. DISCUSSION There are a variety of issues relating to the 5 -year permit and also the expansion request. Staff wanted to highlight a few issues and SKB is also trying to anticipate the Council's appetite for revising portions of the IUP and Development Commitment. The following is a list of items being discussed: Trust Fund Within the Development Commitment between SKB and the City, the Trust Fund is established. Previously the Commitment was amended so that 50% of the Trust Fund monies went to the Trust and 50% went to the City. Prior to 2009, the Trust received the entire allocation. The document also noted that after December 2011, the City and SKB representatives would meet to again discuss the status of the Trust Fund. Staff has indicated that the Council may be interested in disbanding the Trust and having the funding currently going to the Trust, go directly to the City. In addition, the current principal in the Trust Fund, approximately $1.5million, would also go to the City and the Fund closed. Staff Comment: Staff favors the liquidation of the trust fund. Length of Extension SKB has requested that the IUP be extended for a 10 -year time period rather than the 5 -year process we currently function under. Apparently the State is modifying their timeframe for review and SKB has requested similar treatment. The third permitting agency, Dakota County, issues a two year license to the SKB facility. Currently, there is a significant amount of documentation associated with the IUP review. This is mainly due to the fact that these documents are needed for the PCA review, which coincides with the City review. The City itself would not require the amount of information currently being generated for the IUP submittal. Staff has indicated that much less information is requested by the City than the PCA and having a 5 -year review should not require the same level of effort as that AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM: SKB Discussion Discussion PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development AGENDA NO. Director 2 A- APPROVED BY: ATTACHMENTS: None. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion. ISSUE Representatives from SKB have requested an opportunity to present their recent application to the Council. The application is for an expansion to the existing waste management service, which requires filling of a wetland and associated mitigation. Additionally, SKB is requesting approval of their 5 -year IUP renewal. The timing for the two requests coincide although, formal action for the 5 -year permit is requested in fall. SKB would like to have the expansion part of the 5 -year permit if possible. DISCUSSION There are a variety of issues relating to the 5 -year permit and also the expansion request. Staff wanted to highlight a few issues and SKB is also trying to anticipate the Council's appetite for revising portions of the IUP and Development Commitment. The following is a list of items being discussed: Trust Fund Within the Development Commitment between SKB and the City, the Trust Fund is established. Previously the Commitment was amended so that 50% of the Trust Fund monies went to the Trust and 50% went to the City. Prior to 2009, the Trust received the entire allocation. The document also noted that after December 2011, the City and SKB representatives would meet to again discuss the status of the Trust Fund. Staff has indicated that the Council may be interested in disbanding the Trust and having the funding currently going to the Trust, go directly to the City. In addition, the current principal in the Trust Fund, approximately $1.5million, would also go to the City and the Fund closed. Staff Comment: Staff favors the liquidation of the trust fund. Length of Extension SKB has requested that the IUP be extended for a 10 -year time period rather than the 5 -year process we currently function under. Apparently the State is modifying their timeframe for review and SKB has requested similar treatment. The third permitting agency, Dakota County, issues a two year license to the SKB facility. Currently, there is a significant amount of documentation associated with the IUP review. This is mainly due to the fact that these documents are needed for the PCA review, which coincides with the City review. The City itself would not require the amount of information currently being generated for the IUP submittal. Staff has indicated that much less information is requested by the City than the PCA and having a 5 -year review should not require the same level of effort as that which SKB experiences for the PCA permit review. Staff Comment: Staff is hesitant to only have an operational review every ten years. Tree Replacement The current IUP has a requirement for tree replacement on -site due to the previous landfill expansion. The caliper inches for replacement were calculated based upon the ordinance requirements. SKB has requested that tree replacement be allowed outside of the site. Under the ordinance requirements, if there is no space available on the affected site, tree replacement can occur in public spaces. Staff is comfortable modifying the existing language in the IUP to more clearly allow replacement elsewhere in the community. However, staff does expect a substantial amount of revegetation on -site. Further, staff anticipates that the Council will be asked to approve a new replacement plan, when final locations for tree replacement are determined. Below is the draft language regarding tree replacement: Tree Replacement. SKB has provided a landscape and tree replacement plan that meets the Ordinance requirement of 769 replacement trees. The landscaping and tree replacement plans approved are intended to serve as a guideline and not the exact location of all the replacement trees. The City recognizes that this plan may represent an instance where the total amount of tree replacement required cannot occur on site. In this instance, the city may, at its option, accept a fee in lieu of tree placement or allow the planting of replacement trees in public areas. Tree replacement is encouraged to happen on site as much as possible and replacement in public areas will be considered after the site has been revegetated to a reasonable extent. A revised tree replacement plan which includes some tree installation off -site must be approved by the City Council. Until approval of the revised plan the currently approved tree replacement plan is in effect. Calculation of Waste There are fees paid to the City for the various waste streams, akin to the host fee. Presently, the C & D cell fees are based upon cubic yards brought into the site. Host fees paid to Dakota County for C &D waste are calculated on a per ton basis. Staff is continuing to work with SKB to determine the appropriate conversion rate so the new fee calculation is consistent with the current rate. Staff Comment: Staff is supporting the request that the fee be based upon tonnage rather than cubic yards. Project Expansion Staff has mentioned to the Council SKB's desire to expand the landfill beyond the current approval. The expansion would be to increase the capacity of cell 6 and also raise the entire landfill by 50'. In other words the expansion would be horizontally over the site and also vertically. To expand the landfill footprint, a wetland, preserved under the last landfill expansion, is proposed to be filled. Staff has been working with SKB to determine if there are potential mitigation sites within the community. WSB has evaluated approximately 10 sites to determine if creation of all, or part of the mitigation could occur within Rosemount. Approximately 20 acres of wetland needs to be created to meet WCA and the City rules. Staff is awaiting final results of the site visits and will have an update for the Council at the worksession meeting. Staff Comment: With the proposed expansion, the landfill would have about 23 years worth of capacity, which would result in the landfill being open until about 2036. The 5 -year plan provided by SKB does not demonstrate expansion of cell 6 in the first five years of the plan. This raises the question as to whether or not it would be more reasonable to wait on expansion deliberations until the 2 timing for the expansion is more immediate. SUMMARY This item is on the agenda so SKB can have an opportunity to discuss the various issues associated with their applications for the 5 -year IUP renewal and the expansion request. Both of these items require a formal review and approval and a public hearing at the Planning Commission. Issues associated with the Development Commitment are more financial in nature and do not have same review and approval process as the planning items. Direction on these items more specifically are desired at this time. Discussion on the planning items should be more general at this time, until the full staff review and public hearing have been held. 3