HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.c. SKB Expansion4,
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE: FEBRUARY 13, 2003
AGENDA ITEM: SKB EXPANSION
AGENDA SECTION:
DISCUSSION
PREPARED BY: GARY KALSTABAKKEN, INTERIM CITY
AGENDA NO:
ADMINISTRATOR
ITEM #2-
ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum, SKB Letter and Environmental
APPROVE BY:
Assessment, Inver Grove Heights Memo, Burnsville Documents
V
SKB Environmental has made application for an expansion of its landfill located on Highway 55. This
application is scheduled for review at the Planning Commission on February 11, 2003. It is anticipated that the
item will be on a future Council Meeting agenda, possibly as early as February 20 or March 6 th .
Each of these issues is discussed with more detail and background data in the attached memorandum from
Community Development Director Jim Parsons. In addition to the information in his memorandum, a traffic
engineer is reviewing the traffic data provided by SKB. A report addressing the increased truck traffic
generated by the expansion is expected to be available at the meeting.
Also attached are documents from Inver Grove Heights and Burnsville. These two cities have construction and
demolition landfills and agreements with the operators of the landfills.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion
COUNCIL ACTION:
There are several issues for Council to discuss regarding this item:
1. Is the requested zoning amendment to greatly expand the landfill operated by SKB a land use that the
Council feels is in the best interest of the.city? Considering that the zoning already allows a landfill as a
use and SKB is already operating on the site.
2. Due to the size of the expansion and the duration of the use of the landfill, is it desirable for the City to
have a review of the proposal completed by a consulting engineering firm? Or, is the review by the
MPCA and Dakota County Environmental Services as part of the permitting process for the project
viewed as protecting the City's interest in this area?
3. What end use plan is desired on the site? SKB's proposal has an end use for passive recreation that is
based on their perception that a more aesthetically pleasing end use design was important to the City of
Rosemount. This perception is based on SKB's prior dealings with the public hearing process during
their initial purchase of the landfill and an earlier application for the requested expansion. What is the
end use that is desirable and feasible for the site considering the surrounding anticipated land uses and
other issues known today?
4. What type of fees are appropriate to be included as part of the Development Commitment for the
expansion to include construction and demolition debris? There are statutory considerations as well as
comparable sites paying host community fees for similar landfills in Dakota County.
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and Council
City Administrator
From: Jim Parsons, Community Development Director
Date: Feb. 5, 2003
Re: Proposed Expansion of SKB Landfill
Summary
SKB has proposed a massive expansion of its landfill in Rosemount. Measured by the volume
of the waste, the proposal would make the landfill 35 times larger than is currently permitted.
The landfill currently takes ash and industrial waste; the proposal would add construction and
demolition waste to the landfill. These current and proposed wastes are considered non-
hazardous, but must nevertheless be surrounded by a lining to keep rainwater from leaching
through the waste and into the groundwater. Such leachate could contaminate the groundwater.
Under permits from the state, county and city, SKB must collect the leachate and take other
measures to protect the environment. The company has a good record of engineering and
operating its facilities and of responding to problems that arise.
SKB proposes to operate the landfill for 20 years, and then to cover it with enough soil, trees and
vegetation to create a naturalistic bluff. The cost of creating the bluff -like appearance could be
as much as $3 million.
SKB proposes to pay to the City of Rosemount a host community fee. SKB has already
capitalized a trust fund that has made numerous contributions to community groups in
Rosemount including the City in the past few years.
The fee SKB proposes is less per cubic yard than the fee paid in Burnsville and Inver Grove
Heights for similar landfill expansions.
Background
Currently, SKB's landfill is designed as four separate pyramids, with ash kept separate from
industrial waste. The landfill is located in a waste management zoning district; the total volume
of the landfill is limited by ordinance to no more than 200,000 cubic yards (the expansion would
necessitate an amendment to the zoning ordinance). Non - hazardous industrial waste can
1
comprise a variety of materials, including contaminated soils and sludges, asbestos - containing
materials, materials bearing lead paint, etc. SKB is not permitted for hazardous materials at its
Rosemount landfill. Ash can come from incinerators burning municipal solid waste, that is,
garbage, or medical waste, coal, etc.
Construction /demolition debris can comprise lumber, stumps, plywood, wood laminates and
scraps, drywall, plaster, metal pipes and bars, flashing, other metal objects, vinyl siding, plastic
doors, windows, floor tiles and plastic pipes, asphalt shingles, slate, tile, roofing felt, concrete,
cinder blocks, bricks, glass, carpeting, fixtures, insulation, ceramic tile, rock, and soil. (This is
not a complete list; not all items listed would necessarily be taken at the Rosemount landfill.)
SKB proposes to construct a recycling and transfer station at the Rosemount landfill. Concrete,
asphalt and metals are often recycled.
SKB is not permitted for garbage at its Rosemount landfill, i.e., no municipal solid waste is
permitted. SKB is owned by Bolander & Sons, a construction/demolition firm in St. Paul.
SKB proposes to expand the landfill greatly in terms of volume, by adding to its land area and by
increasing its height. The separate cells of waste would become one large mound, although the
different types of waste would still be separated by liners. The proposed expansion would
increase the amounts of waste to the following totals:
Industrial waste 962,000 cubic yards
Ash 788,000 c.y.
Construction/demolition debris 5,471,100 c.y.
Total 7,221,100 cubic yards
The landfill would attain an elevation of about 966 feet above sea level; ground elevations in the
vicinity of the landfill today vary widely around the 890 -foot level.
The Rosemount landfill is one of the few landfills for industrial waste in Minnesota. There is a
landfill in Inver Grove Heights, owned by SKB/Bolander & Sons, that accepts construction/
demolition debris and asbestos- containing materials as well as other industrial waste. The
Kalmar landfill in Olmsted County near Rochester has 31 acres for construction/demolition
waste, and 18 acres for a lined landfill cell for ash waste. The Kalmar landfill is county- owned;
municipal solid waste is kept separate from construction/demolition debris and ash; no asbestos
or hazardous waste is allowed. The Ponderosa landfill in Blue Earth County near Mankato
accepts ash in a lined, mono -fill cell; it is also a publicly -owned landfill.
Key Issues
I. Environmental
SKB has submitted an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW), completed by its consulting
engineer, Foth & Van Dyke. Staff does not believe that an EAW is required, however, this is
only apreliminary conclusion. Staff from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has
discussed informally the environmental issues related to the proposed expansion. The key
environmental issue with the landfill is the control and treatment of the water that leaches
through the landfilled materials (leachate).
2
Leachate collection: The landfill is designed with liners, pipes and drain tiles to control and
collect the leachate, so that it can be removed from the site and treated. It is important to prevent
the leachate from reaching the groundwater, because the Leachate becomes contaminated by its
contact with the wastes in the landfill. Leachate is collected in pipes at the bottom of the waste
mound, then is piped out to be disposed of. Some is piped to the Rosemount waste water
treatment plant now. It may be possible in the future to pipe some leachate to the metropolitan
treatment plant in St. Paul via a pipe being planned by the Metro Council. In addition, there are
tanks on site with a capacity of 750,000 gallons. Leachate can be held in these tanks, then
trucked to the metro plant treatment plant. This is a back -up method used after heavy rain falls.
There is less risk of contaminated water leaching to the groundwater after the landfill is closed,
because a liner on top of the waste mound will divert water away from the waste.
The MPCA will review the design to prevent the following problems:
Buckling/collapsing of existing pipes due to the proposed additional weight.
Sloughing of cover soil, liner on slopes, especially to the east where the mound is near the
property line (agricultural use).
Uneven settling. SKB proposes to import soil to build ridges once the landfill is closed. Initial
comment by PCA staff is positive: SKB's plan to build ridges and swales running down the
slopes is feasible, staff is not concerned about uneven settling. This is due in part to the fact that
construction/demolition and ash mounds have little settling. It should be noted that the
Burnsville landfill will have an even layer of soil covering the waste and liner, even though the
finished topography of the site will vary to accommodate a golf course.
Wind -borne dust. It is advisable to site landfills in locations where any dust blown off -site
during operations will not present a nuisance. Under the city's plan for the future land use of the
area, the Rosemount landfill will be surrounded by agricultural and industrial land. Some of
these uses could be affected by dust. SKB's current permit does obligate SKB to control dust
through a variety of measures including wetting the waste.
Surface water. The landfill has ponds that are monitored for contaminants. SKB proposes to
hold all stormwater on site, with no discharge to neighboring properties. There is a contingency
action plan for proper disposal of leachate after heavy rainfalls for areas that are open, not
capped. The MPCA holds a financial security to ensure funding of the contingency action plan;
this security is required by state law.
The environmental aspects of the proposed expansion of the landfill will be reviewed by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and by Dakota County as part of their permit reviews. It is
not clear whether a formal review by a consultant to the City of Rosemount is needed. SKB has
requested that such a review be omitted, in part due to the fact of the state and county reviews
and in part due to the expense, which would be paid by SKB.
II. Traffic
SKB proposes operations bringing 185 more trips per day by truck on Highway 55 over the 20-
year duration of landfill operations. This is an increase of less than 2% and is minimal in terms
of the design capacity of the highway. The truck traffic on County Road 38 would increase by
315 trips per day. This represents a large increase, but only because there is so little traffic on
Co. Rd. 38 currently. The increase would have no impact in terms of the design capacity of the
road. Staff is not aware of complaints from other drivers about gravel coming off trucks going to
and from the landfill.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation plans to re -route Highway 55 to follow the
alignment of County Road 42 from the Rosemount border west to Highway 52. It is not clear
how the re- routing of Highway 55 will affect the haul route for the landfill's trucks, or whether
the landfill's truck traffic will cause added costs for the re- routing project.
III. Esthetics
The expanded landfill would be visible from a long distance in many directions. It would be
visible to the traveling public on Highways 55 and 52 and on County Road 42, and from the golf
course. Few residents would be able to see the landfill from their homes, because the planned
land uses in the area are industrial, mixed commercial /industrial, and agricultural
SKB proposes to make the landfill more pleasant to look at by importing large amounts of soil to
create ridges and swales running down the slope of the mound, and by planting trees and other
plants. This naturalistic environment would be achieved after the landfill is closed in 20 years,
and would make the site pleasant to visit for recreation or other uses. The general vicinity of the
landfill is a mixture of natural, recreational and agricultural areas, such as the Mississippi River
bluffs, Spring Lake Park and the golf course, and heavy industrial areas at Endres Processing, the
Flint Hills's refinery and spent bauxite plant and Spectro Alloys. Other neighboring uses include
a horse feed lot and the Rosemount waste water treatment plant.
The cost of creating the ridges, swales and plantings would be approximately $2 -3 million.
Because the area is a mixture of industry and green spaces, it is difficult to say whether the
proposed naturalized finish for the landfill, though desirable, is necessary and financially
justifiable.
IV. End Use
There are three categories of end uses for the landfill after it is closed in approximately 20 years:
passive recreation, active recreation, and uses involving construction of buildings. The site,
enhanced with ridges, swales and trees, would be good for walking trails, bird watching, and
other recreational uses requiring minimal improvements. Active recreational uses, such as sports
fields or a golf course with related buildings and streets, are also possible. In Burnsville, a
championship golf course is planned for the landfill site once the landfill is closed. Institutional
or commercial/industrial uses are also possible; such uses would create a tax base that would
serve as a return on the investment in the additional soil and other measures needed to create
buildable sites on top of the landfill mound. If no investment in end -use enhancements is made,
then the landfill mound would likely remain as a grass- covered hill with few visitors or users.
Communities that have a private landfill within their boundaries typically charge the landfill
company a host community fee. To pay for enhancements for some end use, SKB would tap
the same stream of revenue generated by the landfill that SKB would use to pay the host
community fee. There is an opportunity cost of using those funds for enhancements to the
landfill, as the funds could be devoted to other municipal purposes. If SKB did not spend money
to create ridges, swales and tree plantings, Rosemount could instead collect that money in the
form of a host community fee.
M
V. Finances
State law (M.S. 115A.921) authorizes cities to charge a tipping fee for waste disposal. For
construction/demolition debris, that fee can be as much as $0.15 per cubic yard. Under SKB's
proposal, the tipping fee would generate $820,665 = $0.15 x 5,471,100 cubic yards of
construction/demolition debris.
In addition to, or perhaps instead of, the tipping fee, many communities have negotiated a host
community fee for waste landfilled within their borders. The City of Burnsville negotiated an
agreement last year with Waste Management, Inc., for a major expansion of the landfill just west
of Interstate Highway 35 -W and north of Highway 13. In addition to a tipping fee, Burnsville
will receive $1.00 per ton of construction/demolition debris. With 6.3 million cubic yards of
such debris anticipated, Burnsville expects to receive $5,000,000 for that debris, or $0.79 per
cubic yard. (Burnsville uses a factor of 0.8 to convert cubic yards of construction/demolition
debris to tons.)
The City of Inver Grove Heights is host to a large landfill owned by Bolander & Sons and
operated by SKB. On June 22, 1998, Inver Grove Heights and SKB amended their host
community agreement to allow for the expansion of the landfill including an additional 1.2
million cubic yards of construction/demolition debris. For this additional debris, Inver Grove
Heights charged SKB $1,875,000, or $1.56 per cubic yard, payable over 90 months in equal
payments. For two years prior to the 1998 amendment, Inver Grove Heights received $17,100
per month, totaling approximately $325,000, as a host community fee for demolition waste. The
1998 expansion brought the monthly fee to $28,625.
SKB has given staff a memo offering the City of Rosemount the following amounts for the
proposed expansion:
Ash $ 989,570
Industrial waste 1,800,864
Construction/demolition debris 3,457,800
Total $6,248,234 .
This offer is based on a rate of $0.60 per cubic yard for construction/demolition debris. SKB
representatives have given staff verbal indications that SKB may be in a position to pay $0.85
per cubic yard for the construction/demolition debris.*
* There is a discrepancy in the volume of construction/demolition debris between SKB's letter
of Jan. 6, 2003, and the memo detailing SKB's offer to the City of Rosemount.
Recommendation
Because SKB has a good record as a landfill operator in Rosemount, staff recommends that the
City of Rosemount move forward with consideration of the proposed expansion of the landfill.
However, staff would like written confirmation of the offer of $0.85 per cubic yard for the
construction/demolition debris.
SKB memo Feb 5
5
E/YV /ROhME/YTAL
January 24, 2003
Rick Pearson
City Planner
City of Rosemount
2875 West 145 Street
Rosemount, MN 55068
RE: Environmental Assessment for the SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility
Permit No. SW -33
Dear Mr. Pearson:
On January 23, 2003, SKB Environmental Inc. (SKB) met with the City of Rosemount to
discuss the proposed modifications at the SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility. As
per your request at this meeting I have attached a copy of the Environmental Assessment
performed by Foth and Van Dyke. This review was done as an alternative to an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), which was not required by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency for this project.
If you need any additional information or have any questions, please call me at
651- 251 -6203.
Sincerely,
William P. K gan, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
CC: Richard O'Gara, SKB Environmental
John Domke, SKB Environmental
Mike Fullerton, SKB Environmental
Kathy Osborne, Foth and Van Dyke
251 Starkey St. P.O. Box 7216 - St. Paul, MN 55107 #l►
651- 224 -6329 - FAX 651 - 223 -5053 %4 Printed on Recycled Paper.
October 31, 2002
Mr. William P. Keegan, P.E.
SKB Environmental, Inc,
251 Starkey St.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55107
Dear Bill:
RE: SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility Major Modification, SW -383
Findings of Fact
Foth & Van Dyke has prepared the following Findings of Fact for the SKB Rosemount
Industrial Waste Facility, SW -383, Major Modification project. The document is based on
the typical format .used by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, (MPCA) for their
review of Environment Assessment Worksheets (EAWs);
FINDINGS OF FACT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. SKB Environmental, Inc. (SKB) is proposing a major modification for the SKB'
Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility (Facility), permit number SW -383. As
part of the modification request, SKB. is proposing to add a Construction and
Demolition (C &D) cell, C &D recycling /transfer station and fill in the "saddle"
areas between the currently permitted cells.
2. The C &D cell, Cell 5, will be located in the southeast corner of the Facility and
will contain approximately 5,471,000'cubic yards of debris, including the
proposed saddle.area. .
3. The Facility currently includes a closed industrial waste cell (Cell 1), an open
industrial waste cell (Cell 2), an open Municipal Solid Waste (IvMSW)
incinerator. ash cell (Cell 4), office building, equipment. buildings, truck scales,
above ground leachate storage tanks, and surface water control features.
4. The land is owned by SKB and is currently zoned as "waste management" by
the city of Rosemount. The land surrounding the site is industrial, agricultural,
and there is a golf course to the southwest.
5. There are no concentrated residential areas nearby. There are a few single
homes on Highway 55 within a half -mile of the Facility.
KLL1 \K:\ 015019 \L- S KB- Keegan Fo(F.dod5000
The Waters Corporate Park • 2900 Lone Oak Parkway, Suite 125 Eagan.MN 55121 • 651 - 452 -4396 • Fax:651- 452 -4347
Mr. William P. Keegan, P.E.
SKB Environmental, Inc. "
October 31, 2002
Page 2
PROJECT HISTORY
6. The EAW was prepared pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.4300, subpart 17; however,
there is not a requirement for preparing an EAW for the construction of a C &D
disposal facility.
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
7. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental
effects, the MPCA must consider the four factors set out in Minn. R.
4410.1700, subpart 7. These criteria are:
a. The type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects;
b. Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects;
C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by
ongoing public regulatory authority; and
d. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled
as a result of the other available environmental studies undertaken by public
agencies or the project proposer, including other Environmental Impact
- Statements (EISs).
The findings with respect to each of these issues are set forth below.
TYPE, EXTENT, AND REVERSIBILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The first factor that the MPCA must consider is the "type, extent, and reversibility of
environmental effect," Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.A. The findings with respect to each
of these issues are set forth below.
8. Ecologically Sensitive Resources In the area surrounding the project site, there
have been documented occurrences of the loggerhead shrike (bird). The
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) lists the loggerhead shrike
as a threatened species. The area surrounding the project site and any
undeveloped area on the project site are potential habitat for the loggerhead
shrike.
The proposed Cell 5 would temporarily replace some of the existing grasslands;
however, the overall site restoration plan includes open grassland with some
trees and shrubs throughout the site. The grasslands would be constructed in
phases as the cells reach closure according to the Facility Closure Plan.
Therefore, the total acreage of existing grasslands at the Facility would not
KLL1 \K:\ 015019 \L -S KB- KeeganfofF.doc\5000
Mr. William P. Keegan, P.E.
SKB Environmental, Inc.
October 31, 2002
Page 3
significantly change during operation and would actually increase after closure
of the Facility.
As suggested in the DNR report, - SKB has already taken measures to help protect
the shrike's habitat during the operation of the Facility. The perimeter fence has
been left in place for the shrikes' use. The final end use will provide some trees .
and shrubs, but primarily grassland. The project will also be constructed in
phases so that as new cells are opened during operations, another one is closed
and vegetated. This will provide shrike habitat areas even during Facility
operations. Following final closure, the overall habitat will be enhanced. SKB
will also minimize the use of pesticides on the final cover vegetation.
The potential effects of the project related to the loggerhead shrike are not
significant, given the facilities commitment to work with the local DNR officials
to identify ways to preserve or replace habitat for the bird.
9. Noise Although this is not a concern for this Facility, noise could be a
potential concern for residents living in the area of other similar facilities and
therefore'it was addressed in the EAW:
Noise will occur only during operating hours of 6:00 a.m. to 7 :00 p.m. The
surrounding land use is industrial, with similar noise levels as the Facility.
It is found that the potential effect's of the project related to.noise are not
significant:
10. Odors, Dust Control and Air Quality Although this ins not a concern for this
Facility, odors, dust control' and air quality could be potential concerns for
residents living in the area of similar facilities and therefore it was addressed in
the EAW.
Waste accepted at the Facility does not typically generate odors. Dust is
controlled by paving the approach roads and watering the internal access roads.
Air quality, including carbon monoxide levels, will not be impacted by the
Facility expansion.
It is found that the state and local permits required for the proposed project will
be protective of the environment. The potential effects of the project related. to
odors, dust, and general air quality are not significant.
11. Rodent Control Although this is not a concern for this type of facility, other
landfills could have concerns that as a facility increases in size and accepts
more types of waste, that it could promote an increase in the number of rodents
in the area and therefore it was addressed in the EAW.
Waste accepted at the facility is not typically associated with rodent problems.
The transfer station, should it accept MSW, would be managed with thorough
KLL1 \K:\01 Sol 9 \L•SKB- KeeganFofF.doc\5000
Mr. William P. Keegan, P.E.
SKB Environmental, Inc.
October 31, 2002
Page 4
housekeeping practices to provide effective control of insects, rodents, or other
vectors.
It is found that the potential effects of the project related to rodent control are
not significant.
12. Water Quality — Groundwater Although groundwater has not been a concern
at this Facility, concerns could be expressed that the proposed facility could
have a negative effect on groundwater and private wells in the area and .
therefore it was addressed in the EAW.
The industrial and ash cells are triple lined and the C &D cell will be lined. Note
that liners for C &D facilities are not required by the current 'MPCA Solid Waste
Rules; therefore, the proposed design exceeds state design standards. 'The other
cells at the facility also exceed design standards since they utilize 60 -mil
HDPE, 80 -mil HDPE, and clay for the liner versus just 60 -mil HDPE and clay.
Leachate treatment does not occur on -site and there is no discharge to local,
water bodies. There is a ground water monitoring plan in place for the facility.
Quarterly sampling results are submitted to the MPCA in quarterly, reports and
in the annual report.
It is found that the potential . effects of the project related to groundwater are not
significant.
13. Water Quality Leachate. Although this is not a concern at this Facility,- there
could be concerns expressed regarding the handling of leachate at the Facility
and the discharge to,the Rosemount wastewater treatment plant; therefore, it
was addressed in the EAW.
Leachate is produced when storm water, comes in contact with waste in the
landfill cells. This leachate is collected by a series of pipes, which drain to the
sumps in the landfill cells. The leachate is then pumped from the sumps, into
three 250,000- gallon tanks located on the west side of the site. The leachate is
then either discharged directly to the adjacent wastewater treatment plant or it
is loaded into tanker trucks for transportation to an :approved disposal facility.
The proposers have included additional design safeguards for leachate in order
to protect the environment. The leachate gravity line is double - walled, and the
storage tanks have a secondary containment system.
The acceptance of leachate by the Rosemount wastewater treatment plant has
been approved by the Metropolitan Commission- Environmental Services
(MCES). The plant is required to meet effluent standards regardless of the
waste stream they accept.
It is found that the potential effects of the project related to leachate handling
are not significant.
KLL1 \K:\01 Sol 9\L-S KB- KeeganfofF.doc \5000
Mr. William P. Keegan, P.E.
SKB Environmental, Inc.
October 31, 2002
Page 5
14. Waste Containment Although this is not a concern at this Facility, concerns
could be expressed about how the waste is contained at the facility and
therefore it was addressed in the EAW.
The Facility is designed for and currently accepts non- hazardous industrial
waste and municipal solid waste incinerator ash. These cells are triple lined
and contain leachate collection systems. The proposed expansion for C &D
waste includes a clay liner and leachate collection system. The proposed
Recycling Facility will accept C &D waste. The waste will be sorted to separate
out the recyclable portion of the waste stream prior to disposal.
It is found that the current state and local permit requirements for waste
containment design are being followed by the proposers of the project;
therefore, the potential effects of the project related to waste containment are
not significant.
15. Traffic Although this is not a current concern at this Facility, there could be
concerns expressed that the proposed expansion to the Facility will increase the
traffic and will have a negative impact to those who live or drive in the area.
Traffic currently enters and exits from Highway 55. In addition, during peak
traffic hours the trucks also exit onto County Road 38 on the southwest side of
the site. According to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (r,�1i1DOT),
the design capacity of Highway 55 is 20,000 trips per day (TPD). From a
MnDOT traffic count, the average TPD in the year 2000 was 10,000, which
would include the current trucks using the Facility. With the proposed changes,
the Facility would have a maximum of 315 TPD onto Highway 55, including
the proposed 185 trucks; which is less than a 2 percent increase in TPD for
Highway 55. A total of 10,315 TPD is still only about half the design capacity
of 20,000 TPD.
County Road 38 is designed for 15,000 TPD. In 2000, the traffic count by
MnDOT was only 600 TPD. With the addition of 315 TPD from the Facility,
County Road 38 will have a total of 915 TPD, which is only 6 percent of the
design capacity. Therefore, the Facility truck traffic will not significantly
impact the traffic.on County Road 38. The level of service for truck traffic on
Highway 55 will be improved due to the utilization of the alternative exit on
County Road 38 during peak hours.
It is found that the traffic issues have been addressed and that the potential
effects of the project related to traffic are not significant.
16. Hazardous Waste Although this is not a concern at this Facility, concerns
could be expressed that the proposed facility would accept hazardous waste and
therefore it was addressed in the EAW.
KLL1 \K:\ 015019 \L -S KB- KeeganFofF.do65000
Mr. William P. Keegan, P.E.
SK$ Environmental, Inc.
October 3.1, 2002
Page ti
The Facility does not accept-toxic or hazardous materials and has a Waste
Acceptance Plan that provides a guideline for allowable materials. The plan
also provides Facility staff with steps to follow if unacceptable waste is
encountered.
It is found that the proposer of the project has adequately put plans in place so
that the effect of the project related to hazardous materials is not significant.
17. Facility Height and View. Although this is not a concern at this facility, similar
facilities may have a concern expressed regarding the height of the facility and
how. it may impact the view; therefore, it was addressed in the EAW.
The facility has berms, trees and other vegetation to screen the property from
Highway 55 and County Road 38. Changes to the current approved final
grades for the Facility will allow it to blend in naturally to the surrounding land
along the Mississippi bluff corridor and it will help improve the view from the
south. The current approved final grades have separate pyramids for each
waste type. The proposed design will have a final cover system consisting of
up, to 10 feet of soil placed over the entire fill area. The additional soil will be
placed with rolling swales'and undulations to better simulate naturally
occurring hills and .limit erosion effects associated.with the steeper geometric
slopes of a traditional landfill. The depth of the soil will also allow larger trees
and vegetation to be planted over the fill areas, creating a more natural - shaped
hill blending more.'appropriately into the surrounding areas.
It is found that the potential effects of the project related to the ;facility height
and visual impacts are significant.
18. It is found that the project as it is proposed does not have the potential for
significant environmental effects.
CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF RELATED OR ANTICIPATED FUTURE
PROJECTS
The second factor that the MPCA must consider is the "cumulative potential effects of
related or anticipated future projects," "Minn. 8.4410.1700, subp. 7.13. The findings with
respect to this factor are set forth below.
19. The purpose of this project is to provide the city of Rosemount and surrounding
communities a facility to dispose of construction and demolition waste, along
with increased capacity for non - hazardous industrial waste and municipal solid
waste combustor ash. Filling the saddle areas will maximize the capacity
within the existing landfill footprint, thus utilizing an existing resource rather
than siting a new landfill on virgin soils. The design will not only enhance end
use capabilities, but it will also improve aesthetics of the Facility and create a
KLL1 \K:\ 01 Sol 9 \L- SKB- KeeganfofF.doc\5o00
Mr. William P. Keegan, P.E.
SKB Environmental, Inc.
October 31, 2002
Page 7
better habitat for wildlife. The rolling hills with trees, shrubs, and prairie
grasses will appear more natural than mowed 4 to I slopes and will help to
restore the natural bluff corridor along the Mississippi River. After closure, the
cover will be better able to control erosion with the more extensive root systems
of the proposed plantings. Some of the potential end uses include open space
development, with the possibility of adding wildlife viewing areas, recreational
development, or commercial development.
20. It is found that there are no related or anticipated future actions that could result
in cumulative, adverse, environmental effects.
THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE ENVIRONMENTAL, EFFECTS ARE SUBJECT TO
MITIGATION BY ONGOING PUBLIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY.
The third factor that the MPCA must consider is the "extent to which the environmental
effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public authority," Minn. R. 4410.1700,
subp.7.C. The findings with respect to this factor are set forth below:.
21. The following permits or approvals will be required for the project:
Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required
a. MPCA Solid Waste Permit Modification
b. Dakota County Solid Waste License and MSW
Transfer Station License
c. City of Rosemount Industrial Use Permit (IUP)
22. Description of the Scope of Key Permit/Approvals
a. MPCA. The construction and operation of the proposed Facility would be
regulated and monitored as a result of its Solid Waste Permit.
b. Dakota County. The Solid Waste Facility License and Transfer Station-
License assures that the Facility will be constructed according to county
ordinances and controls.
c. City of Rosemount. The ]UP assures that the Facility would meet city
zoning and land use requirements.
KLL1 \K:\01 Sol 9 \L -S 0 -Keega nfoEdoc \5000
Mr. William P. Keegan, P.E.
SKB Environmental, Inc.
October 31, 2002
Page 8
23. It is found that the permits and monitoring reports required by the public
regulatory authorities will provide additional opportunity to mitigate the
environmental effects of the project, if necessary.
THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAN BE ANTICIPATED
AND CONTROLLED AS A RESULT OF OTHER AVAILABLE ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDIES UNDERTAKEN BY PUBLIC AGENCIES OR THE PROJECT PROPOSER,
INCLUDING OTHER EISs.
The fourth factor that the MPCA must consider is "the extent to which environmental
: effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental
studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs,"
Minn. R. 4410.1700, subpart. 7.D. The findings with respect to this factor are set forth
below.
24. The proposer project utilizes proven technology that has been reviewed by the
MPCA staff.
25. There are no elements of the project that pose the potential for significant
environmental effects that cannot be addressed in the project design and ,permit
development process.
26. It is found that the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated and
controlled as a result of environmental review, previous environmental studies, ,
and permitting processes undertaken by the MPCA on similar projects.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The EAW, the permit development process, the facility planning process, and
review of potential public concerns, have generated information adequate to
determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental
effects.
2. Areas where the potential for significant environmental effect may have existed
have been identified, and appropriate mitigative measures have been
incorporated into the project design and permits.
3. Based on the criteria established in Minn. R. 4410.1700, the project does not
have the potential for significant environmental effects.
4. An Environmental Impact Statement should not be required.
KLL1 \K:\ 015019 \L -S KB- Keegan FofF.doc\5000
Mr. William P. Keegan, P.E.
SKB Environmental, Inca
October 31, 2002
Page 9
5. Any findings that might . properly be termed conclusions and any conclusions
that might properly be termed findings are hereby adopted as such.
.If you have any questions or comments on any of these items, please call me at (651)675-
3945.
Sincerely,
Foth & Van Dyke and Associates, Inc.
Kathleen M. Osborne, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
KMM1:klll
cc: Mr. John Domke, SKB Environmental, Inc.
Mr. Mike Fullerton, SKB Rosemount
KLL1 \K:\ 015019 \L- SKB- KeeganFofF.dod5000
(o
M E M O
CITY OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: James G. Willis, City Administrator
( 3
DATE: June 10, 1998 for City Council Meeting of June 22
SUBJECT: SKB: AMENDED.AND RESTATED HOST COMMUNITY AGREEMENT 41
ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the amended and restated Host Community
Agreement between the City and SKB Environmental, Inc and PAB
Enterprises of Minnesota, Inc.
BACKGROUND: In 1996 the City entered into a Host Community
Agreement (HCA) with SKB Environmental, Inc. and PAB Enterprises of
Minnesota, Inc. dealing with the demolition landfill owned by PAB and
operated by SKB. At the time of the approval of the HCA, SKB and PAB
agreed to pay the City a host community fee of $17,100 per month for a
period of 5 years ($1,026,000) . At the same time City Council approved
an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit at the landfill which
provided for both a vertical and horizontal expansion of the facility.
The horizontal expansion took place in the City of Rosemount.
Recently SKB has approached the City Council requesting an additional
vertical expansion to the landfill. This matter is before the City
Council for final consideration Monday evening. City staff and Mr.
Rick O'Gara, President of SKB, have had discussions regarding amending
the HCA to recognize the additiona; air -space capacity to be created.
Based upon engineering data provided to the City by SKB, the vertical
expansion will increase the landfill capacity by approximately
1,200,000 cubic yards It is the City's view, concurred with by SKB,
that the City is entitled to additional HCA fees as a result of this
expansion. Following several meetings with SKB and PAB we have reached
an agreement which provides for amending and reissuing the existing
HCA to provide for additional host community fees. Based upon our
discussions, SKB has agreed to pay increased HCA fees totaling $28,625
a month for 90 consecutive months commencing July 1, 1998 [retroactive
to that date if they have not received final county and State
approvals by July 1) . By the terms of the present HCA, SKB as of June
1 will owe the City $701,100 in future HCA fees. With the amended HCA
that amount will increase to $2,576,000, recognizing that the new air
space created will generate $1,875,000 to the City.
SKB Host Community Agreement - June 1, 1998
Page 2
Attached for your information is a copy of the amended and restated
Host Community Agreement. This agreement has been prepared by the City
Attorney, reviewed and approved by officials of SKE and PAB.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION: I recommend the City Council approve
the attached amended and restated Host Community Agreement between SKB
Environmental, Inc., PAB Enterprises of Minnesota, Inc., and the City
of Inver Grove Heights with the adoption of the attached resolution.
CITY OF BURNSVILLE
COUNCIL AGENDA BACKGROUND
Meeting Date 7/15/02
Item Number 7
ACTION: New Policy Clarification/Revision of Past Policy Present Policy
X Required by Law Previous Council Action Council Theme Housekeeping
ITEM
Consider Approval of an Application for Burnsville Sanitary Landfill, Inc. for a Rezoning from I -2 (General
Industry) to I -2, PUD (General Industry, Planned Unit Development), and Concept Stage Approval of a Planned
Unit Development Amendment for Expansion of the Existing Landfill Located at 2650 W. Cliff Road; and
Consider Findings of Fact, Planned Unit Development Agreement, and an Ordinance.
POLICY DECISION /ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED
Adopt the Findings of Fact and Approve the Planned Unit Development Agreement and Ordinance.
FACTS
The applicant, Burnsville Sanitary Landfill, Inc. (BSLI), is requesting approval of a rezoning and concept PUD
Amendment for expansion of the existing landfill. The proposed re- zoning will incorporate a PUD to permit the
expansion of the existing PUD. The property and all adjacent properties are zoned I -2.
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval at their July 8th meeting as presented with
conditions recommended by staff with the exception that the Host Agreement Fee (HAF) continue to be
negotiated with the applicant to bring closure to the final Host Agreement. Planning Commission discussion
focused on the exemption of this - application from the moratorium, the need for landfill space in the metro -area,
the specific end -use plan being defined, the land -use in general and wetland issues. The one public hearing
comment focused on removal of the wetlands and ability to replace them. The Commission feels the land -use is
suitable given the existing landfill and surrounding industrial land -uses. The Concept approval would allow the
applicant to proceed with environmental reviews and agency permitting in preparation for development stage
review. The Commission recognized the need for additional information that will be satisfied upon development
stage review.
ISSUES
Staff has been in ongoing negotiations with BSLI to reach agreement on items to be included in the Host
Agreement. These items are in addition to tipping fees permitted by state statute. There is one outstanding issue
relating to the amount of the HAF. Staff is seeking $1.00 per ton. BSLI proposed $0.85 per ton (see chart
below) . As proposed by staff, this HAF will generate approximately $11,480,000. One use of the funds would
be for approximately $5 million to an Environmental Trust Fund. This will fund 20% of the total $25 million of
improvements identified in the Water Resources Plan. In addition to any required wetland mitigation, this is an
additional way to assist in the mitigation of the impact of the expanded landfill on the environment. The
remaining $6.4 million would go to an infrastructure fund. The MRQ studies identified the CSAH 5 extension
project as a $20 million project and the TH 13 "super intersection" near the Savage border to be approximately
$12 million. The proposed HAF would fund $6.4 million of the $32 million MRQ improvements (20 %).
Considering the HAF will be paid over 19 years on a per ton basis, the present worth of these contributions is
approximately $3.2 million and $4.1 million respectively.
CO!rJNCIL AGENDA BACKGROUND
Lurnsville Sanitary Landfill, Inc.
July 15, 2002
Page 2
ISSUES - Continued
BSLI has proposed a HAF of $0.85 per ton with an additional height increase as recommended by the golf course
consultant. (The City's golf course consultant has suggested "sculpting" the top of the landfill with garbage
above the existing elevation of 814. This could also be done at a lower elevation). Without a height increase,
they propose $0.60 per ton. This amount is based on their assessment of what is needed to remain competitive in
their market and maintain profit margins. The following table compares and contrasts the City's position and the
BSLI position.
Activity
$1.00 per ton
$0.85 per ton
$0.60 per ton
Remaining dem /con- 1.1 million cubic
yards= 880,000 tons
$ 880,000
$ 748,000
$528,000
Remaining MSW- 2.3 million cubic
yard= 1,840,000 tons
$ 1,840,000
$1,564,000
$1,104,000
Conversion of existing fill dem/con to
MSW= 700,000 cubic yards = 560,000 tons
$ 560,000
$ 47600
$336,000
Expansion Area MSW- 4 million cubic
yards =3.2 million tons
$ 3,200,000
$ 2,720,000
$1,920,000
Expansion Area dem/con -6.3 million cubic
yards =5.0 million tons / ?90 006
$ 5,000,000
$ 4,250,000
$3,000,000
Total HAF
$11,480,000
$ 9,758,000
$6,888,000
Increased height of 15' on remaining and
expansion areas- 3.0 million cubic yards
2.4 million tons
$ 2,400,000
$ 2,040,000
Total HAF with increased height
$13,880,000
$11,798,000
Staff is recommending approval of the Concept Stage PUD with the $1.00 per ton HAF without a height increase
to "sculpt" the golf course. Any future height increase would be reviewed with development stage to facilitate the
"sculpting of the golf course. The additional $11.5 million dollars of contributions would be utilized to further
mitigate environmental impacts of the proposed expansion and to provide for infrastructure needs serving the
area. It is important to remember that the numbers are in today's dollar value and will be received by the city
over an extended period of time (approximately 19 years). The present value of the future contributions is
approximately $7.2 million. No specific dates for future MRQ infrastructure improvements or environmental
improvements have been determined. Considering the work will take place in the future, the dollar value of the
HAF contributions will continually be diminishing.
Another issue to be brought to the attention of the Council is that BSLI has reconsidered their commitment to a
voluntary EIS for the dem/con expansion. This is primarily due to timing, as the EIS will take 18 -24 months to
complete with the PCA as the RGU. Staff understands the concern and suggests as an alternative a discretionary
EAW. Should the EAW findings deem an EIS necessary, one will be further required. In this case, the City will
be the RGU.
COUNCIL AGENDA BACKGROUND
Burnsville Sanitary Landfill, Inc.
July 15, 2002
Page 3
ATTACHMENTS Location/GIS Map, 07/8/02 Planning Report and Unapproved P.C. Minutes, Findings of
Fact, Amended PUD Agreement, Ordinance, MRQ Concept Color Drawing, PUD from 1994, PNRC Report and
Minutes, Letter from Chamber- supportive of expansion, Tim Nugent's Golf Course Analysis, Applicant's Project
Summary Booklet.
XT
g:\agenda \cc \Waste Management
Agenda Item: 3
City of
BURNSVILLE
PRESENTERS
Mike Niewind, Waste Management
ITEM
Meeting of-
7-08-02
Project No.: 02 -11
Public Hearing - Burnsville Sanitary Landfill, Inc.- Application for a Rezoning from I -2 (General
Industry) to I -2 PUD (General Industry, Planned Unit Development), and Concept Stage Approval of a
Planned Unit Development Amendment for Expansion of the Existing Landfill Located at 2650 W. Cliff
Road.
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Burnsville Sanitary Landfill, Inc. (BSLI), is requesting a rezoning from I -2, General
Industry to PUD for land previously owned by Cargill and concept stage approval of a PUD Amendment
to allow an expansion of the existing landfill located at 2650 W. Cliff Road. The re- zoning will become
effective upon approval of Development Stage PUD.
All of the existing landfill is currently zoned PUD. The zoning of the property to be added to the landfill
is currently zoned I -2. The moratorium for industrial properties located north of TH 13 and west of
Interstate 35W exempts amendments to existing PUD's to incorporate adjoining land under common
I wnership. The proposed landfill expansion meets the moratorium exemption criteria. The subject
property is currently guided GI (General Industrial) in the Comprehensive Plan. The property to the north
is located in the City of Bloomington across the Minnesota River. The property to the west is located
within the City of Savage. The property to the east is zoned PUD and is currently being utilized for a
compost facility and quarry on property owned by Edward Kraemer and Sons (EKS). The property to the
south is zoned I -2 (General Industry) and B -4 (Highway Commercial).
In 1997, USA Waste purchased the Burnsville Sanitary Landfill from EKS. In 1998, USA Waste merged
with Waste Management. Burnsville Sanitary Landfill, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Waste
Management and presently operates the landfill. The proposed development application seeks to include
property previously owned by Cargill to the north and west of the existing landfill
History
The first mining permit was issued in the 1950's for this area and it is believed that landfrlling was
occurring prior to this time. The earliest city records on file dating back to 1968, which are for Edward
Kraemer and Sons (EKS) CUP applications, indicate the landfill was pre - existing. In 1971, a CUP was
issued for the landfill. In 1974, an amendment allowed a height increase from 740 to 760 and allowed an
expansion area. In 1980, an amendment allowing a height increase from 760 to 786 was approved. In
1981, the landfill area was expanded to the southwest, and an increase in elevation to 800 with 2 feet of
additional cover was approved. In 1992, a height increase was approved to allow garbage to be filled to
808 and final cover to 814. In 1993, a CUP amendment to allow methane gas recovery systems was
approved. The 1994, PUD zoning added 767 acres of EKS property including the landfill and the quarry.
Burnsville Sanitary Landfill, Inc.
July 8, 2002
Page 2
History - Continued
Concept and development stage approval was granted for an expansion of the landfill with a defined end
use plan for the landfill of "recreation ". A PUD review every 5 years was to examine the status of the
landfill and quarry and ultimate end use development plans. The expansion was anticipated to provide
landfill space conceptually until 2013 with an additional 20 years of post closure monitoring. In 1998, an
amendment allowed the placement of a trailer until June 2009.
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
Net Site Area:
Existing Landfill Area:
Existing Open Space
Proposed Landfill Expansion
Proposed Open Space
End Use Open Space
DISCUSSION
The Proposal
279 Acres
147 Acres
132 Acres
78 Acres
54 Acres
279 Acres
The proposed application includes a 78 -acre expansion of the existing 147 -acre landfill. This includes 39
acres to the north of the existing landfill for demolition/construction (dem/con) waste and 39 acres to the
west of the existing landfill for mixed solid waste (MSW). It is anticipated that with current rates of
filling, the addition will extend the life of the landfill by a few years to be in conjunction with the closing
of the quarry near 2017. A conservative estimate of the landfill closure with the proposed expansion
would be approximately 18 years through 2019. However, given current and projected amounts of trash
generation in the area, closure may be sooner. After the closure, a 20 -year post closure - monitoring phase
begins.
The landfill is currently approved for 2.2 million cubic yards of dem/con fill. Approximately % of the
space or 1.1 million cubic yards has been filled to date. Of the previously filled area, Waste Management
is proposing to mine the cells and process /recycle the material. The unusable materials will be placed
back in the landfill, in a different area. Approximately 700,000 cubic yards of air space will be created.
It is proposed that this air space be filled with MSW.
The height of the landfill expansion is proposed to be 814, essentially, the same as the existing landfill.
The additional fill area will provide for approximately 4.0 million cubic yards of MSW and 6.3 million
Burnsville Sanitary Landfill, Inc.
July 8, 2002
Page 3
The Proposal- Continued
cubic yards of dem/con. BSLI currently pays the city $3.33 per ton of MSW and $0.15 cubic yard for
dem/con, the maximum permitted by MS 115A.921. As determined by state law, the proposed expansion
would provide an additional $10,656,000 dollars for MSW and $945,000 dem/con above and beyond
what has already been approved for previous landfill expansions.
MS115A TIPPING FEES TO BE PAID TO THE CITY
MS 115A Fees From
Conversion From Volume To
Fee Computation
Remaining Capacity of
Weight
Existing Landfill
4 million cu yards x .8 compaction
3.2 million tons x $3.33
MSW- $3.33 /ton *
2.3 million cu yards x .8 compaction
1.84 million tons x
MSW
factor = 1.84 million tons
$3.33 ton = $6,127,200
$.15 per cu yard=
ESTIMATED MS115A FEES
$6,127,200
FROM REMAINING
CAPACITY
MS115A Fees From Space
Conversion From Volume To
Fee Computation
Converted From Dem/Con to
Weight
MSW
4 million cu yards x .8 compaction
3.2 million tons x $3.33
Converting existing dem/con to
700,000 cu. yards MSW x.8
560,000 tons x $3.33 ton
MSW
compaction factor = 560,000 tons
= $1,864,800
$.15 per cu yard=
ESTIMATED MS115A FEES
$1,864,800
FROM CONVERTED SPACE
MS115A Fees From Proposed
Conversion From Volume To
Fee Computation
Expansion Area
Weight
MSW- $3.33 /ton
4 million cu yards x .8 compaction
3.2 million tons x $3.33
factor = 3.2 million tons
ton = $10,656,000
Dem/con -$0.15 cu yard
6.3 million cubic yards x
$.15 per cu yard=
$945,000
ESTIMATED MS115A FEES
FROM EXPANSION AREA
$11,601,000
* MS 115A Fees on existing dem/con have already been paid $165,000.
TOTAL MS11 SA fees paid to the city by Waste Management for existing, converted, and proposed
landfill $19,593,000. (Number may vary depending on actual tonage and compaction factor).
Burnsville Sanitary Landfill, Inca
July 8, 2002
Page 4
End Use Plan
The proposed end use plan calls for a championship 18 -hole golf course with clubhouse, nature trails, and
open spaces along the river. Along with the end use end use plan, the PUD amendment allows for the
preparation and funding to implement the end use plan. In preparation for the end -use plan, it will be
necessary to "sculpt" the landfill with refuse. This will allow for undulating topography with even cover.
An even cover will ensure even settling as much as possible. The applicant will be required to provide
detailed information on the proposed grades of the garbage and fill to ensure varying elevations of trash
to accommodate a future golf course. It is undesirable to have dirt berms placed on top of an even landfill
grade. The weight of the dirt will cause uneven settling.
Concept Stage PUD
The purpose of proceeding with Concept Stage Review only is to examine the general land -uses,
environmental considerations, and proposed end -use plan. This review will identify additional items
needed for Development Stage Approval. Concept Stage PUD review, will provide the applicant and
staff with direction from the City Council and Commissions as to the nature of how to proceed in
Development Stage. More specific information relating to grades, environmental impacts, flood plain
issues, landscaping, and the proposed end use plan will be required in Development Stage. Concept
Stage approval would be conditioned on providing this more detailed information in Development Stage
The Concept Stage approval would however make an official determination that given compliance with
the conditions in Development Stage Review, the PUD zoning will be approved.
Environmental Issues
Staff is relying on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) for technical review of the landfill
expansion. PCA rules /review ensure that the environment including the ground water will be safeguarded
by use of liners, lecheate collection, bufferyards, adequate drainage, etc. The PCA issues a permit for
landfill expansions and environmental safe guards are a part of their permitting review. Staff has met
with the PCA to discuss the permitting process and environmental safeguards relating to the landfill.
Minnesota Rules 4410.4300 and 4410.4400 require a mandatory Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for the proposed expansion of the MSW. In the case of an EIS for MSW expansion, the PCA will be the
RGU (Responsible Governmental Unit). Environmental review is not required for the expansion of the
dem/con area under Rule 4410. However, the city may require that a discretionary Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) be completed on the dem/con expansion and potentially require an EIS on
the dem/con depending the outcome of the findings within the EAW. Due to the landfill location,
wetland concerns, floodplain proximity, and nature of the land -use, staff is recommending an EIS for the
entire expansion proposal. As an indication of their concern for the environment, Waste Management has
agreed to a voluntary EIS encapsulating both the MSW and dem/con expansion areas. This is agreeable
to the city and the PCA. It is anticipated that the EIS process will take 18 -24 months to complete.
Determination that the EIS is adequate will ensure that environmental concerns have been appropriately
addressed.
Burnsville Sanitary Landfill, Inc.
July 8, 2002
Page 5
Environmental Issues- Continued
The- proposed expansion will result in an estimated 47 acres of wetland being impacted. Under the
Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA), the required mitigation is 47 acres of wetland
replacement and 47 acres of either wetland replacement or "public value credit ". Public value credits are
other environmental improvements to existing wetlands, such as adding bufferyards. The proposal calls
for possibly 33 acres to be mitigated on site, 4 acres of additional mitigation area in the city, and 40 acres
to be provided outside the city, but within the same watershed. Total potential for wetland replaced may
be 77 acres. With respect to public value credit, 19 acres may be provided on site, 4 acres elsewhere
within the city, and 40 acres outside the city, but within the same watershed district. The details of the
plan for wetland mitigation have yet to be determined. The proposed mitigation more than complies with
the WCA. The final mitigation provisions will be decided during or prior to Development Stage review.
The attached Parks and Natural Resources Commission background details the environmental concerns
and suggests mitigation measures should the Council determine to approve the project.
Woodlands
A tree inventory and replacement plan will need to be submitted. Up to 60% of the total value of the
trees on the lot may be removed without replacement. The impacts of the landfill expansion on the
existing flora and fauna will be examined in the EIS and with Development Stage review.
Shoreland and Flood
The landfill property is located within the Shoreland Overlay District and Flood Overlay districts. A vast
majority of the landfill property is located within the flood fringe. Portions of the dem/con development
area to the north towards the river are located within the floodway. A conditional use permit will be
required from the city to fill in the flood plain during Development Stage. The proposed expansion will
not be located within the floodway and no changes to flood elevations are proposed. An application has
been submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to make an adjustment to the
flood fringe / floodway map. The DNR has approved the change, but it is not effective until approved by
the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). The applicant is seeking a Letter of Map
Revisions (LOMR) from FEMA to adjust the flood way delineation in the expansion area. If the LOMR
is not approved, the landfill expansion area will be pulled back, so as not to be located within the
floodway.
Additional Staff Research
In addition to considering other data, staff has reviewed the documents from the Pine Bend Sanitary
Landfill in Inver Grove Heights. These documents included zoning approvals and a "Host Agreement ".
Staff has also contracted an experienced landfill golf course developer, Tim Nugent Golf Associates. Mr.
Nugent has prepared an analysis for the city to determine if an 18 -hole golf course is feasible and if so,
what the estimated construction costs are. This assures the city and Waste Management that we are
Burnsville Sanitary Landfill, Inc.
July 8, 2002
Page 6
Additional Staff Research- Continued
pursuing an end use plan that is feasible and provides a base amount of surety to be required by the city to
ensure construction of the end use plan. Mr. Nugent states that it is feasible to construct an 18 -hole golf
course and the estimated costs will be a minimum of $6.1 million dollars, by today's costs. His findings
are attached.
Host Agreement
In addition to the fees due to the City under MS 115A, it is proposed to require additional Host fees from
the applicant. These fees would be above and beyond those set forth in law. This provision and other
clarifications would be set forth in a "Host Agreement" (HA). The HA would need to be finalized and
executed prior to Development Stage Approval. However the major elements of the HA are listed at the
end of this memorandum and are recommended as conditions of Concept Stage approval. The proposed
elements of the agreement are the product of extended negotiations and have been agreed to by the
applicant with on exception. The HA would provide for a Host Agreement Fee (HAF) of $1.00 per ton of
MSW and dem/con waste. It is proposed to utilize the HAF for two primary purposes. The first would
be to assist the City in wetland and other surface water quality improvements in the Minnesota River
Quadrant (MRQ) and throughout the balance of the City. The second purpose would be to assist the City
in the construction of the "sub- regional" transportation elements needed for the MRQ. The two most
notable pieces of MRQ infrastructure are the CSAH 5 Extension Project and the so- called "Super
Intersection" on Trunk Highway 13 near the Savage border. Both projects are being studied for possible
implementation at the present. The HAT would also be utilized to improve trunk watermain service to
the MRQ area. While the applicant does agree to the concept of the HAF, they do not agree to the $1.00
per ton figure. They have proposed $0.85 per ton with a proposed 15 -foot height increase on the
proposed expansion area and remaining landfill space.
The HA would also require the applicant to provide several other assistances to the City and its residents:
• Non - hazardous garbage pick -up and disposal service would be provided for City facilities
as permitted by law.
• Annual Clean-Up Day — On two designated days each year BSLI would allow Burnsville
residents to bring any item to the landfill for disposal at no charge. The exceptions to this
would be appliances, electronics, tires, and hazardous wastes. These items could also be
brought but costs for their non - landfill disposal would be passed through at no mark -up to
Burnsville residents.
• The City would be allowed to dispose of its street sweepings at the landfill for a reduced
price of $4.80 per ton, pending approval by Dakota County to use the sweepings as "daily
cover" material. This fee rate would be adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price
Index.
• City residents will receive preferential scheduling and fees at the golf course upon its
completion.
Burnsville Sanitary Landfill, Inc.
July 8, 2002
Page 7
Host Agreement- Continued
The HA does NOT negate the applicant's responsibilities to comply with other ordinance requirements
for providing infrastructure and other items. Those requirements are recited as conditions later in this
memo.
Plat
The purpose for the future plat is to help make a clear delineation of this PUD from the previous PUD
granted to EKS. This will also make for simplified legal documents and dedication of future public
roadways and utility easements.
PNRC Review
On July 2, the PNRC reviewed the request. The PNRC recommends denial of the project. Their
concerns primarily are the filling of 47 acres of wetlands is not in the best interest to protect the natural
resources of the city. Individual commissioners also cited a concern over the "all or nothing" attitude of
Waste Management, potential of the site becoming a "superfund ", replacing wetlands outside the city,
piecemeal replacement of wetlands, and the end use of a "championship" golf course not being significant
enough to justify the environmental cost. A majority of the commissioners felt additional information
was needed and that the end use of recreation could still be accomplished without the proposed
expansion. Attached is the agenda and minutes from the meeting.
Planning Considerations
This is a complex and important proposal. - Certainly more of the details need to be "fleshed out" during
Development Stage, if Council and Planning Commission grant Concept Stage approval. But even at
Concept Stage it is clear there are several parameters that are salient in the consideration of the proposal.
When the Council and Planning Commission initiated the MRQ study work last year, three themes were
identified — land use controls, the environment, and infrastructure. All three of these themes are important
in the consideration of this submittal.
The existing facility and the expanded facility will serve a valid regional need. Significant gains have
been made in recycling, but nevertheless, our society still needs safe and reasonably priced solid waste
disposal options. The applicant's submittal and other information staff has reviewed, have made it clear
that those options are few in the seven - county area.
For better or worse, Burnsville is the home of the Burnsville Sanitary Landfill. That basic decision was
made in the 1960's and 1970's and was tested and ratified in the early 1990's. The facility is a significant
feature of the MRQ and as such has been recognized in the various planning efforts that have been done
and are ongoing for the area. The land that surrounds the landfill would appear to have no other viable
industrial or commercial usage. The other obvious land use would be for open space. However, whether
Burnsville Sanitary Landfill, Inc.
July 8, 2002
Page 8
Planning Considerations- Continued
x
that land was developed as another commercial or industrial land use, or preserved as open space, the
existing landfill will remain with its prominent physical status in the area.
Given the location and vacant land available, if there is to be a landfill expansion in Burnsville, from a
land use perspective this would be the logical area. The property is in an area currently either screened by
natural amenities and roadways, or bordered by land uses that are not incompatible (the Cargill terminal
in Savage and the composting and quarry operations in Burnsville.)
Environmental concerns are key in reviewing this proposal. As discussed above, there will be several
other agencies who scrutinize this proposal for its environmental effects. Of primary concern will be the
potential for leakage through the landfill liners. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is the
recognized expert for landfill design in the state. The City's approach in the past and for this proposal is
to rely on the MPCA for this investigation. We have every reason to believe that they will make that
analysis thoroughly and fairly. Both the Corp of Engineers and the Department of Natural Resources will
be looking at floodplain and wetlands issues along with the City. Both of these agencies will need to
grant clearances for the project. Any City approvals will need to be contingent on those state and federal
agencies granting permits.
The wetlands issue is one where there is overlapping authorities between state, local, and federal
agencies. The City is responsible for administering the Wetlands Conservation Act. The project
proposes filling a significant amount of wetlands and this is a key environmental issue that should be
considered. The PNRC background addresses this very clearly.
The MRQ infrastructure needs are significant. Trunk watermains need to be extended into the western
part of the area. The CSAH 5 extension project and the "Super Intersection" projects will both be large
and expensive undertakings. There are less obvious but also significant infrastructure needs in the
immediate area of the landfill. A public roadway will be necessary on the southern and eastern boundaries
of the landfill. While not of the magnitude of the CSAH 5 and TH 13 projects, these are still multi-
million dollar projects. These facilities are necessary to open the MRQ up to the world. If people can not
get to the proposed activities in the area, the City will never achieve its vision for the MRQ.
When faced with difficult decisions, it has become second nature to nearly everyone connected with the
City, to go back to the Council's Ends and Outcomes. That is inherent in the City's governance process.
The Environment Outcome #2 clearly says that development should occur "in an environmentally
sensitive manner, preserving our natural resources ". Development / Redevelopment Outcome 2C
specifically calls out the MRQ as being a key area of redevelopment emphasis. Indeed the work of the
last year by the MRQ Advisory Panel, the Planning Commission, and the City Council has recognized
that there would be many development proposals in the MRQ. The landfill and its end use have clearly
been recognized in the MRQ planning work that has been ongoing (see MRQ concept drawing attached).
Burnsville Sanitary Landfill, Inc.
July 8, 2002
Page 9,
Planning Commission Role
The role of the Planning Commission is to review the technical aspects of the proposal as it relates to the
Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Given all of the aspects of the proposed landfill expansion,
environmental concerns, end -use plan, and economic benefits to the city, the Planning Commission
should make a recommendation on the proposed development application.
Conditions
There are four categories of conditions proposed for Concept Stage Approval. (A.) There are items to be
submitted as a part of Development Stage Review. (B.) There are conditions that will be required upon
processing the future plat and Development Stage PUD. (C.) Elements to be included within the Host
Agreement are third. Finally, there are (D.) normal conditions of the Concept Stage PUD Approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is supportive of the request with conditions, and with proper mitigation of the environmental
impacts. Staff feels the interim land use as a land fill and the end -use plan of a golf course are
appropriate. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval
of the Concept PUD Amendment conditioned on the following.
A. The following items must be processed as a part of Development Stage review process.
1. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the MSW expansion must be completed. A
voluntary EIS including the dem/con expansion areas has been agreed upon by the applicant,
PCA, and the city. Should the voluntary dem/com EIS review change, a discretionary EAW will
be required by the city. The EIS and/or EAW must be deemed adequate /adopted by the RGU.
2. The "Host Agreement" elements set forth herein must be incorporated into an agreement executed
as a part of Development Stage approval and prior to implementation.
3. A Subdivision Plat must be submitted.
4. All Environmental Permits must be obtained prior to final Development Stage approval.
5. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) must be processed for flood plain compliance concurrent with
Development Stage Approval
6. A Wetland Mitigation Plan must be submitted and approved concurrent with Development Stage
Approval.
7. A defined Closure Plan must be submitted.
8. A tree inventory and evaluation with appropriate replacement plan must be submitted.
9. A landscaping plan must be submitted.
10. A schedule for partial and final development of the golf course must be submitted as part of
Development Stage review.
11. A final elevation/grading plan for "sculpting" the landfill and detailing how cells are closed for
future development of the golf course must be submitted for Development Stage review.
Burnsville Sanitary Landfill, Inc.
July 8, 2002
Page 10
RECOMMENDATION- Continued
12. A plan detailing specific dates for filling cells must be submitted as part of Development Stage
PUD.
13. An End Use Plan detailing final uses for all of the property must be submitted. The plans will
need to indicate the location of roads, future clubhouse, restaurant, etc.
B. The following are conditions that will be contained within the future plat and Development Stage
PUD.
1. Compliance with state, county and local ordinances and procedures shall be adhered to.
2. A surety for the End Use Plan must be provided.
3. Wetland mitigation must be completed prior to implementation of filling.
4. Landfilling will be an approved Interim Use within the PUD.
5. Defined closure plan dates will need to be provided.
6. Five Year Reviews of the PUD will be required.
7. Accessory Uses will be only as set forth in the PUD
8. Trail easements and construction of trails shall be provided for.
9. The dedication of right -of -way and construction of the southern road paralleling the railroad track
will be provided for at the applicant's expense.
10. The applicant shall dedicate necessary utility easements.
11. The required surety for wetland mitigation shall be submitted.
12. The sanitary sewer and water under the nortb/south road to service any future BSLI development
and/or the future clubhouse shall be provided for at the expense of the applicant.
13. Dedication of one -half of the right -of -way and construction of the north/south road with storm
sewer shall be provided for. If the future clubhouse is located north of the street paralleling the
railroad, a 25% share of the future north/south road will be paid by the applicant.
14. The applicant and staff shall meet annually to review the status of the landfill and progress
towards the end use plan.
15. All previous PUD conditions applicable to the landfill site shall remain in effect. The maximum
approved height for the existing landfill is 814 elevation. The maximum approved height for the
expansion is 814 or an average of 814 to sculpt landfill for the end use plan.
16. The City will review and approve the golf course design. This approval will not be unreasonably
withheld.
17. The City retains the right of first refusal to match the bid of any vendor to participate in the
operations of the future golf course or other future recreational land uses on the subject property,
if BLSI determines to contract operations of the golf course.
C. The following are elements to be included within the Host Agreement
1. Waste Management agrees to provide an adequate closure surety.
2. Payment of Tipping Fees will be paid in accordance with state law ($3.33 per ton MSW and $0.15
per cubic yard of Dem -Con)
Burnsville Sanitary Landfill, Inc.
July 8, 2002
Page 11
RECOMMENDATION- Continued
3. Waste Management agrees to public improvements required in the subdivision ordinance. WM
will submit a Waiver and Petition under MS429 for the improvements or facilitation of their
construction.
4. Contributions to an Environmental Trust Fund and MRQ Infrastructure fund totaling $1.00 per ton
for existing landfill volume and approved expansion volume will be made.
5. _ An Annual Community Curb -Side Clean-Up Day as defined in the review memo will be
facilitated.
6. The applicant will provide for the disposal of street sweepings if approved as cover material by
Dakota County at a price of $4.80 per ton, not to exceed 2,500 tons per year. The price may be
adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index.
7. The applicant agrees to pick up and dispose of city waste from city facilities as allowed by
statutes. This includes City Hall, Fire Stations, Ice Arena, the Garage, and Maintenance Center,
City Parks, and any other municipal facility.
8. Burnsville residents will be given preferential tee times and green fees.
D. The following are conditions of the Concept Stage PUD Approval.
1. Compliance with state, county and local ordinances and procedures shall be adhered to.
2. The requested PUD rezoning will be effective upon Development Stage PUD review and
approval.
3. Landfilling will be an approved Interim Use within the PUD.
4. An Escrow Deposit of $50,000 will be made upon submittal for Development Stage Review.
5. Annual Status Meetings will be conducted.
6. All previous PUD conditions remain in effect for the portion of the land in the EKS PUD. The
maximum approved height for the existing landfill is 814 elevation. The maximum approved
height for the expansion is 814 or an average of 814 to sculpt landfill for the end use plan.
7. The City will review and approve the golf course design.
ATTACHMENTS
Location/GIS Map
Applicant' Project Summary
MRQ concept drawing
PUD from 1994
PNRC Report and Minutes
Letter from Chamber- supportive of expansion
.Tim Nugent's Golf Course Analysis
XT
G: \Shared \planning\pc\2002\Waste Mgmt