Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.c. U of M Land UsesCITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: APRIL 2, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA - AGENDA SECTION: LAND USE ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT PREPARED BY: STEPHAN JILK,`CITY ADMINISTRATOR AG?"I R BA 7T 8 C ATTACHMENTS: APP BY• MET COUNCIL, DAKOTA COUNTY, 'MEMO /f This item consists of discussion on the potential land use issues for the University of Minnesota in Rosemount. Based upon certain proposed land use issues at the University of Minnesota, most recently a hazardous waste storage question and a compost facility direction needs to be determined regarding who has jurisdiction of land use questions on that property. The information we have received indicates that the City has that control, if exercised. It also indicates that the Metropolitan Council and Dakota County recognize that. Furtherclarificationneeds to be made in order to move forward on certain - issues. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. COUNCIL ACTION: TO: FROM: DATE: RE ,,�)?city ,osemoofu., P.O. BOX 510 2875 -145TH ST. W. ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA 55068 612-423-4411 Mayor Napper Council Members Klassen, Oxborough, Willcox, Wippermann Stephan Jilk, City Administrator I - March 29, 1991 U of M Land Use Following receipt of the EAW (Environmental Worksheet) for the proposed ReComp facility on the U of M by the Metropolitan Council legitimate questions were raised by Met Council staff regarding land use controls at the U of M property. I have copied correspondence from Jim Uttley of the Metropolitan Council staff in this matter. I have also copied information from the Dakota County Attorneys office regarding the siting of the County's Resource Recovery Project there and the letter from Donna Anderson of Dakota County, regarding the Hazardous Material storage proposal. The purpose for having this item for discussion is an attempt to recognize the potential ability of the City to control land use on the University and recognize that all of these projects will in fact require land use authority to proceed granted by the City. This opens a much larger question; since the council has already indicated by resolution in September of 1990 that it desires the location of Waste Management projects on the University Property are we prepared to emphasize that by developing a plan for that development, take control over all land use issues now at the U of M, and to proceed to develop a process with the University to do so? This is not a question that is to be settled on Tuesday. As you can see in Mr. Uttley's letter to Mr. Hewitt at the University there is an attempt to meet with the University to discuss these issues. I hope to have discussion on Tuesday to clarify staffs concerns about this issue as it is the major element in our control of events on the University. The ReComp project, the County's Hazardous Material Storage Proposal and even the Resource Recovery Project may all be determined by the City if the City has, and is willing to exercise the authority. The importance of this issue can not be overstated. I look forward to discussing this with you more on Tuesday. lj -MAF-2't--n-'?1- Ti t; 17-5:22--; i r1: !1ETP0F JL I Tat ! Tom! I; METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre, 230 E Fifth St., St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1634 612.2991.6359 DATE: March 26, 1991 TO; Dean Johnson"and Steve Jilk ' FROM: Jim Uttley, Solid Waste Division, 291-6361 FAX 291-6350 SUBJECT: U of M Rosemount Research Center t:774 P01 Attached for your information are pages 4, 11 and 12 of the draft EAW being prepared by the Council for the RECOMP composting facility at Blaine Avenue and 160th Street in Rosemount, and a copy of a memorandum from Brian Ohm of our Legal Department. Page 4 identifies permits and Approvals RNulred for the RECOMP project. Pages 11 and 12 discuss Compatibility wiith Rlans notably Rosemount and the U of M and raises the issue of conflicting jurisdiction and its potential implication for the airport search area planning effort. Brian's memorandum rmponds to questions that I raised with him about which entity has what jurisdiction in the Rosemount Research Center area. I've contacted Clinton Hewitt, Associate Vice President for Physical Development at the University to set up a meeting to discuss the issues, but he has asked for an opportunity to review these papers with the University's general counsel before meeting with us. While I am pressing for an early meeting, It may not be possible under the circumstances. I'll keep you advised about what happens. At this time, I expect to take the draft EAW through the necessary step to allow public release of the draft near the end of April. Here is the tentative schedule for the release for public comment: Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee (MWMAC) -- April 9 ♦ Environmental Resources Committee (ERC) -- April 17 Metropolitan Council -- April 25 I'll mail a complete copy of the draft EAW to Rosemount city hall with the mailing to the MWMAC and its agenda. Please call me if you have any questions or comments. post-lt" brand tax transmittal rmemo 7671 of P'9*! �OR1 14. IA t': (cl & o. 4.0 none 2A Dept. Ado— r ^ - ex * Ah (- 4 S" Sd T -FE h1c rJr'iL TIFJ ::pl IIJIL "EL M 1 14 f l'` 0 " METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre, 9 &tat Fifth Street, St, Pa,(/'J/011 6 s, 612 291-6359 FAX Gi? 291•63SU 7'1)'612 291-0904 March 25, 1941 Clinton Hewitt, Associate trice president Physical Planning University of Minnesota 344 Morrill Heli 100 Church Street SE Minneapolis, MN 55455 RE: Land Use, Zoning and Other Local Controls for the U of M Rosemount Research (UMRRC) and the Proposed Airport Search Area Center Bear Mr. Hewitt: Thank you for agreeing to meet with us on the above mentioned matters. As you may know, Metropolitan Council is involved in two separate but related matters with respect to the U 1 the Rosemount Research Center. One matter involves the lease of some land in the UMRR l� of M s RECOW of Minnesota, Inc, for the construction of a composting plant. Before construction to begin or any permits can be issued for the facility, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) must be completed on the proposed solid waste project. The. Metropolitan Council is responsiblet under state rules for preparing the EAW. The second matter involves the L one of three search areas for a possible new international airport. �MRRC's location within With respect to the RP -COMP matter, we would like to discuss an issue Possible conflicting jurisdiction on matters of land use, zoning and other local cont ols betheUniversity and the city of Rosemount. I have attached a cop}� of a memo from the Met n the Council's Legal Department which will pro«de background on the general issue, Metropolitan Among other things, I would like our meeting to explore the following questions: ♦ Does the University have land use and zoning authority over UMRRC Property? If so it exercised? If it does not, does the city of Rosemount have jurisdiction and ands hog is circumstances? under what Is it possible to fashion an agreement between the University and the cite of Rosemoun preserves the University's long-term interest in the UMRRC, while allowing the ei to apply t tl'its development policies and controls? S ty ts With respect to the airport search area matter, we would like to share information to our airport search area planning, our work program and its present scheduleobtain current data se the UMRRC and to learn from you about the University's perspective and interests in nt data search area issue, he airport TUE Ii!:h=TFCFOLITAJ CGUNCIL TEL NC:r1%' cCCd_.++77A, Fes-�✓ Mr. Cbtoa Hewitt March 26, 1991 Papa 2 While your general counsel may desire some time to prepare for the meeting, it would be most helpful if we could meet with you and your staff within the next two weeks to begin to explore these matters. I would like to stress that we view the meeting as an opening of the door to allow us to begin an open and frank dialogue on matters of mutual interest, We do not expect that the meeting will resolve issues, but it may help us to jointly decide where there are real issues and what process we should use to resolve them. Depending on when a meeting can be arranged, I anticipate being accompanied by Chauncey Case, a senior transportation planner involved in the airport search area planning, and Brian Ohm, an attorney with our legal department and the author of the attached memorandum, We would be happy to offer one of our conference rooms for the meeting or, if you would prefer, have the meeting at the University. Please let me know your preference. I look forward to seeing you once again; and please, say "hello" to Craig from me when you have a chance. Sincerely, ma P. Uttl�e Solid Wastac'bivision 291-6361 FAX 291.6350 Attachment - 2 pages -------------------------------------- TUE ..3 25 I U: M=TF;OPOL I TAN COUNC IL TEL NO: 6i 'X91 E550 «?74 FE14 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 MEMQRAN^DUM TOs Jim Uttley, Solid Waste Division FROM: Brian OhmLegal Department DAT& March 21, 1991 SUBJECT: University of Minnesota Rosemount Research Center As part of your preparation of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the RECOMP, Inc., composting facility, you asked me to examine the issue of whether the University of Minnesota is a municipality with land use planning and zoning authority over the University's Rosemount Research Center where the proposed facility would be located. The following is a brief summary in response to your inquiry.. Because the University may have documentation related to certain conditions which may have been placed upon the Research Center property, this memorandum may not provide a definitive answer to this issue. For some limited purposes, the Legislature has defined the University to be a "municipality," For example, the University is defined as a "municipality" for purposes of applying the state building code. Minn. Stat. § 16B.60, subd. 3. The state building code authorizes the University to issue building permits, inspect for code violations, and engage in enforcement activities. Minn. Stat. § 16B.62, subd. 1. As you have indicated, the University does enforce the state building code for the Research Center property. The Legislature, ho%vever, has not defined the University as a "municipality" for land use planning and zoning purposes. && Minn. Stat. §§ 394.22, subd. 4, and 462.352, subd. 2. Under Minnesota law, the University has a status elevated above municipalities. The University is a "constitutional corporation." Segents of the University of Minnesota v. Jgrd, 257 N.W.2d 796, 798 (Minn. 1977)(q oting State ex rel. University of Minnesota v. Chase, 175 Minn. 259, 265, 220 N.W. 951, 954 (1928)). The "power given to the university is separate and complete and is, by necessity, denied to the legislature. This is not to sny that the university is above the law. The Board of Regents is not 'the [ruler] of an independent province or beyond the lawmaking power of the legislature.'" a (guoting University of Minnesota v, Chase, 175 Minn. at 266, 220 N.W. at 954). The University is therefore recognized in the Minnesota Constitution as an entitywith authority separate from the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of state government. A municipality, however, derives all of its power from the legislature and does not enjoy this constitutional independence. With respect to the exclusive authority of the University, the University Charter provides that, "the selection, management and control of all lands, which may hereafter be granted by Congress for the endowment of [the] University, is hereby vested in the Board of Regents." 1851 Minn. Laws Ch. 3, § 15. The state, however, holds the title to property acquired by the Board of Regents. Regents Statc Univers] ' v. ffilt, 7 Minn. 61 (1862). It is apparent that the Legislature has determined that the University's authority to manage and control the University's lands includes the authority to enforce the state building code but does not include the authority to engage in land use planning and zoning. As a property owner, the -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2E 1 TUE !p : METr=;sir= _ L COUNCIL TEL NC -1:612' 291 E5531-774 PCs University has exclusive authority to manage and control its property. Similarly, as a property owner, the University is subject to the land use planning and zoning authority of the jurisdiction ,,Aithin which It is located. The proposed site of the composting facility is located on Research Center property within the City of Rosemount. Therefore, the City of Rosemount should have land use planning and zoning authority over the proposed site. No alteration of the City's boundaries has ever occurred to exclude the Research Center from the City of Rosemount. To my understanding, the University has never exercised any zoning or land use planning for the Research Center property. While the University has a plan for the property, the plan has never been reviewed by the Metropolitan Council as have the comprehensive plans of municipalities within the metropolitan area. The City of Roscnmount, however, has included the Research Center property within its comprehensive, plan. The University has never challenged the right of the City of Rosemount to plan for the Research Center property. Moreover, while the Board of Regents are vested with the power to govern the University, the exercise of planning and zoning authority is not an academic function which should be included in the exclusive domain of the University. Should you have additional questions as more information about the Research Center property becomca available, please do not hesitate to contact me. 7. Pro}eot Magnitude Data Total Project Area (ae ryes) 30.37 or Length (miler-) NA Number of Residential Unna Urrad'.aohod NA Attached NA Comm #m1. tindua•.ria1Ar*ttutlona► Building Area (gross floor space) Tota _4l7.00d square feet; includes 243,960 sq. ft. of building area and 173,044 sq. ft. of uncovered paved driveways, parting and outside storage of finished compost. indicate area of apoeme uses: Office 12.S2dm, ft, Manufacturing 69,323 Qg. ft (pre-screening & In -vessel 22Mpoetingq) Retail Other Industrial (i,^,side curing � maturation operations) 163.710 sal, ft. Warehouse Institutional Light Industrial Agricuhural Other Commet IAi (specty) art Lwava, parking & outalde Stora, -,e 03 r nieh®d compost - 173,440 Sq. ft: Building Halght(s) 46 foe; a. Psrmhs and Approvals Required us, ail known local, state, and federal permits, approvals, and funding required: Unit of Qovernment Woe off ApplicationW !7 Minnesota Pollution Solid Waste Facility Permit, Compost To be applied for Control Agency (MPGA) Facility Permit, Transfer Station Permit Metropolitan Council Review & approval of MPGA solid To be applied for waste facility permit Review and approval of local plan Automatic, amendments, rezoning, variances concurrent with and permits « local permits noted below Dakota County Resource Recovery Facility License To be applied for Dakota County, County Waste Exclusion Pending Hennepin County, County Waste Exclusion Pending Ramsey County, County Waste Exclusion Pending Washington County County Waste Exclusion Pending City of Rosemount Guide Plan Amendment, Rezoning, To be applied for Site Pian Review, Grading Permit, interim Use Permit University of Minnesota Building Permit, To be applied for *As long as the property is included In the New Major airport search area designation process, the Council must approve any rezoning, conditional use permit, or variance to the project. Q. Land Ute Describe current and recent past land use and development on the alte and on adjacent lands. Discuss the compaatiblt'ty of the project with adjacent and nearby land uaea; indicate whether any potential conflicts Involve environmental mattera. Identify any posentlal environmental hazard due to past land uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks. The 30,37 acre site is located within the confines of the University of Minnesota Rosemount Research Center (UMRRC). Approximately 28.4 acres (849x) of the site was used for agricultural (cultivated crops) in the recent past, The remainder of the site, approximately 5 acres (16%), Is vacant but contains three concrete buildings (one of which Is used for storage) and two smaller concrete structures situated within a small grove of trees. The buildings were constructed as part of the old Gopher Ordinance Works for ballistics testing during World War li. than one-half mils trom the aite. 2. Ail garbage will be unloaded Inside the facility on to the tipping floor. The tipping floor will be undsr slight negative prossaure to help contain any odors. 3. No waste will be allowed to remain on the tip floor overnight and will be processed as soon as possible. 4. Cement floors, Interior walls and all processing equipment will be cleaned daily or as needed. 6. The composting process will be managed, to prevent anaerobic conditions, through careful and diligent monitoring of the temperature, moisture and oxygen levels to maximize the efficiency of the thermophylio bacteria. 6. The tipping floor, processing building, curing area and maturation area are all enclosed and under slight negative pressure. The air Inside these enclosed areas is collected and then filtered first through a wet scrubber and then through a blo-filtration systern to remove any objectionable odors before exhausting to the atmosphere, 26. Art there any of the following resources on or In proximity to the the; a, aroheoioQlcai, historical, or architectural resources? O Yes ■ No b. pdrrw or uni" farmlands? O Yes ! No a=. doeignated parks, recreation arena, or traails? 0 Yet 0 N4 d. eowk viaarws and vhtaa:e? O Ya ■ No a. other unique rmiosastixaas? 0 Yea ■ No if arty ttarnts ars annaswerod Ysat, describe the resource and identify any Impacts on the resource due to tale project. Descltbe any massuret to be taken to minimize or avolo adverse impacts. 27. Will the project creato adverse visual Impacts? (Examples Include: glare from Intense ilghts; tights visible in wilderness Ames; and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks) 0 Yrs lE No If yea, explain, 28. compaaatibiitty with plans, Is the project subject to an adopted local comprenenelve land use pian or any other applicable land use, water, or r"ource management plan of a local, regional, state, or federal agency? ■ Yes 0 No K yes, Identify the applicable pinn(t), 0184use the oormaatibiitty o,` thr project with the provisions of the plan(6), and explain how any confilcta between the project and the pian(s) will be resotved. at no, explain. The site proposed to be leased by RECOMP for its composting facility Is on property owned by the University of Minnesota. It is In an area of the old Gopher Ordinance Works, a site owned by the U.S, Army during World War 11 and used for manufacturing munitions. The area Is now called the Rosemount Research Center, and contains the University's Agricultural Experiment Station as well as the Dakota County AVTi, a U.S. Navy satellite station, and as number of other parcels leased by the University for industrial, commercial and agricultural uses. The University is a constitutional corporation with the authority to manage and control all land granted for the endowment of the University. This special constitutional status has allowed the University to claim exemption from local planning, zoning and permitting for development within the boundaries of the Rosemount Research Center; although leased properties are required to pay county, school district and municipal property taxes. The city of Rosemount provides fire protection under contract to the Research Center, but provides no other municipal servim. The Research Center has its own water system, including a weir, a 125 foot tall 60,000 gallon water tower, distribution system and hydrants, The system was built as part of the Gopher Ordinance Works; and the exact sextant of the system and location of pipes and hydrants is unknown to University officials at the Research Center. The Research Center provided sanitary sewer service until about three years ago using a3 system of sanitary sewer pipes and combined sanitary/storm sewer 'Wood box" system that was built to service the old Gopher Ordinance Works. Development in the Research Canter Is now required to 11 Install on-site septic systems. The University Issues Its own building permits and conducts Its own inspections. The City of Rosemount has Indlcated that it should have the ultimate land use Jurisdiction over the Research Center. it has a Metropolitan Council approved Comprehensive Plan for the entire community, which Includes the University's property, The city indicates that the proposed RECOMP facility will require a guide plan amendment, ars the present pian identifies the University property as "public & Institutional" use, which Is Inconsistent with the proposed RECOMP composting facility use. However, the city would like to create a'Waste management" land use district that would encompass both RECOMP and the proposed Dakota County Resource Recovery Facility located across the street, in addition, the city would require rezoning, from "agriculture" to "general Industrial"; and require an 'Interim use permit and site plan review. The RECOMP site, as well as all of the Research Center, Is outside of the MUSA and not scheduled for urban servioes within the foreseeable future. (see Figures 4 and 3). The University's Rosemount Research Center Is located within a candidate search area being considered for the cite of a new regional airport. If the airport decision does not Involve the University's property, there is speculation that the University will sell oft major portions of the property for private development, Such land would clearly fall within the Jurisdiction of the city of Rosemount, which would be expected to provide a full range of municipal services to any development. Development in this case could be considered leap -frog type, with potentially very high service costs to the city. The University did prepare a plan for the Rosemount Research Center in 1977. Entitled, Long Range Planning Frsmowork, it shows the property Intended for lease to RECOMP as "research center" in its lien year plan" and as "environmental research use' In Its twenty year plan; which appears inconsistent with the proposed RECOMP composting facility use. The University's plan has not been reviewed and approved by the city of Rosemount, Dakota County or the Metropolitan Council. Council staff believes that It Is critically Important to resolve land use planning/Zoning and permitting Issues between the city of Rosemount and the University immediately, before additional property in the Research Center is leased for development, So that leap -frog development and the premature installation of urban services and their attendant social/instltutionai costs can be avoided. in the short term, until an airport decision Is made, It might be prudent for the University to avoid leasing which would entail building construction or long-term commitment of land for uses other than agriculture crop and pasture land. This would reduce acquisition costs, avoid costly demolition costs, avoid costs associated with Installing and removing water And sewer lines and the like. 29. imAg t Cil Infrattructurs and Public Services., will new or expandeq utilities, roads, Cher Infrastructure, or pudic cervi -Oat tae required to serve the prosect? E Yes C No If yes, describe the new or additional ln1raetrw=urs!awrvi*e8 naoded. (AW infrastnrolvre that is a 'connected &odor,, with respect to the project must be assessed In this EAW; see TAW Guldellnes' for ditafls j University official Indicate that the Research Center's water system has service along the west side of Blaine Avenue from County Road 42 to t 60th Street, and then west along 160th Street, Although there are three water hydrants located immediately adjacent to the old ballistics range building on the RECOMP site, it Is unknown whether they are connected, in sanitary condition, and capable of providing waiter to the site, it may be necessary to run a new water pipe across Blaine Avenue to service the site. The University's water system is believed to have adequate capacity at 2,00 gallons per minute rated capacity to service RECOMP and other water users on the system. Blaine Avenue is expected to be upgraded to a 10 -ton load limit between County Road 42 and 164th Street. Such upgrading is'being proposed to serve the proposed Dakota County Resource Recovery Facility. If the Dakota County facility is delayed or cancelled, the County is unlikely to proceed with upgrading of Blaine Avenue. M E M O R A N D U M DAKOTA COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE JAMES C. BACKSTROM COUNTY ATTORNEY CIVIL DIVISION Dakota County Government Center Hastings, Minnesota 55033 Telephone: (612) 438-4438 DATE: November 25, 1988 TO: The Dakota County Board of Commissioners FROM: James C. Backstrom, County Attorney --15C Jay R. Stassen, Assistant County Attorney SUBJECT: Resource Recovery Facility: Host Community Compensation Our File No. C -88-161(c) INTRODUCTION This memorandum is intended to supplement the previous memorandum provided to you on the topic of host community compensation dated November 15, 1988. The earlier memo examined the statutory authority of Dakota County to provide compensation to the City, of Rosemount and landowners adjacent to the proposed Dakota County resource recovery facility for negative effects of siting the facility in Rosemount. This memorandum discusses two additional options for providing compensation to the City of Rosemount by examining the authority the City of Rosemount possesses to request or require two types of payments from Dakota County. SPECIAL USE PERMIT/REZONING The two preferred sites which have been identified for the resource recovery facility are both located on agriculturally zoned land. To permit the siting of an industrial facility on either site the County must obtain a special or conditional use permit or, alternatively, have the property rezoned for industrial use. Rosemount apparently does not have special use permit authority under its present City Code and Comprehensive Guide Plan. Rosemount does have the authority under Ninn. Stat. § 462.3595 (1986) to promulgate an ordinance allowing certain designated land development activities as conditional uses. Such a conditional use ordinance if enacted by Rosemount could identify resource recovery facilities as a permissible conditional use and could place conditions or restrictions on this use to be negotiated between Rosemount and Dakota County, one of which could be payment directly to the City of Memorandum to the akota County Board of Commissioners November 25, 1988 Page 2 a negotiated annual sum of money. A set annual "fee" could be used or some formula developed to calculate the amount of the fee each year. If Rosemount is unwilling to enact an ordinance establishing a conditional use for the facility, the County must request a rezoning of the facility site from agricultural to industrial. This rezoning would have to be negotiated between the parties and would not lend itself to a "condition" or requirement that Dakota County make payments to Rosemount as a conditional use permit would. The City's power to impose restrictions on a conditional use is summarized in 8A E. McQuillan, The Law of Municipal Corporations S 25.271 (3d Ed. 1986): Generally a board of adjustment or similar body can impose appropriate conditions and safeguards in accordance with zoning ordinances relative to permits, variances, nonconforming uses or other matters subject to the board's jurisdiction. A zoning ordinance may contain specific authorization to this effect, but such power of a board has been viewed as inherent. In granting an exception, . . . the hoard has authority to impose all reasonable safeguards for safety, cleanliness, etc. The discretion of the board as to conditions and safeguards may be broad, but it is not unlimited. The conditions must be reasonable and not arbitrary, unnecessary or oppressive; they must not be indefinite, they must be directly related to and incidental to the proposed use of the property. In conclusion, if the City of Rosemount were to adopt a special use permit ordinance, it would have broad authority to impose reasonable restrictions on a conditional use permit issued to Dakota County for the resource recovery facility. With the cooperation of the City, this scheme of paying an annual fee to Rosemount as a condition of using the property for a resource recovery facility is a viable one. Although a taxpayer could bring legal action to contest such payments as being unreasonable, arbitrary or unrelated to the use of the property, arguments would exist that such payments are authorized by law and reasonable under the fact situation presented. Memorandum to the _akota County Board of Commissioners November 25, 1988 Paqe 3 WATER USE AND PERMITS A second method of making compensatory payments to the host community for siting the facility is through water use and sewer charges. Under Minn. Stat. § 444.075, Rosemount may own and operate waterworks and sewer systems and may impose charges for the use of the systems or connections to them. If the resource recovery facility is sited within a city which has a municipal water and sewer system, the County and city could agree to increase the monthly charges beyond the cost of water or sewer use to provide additional compensation to the city. Under current plans, the facility as sited in Rosemount would not have city water or sewer available to it and, therefore, host community compensation through this scheme is probably not feasible. My conversations with Chuck Michael of Malcome Pirnie indicate that the facility is designed to recycle its waste water so that no sewer use or charges would be incurred. The potable drinking water needs are minimal and will be supplied by a shallow well. Water use charges would not be incurred for the potable water needs of the plant. These two methods may provide a mechanism whereby Dakota County can provide direct compensation to Rosemount without the need for special legislation. The first proposal appears much more viable than the water/sewer charge option since the water usage at the plant is minimal and Rosemount presently has no municipal water or sewer systems which service the proposed sites. We would suggest that Dakota County should explore the special use permit option with Rosemount city officials prior to the, enactment of special legislation. JRS/dko CC: Lyle D. Wray, County Administrator Louis Briemhurst, Resource Recovery Director Gary Erickson, Physical Development Director Donna Anderson, Public Health Director M/C-88-161-c -DAKOTA COUNTY °°NNA M. ANDERSON DIRECTOR (612)450-2614 40* Fax(612)450-2948 PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION March 14, 1991 Public Health Nursing Environmental Health Emergency Medical Services Services Services REPLY TO: X Dakota County Northern Service Center ❑ Burnsville Office 33 East Wentworth Avenue 1101 West County Road 42 West St. Paul, MN 55118 Burnsville, MN 55337 (612)450-2614 (612)435-8055 WIC Program (612)435-8496 Mr. Stephan Jilk Administrator City of Rosemount 2875 - 145th Street West Rosemount, MPT 55068 Dear Mr�ilk, v_ This letter is to followup on the telephone Conversation with you and Gerald Stezel, Chair, Empire Township Bowl regarding the Public Health Department staff reccw-ex tion to contract with the University of Minnesota for providing storage of dioxin -containing household hazardous wastes (HHW) at the Rosemount Research Center. The following provides background information, the directives of the Dakota County Board of Commissioners, and alternatives for storage or disposal of dioxin HHW. Issues The enclosed Request for Board Action presents information about Dakota County's HHW collection programs. The County has contracted with Aptus Environmental Services (Aptus) in Lakeville to operate a permanent collection facility one Saturday each month, beginning in February, 1991. Currently eleven (11) drums of dioxin -containing wastes from only Dakota County's collections are in storage at Aptus at a cost of $22 per day. Aptus has requested the County to find alternative storage for these wastes by March 31, 1991. The contract between the County and Aptus, for operating the Permanent HHW collection facility, contains the provision that they will no longer accept dioxin -containing wastes from Dakota County after this date. Apr -us desires to concentrate their business on collecting and disposing HHW, and not storing HHW. Apt -us will continue to store the County's eleven (11) drums at their facility, but will not accept any additional dioxin -containing HHW from County residents until an acceptable storage facility is arranged. All dioxin -containing HHW is in storage in the United States until such time as the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) permits an incinerator(s) for final disposal. EPA is expected to issue permits by fall 1991 or spring, 1992. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Page - 2 - Mr. Stephan Jilk March 14, 1991 It is important to nate that di . wastes are "lab -packed" in a safe manner. Individual containers are placed into 55 -gallon dnnns surrounded by absorbent material. The drums must then be stored in a dry, secure area and inspected weekly to check for leafs or container deterioration. The University of Minnesota Rosevount Research Center (U4MC) is the only other MPCA-permitted and County -licensed storage facility in Dakota County that meets state and County rule regairenents for storing dioxin -containing wastes. Dioxin-cm*aining wastes collected by the University of Minnesota are currently stored at the Posewint Pasear h Center. Dakota Ommty Hoard Directives The Cainty Board has directed staff to comamicate the alternatives for disposal or storage of dioxin -containing wastes with the City of Roserount and Empire Township and the UMRRC Advisory Council. The resolution presented on pages 3 and 4 of the enclosure was unanimously adopted on March 12, 1991. Alternatives The enclosed chart presents information frau nine (9) =c=anes/ facilities thraj*iout the United States regarding whether they currently store or will consider storage or disposal of dioxin -containing HW. The only company or facility, other than Aptus and t4RC, that indicated capability or will mess to store this waste is AquaTech-Port in Wisconsin (actual storage would be in Texas). After you have had an opportunity to review the enclosed materials, please contact either Jeff Harthun, Envirormiental Health Services Director (891-7555) or me regarding additional information that would be helpful in developing your recoattanendation to the County Board. We would be glad to meet with you and your staff and City Council as you believe necessary and appropriate. Your cooperation and assistance in addressing and eommnicating this important public policy issue is appreciated. Sincerely, qtr,4) � . Donna M. Anderson Public Health Director DMA/jmr EMA:Ji.lk PC: Jeff Harthun, Environmental Health Services Director Enclosures (2) DAKOTA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION DIVISION: Community Services BOARD MEETING DATE: March 12. 1991 DEPARTMENT: Public Health CONSENT: X Budgeted: Contact Person:Donna Anderson/Jeff Harthun REGULAR _ Non -Budgeted: _ Telephone Number: 450-2608/891-7555 INFORMATION: _ N/A: ITEM: Contract Authorization: Household Hazardous Waste Storage at University of Minnesota Rosemount Research Center Reviewed by: Management Team _ Board Committee Other Background Dakota County has sponsored one -day household hazardous waste (HHW) collections, in collaboration with cities and private businesses, since 1985. On February 9, 1988, the Dakota County Board of Commissioners approved a two-year implementation plan (Resolution No. 88-103) for managing HHW in Dakota County. This plan resulted in conducting four one -day collections in 1988 and four in 1989. On May 22, 1990, the Dakota County Board of Commissioners approved the integrated plan for management of HHW consisting of the permanent site, two drop-off sites, reuse/recycling sites, a public education and information program and phasing out one -day collections (Resolution No. 90-461). On January 22, 1991, authority was granted to enter into a contract with Aptus Environmental Services to open a permanent HHW collection facility, one Saturday each month (Resolution No. 91- 92). The first collection day was held February 23, 1991. Two types of HHW have presented problems because final disposal options have not been readily available. Incineration of aerosol cans containing freon (chlorofluorocarbons), the primary disposal c -)n For these wastes, has not always been available as an opt 3use incinerators have not been successful at fully des.. rte. chlorofluorocarbons. This problem seems to be resolving itse:- as the facilities improve their controls. The seconc 7-7 of Hr - which has no immediate solution is the HHW containing _ -apaoye of forming, dioxins. There, is no hazardous waste IL lity which is permitted by the EPAatthis time to incinerate '.ioxin-forming wastes, although ,two or three incinerators are currently undergoing "test burns" to receive EPA permits. Dioxin -forming wastes include "Penta", a common wood preservative containing pentachlorophenol, soaps containing hexachlorophene, several old formulations of pesticides containing 2,4,5 -TP (including old Weed -B -Gone), and other common chemicals. Throughout the United States there are many tons of dioxin wastes in storage awaiting the opening of permitted incinerators. Currently, Aptus Environmental Services in Lakeville is storing 117 dioxin waste drums from various MPCA- sponsored state and county -sponsored HHW collections. Following the Board's direction, staff has proceeded to collect all HHW wastes, including dioxin wastes, from the public at HHW collections and to store these wastes. The alternative, turning away these dioxin wastes, may lead to improper disposal. The County has used the state hazardous waste disposal contract with Aptus for HHW collections for the last three years to dispose of collected HHW which is dioxin forming. Under this contract, Dakota County pays Aptus $2.00/day/drum for dioxin wastes stored. This waste -must, under state hazardous waste rules, be stored in a fully -permitted hazardous waste storage facility if stored longer than 90 days. Currently, eleven county drums are in storage at Aptus at a cost of $22/day. To date, the County has paid over $11,000 for storage. Aptus indicated in July, during negotiations on the permanent HHW siting, that they would no longer accept additional dioxin - containing HHW from Dakota County or any other source. In November, they asked as part of the negotiations that we find alterative storage for these wastes by March 31, 1991. In this request we are seeking authorization for storage at the University of Minnesota Rosemount Research Center (UMRRC). Aptus would be responsible for transporting the drums to UMRRC, at a cost of $45/hour, under the state contract. This storage will meet all regulatory requirements and will save money, as described below. The UMRRC is the only permitted storage facility within the County which meets County and state hazardous waste rule requirements, and is willing to undertake storage. Staff is not aware of any other permitted hazardous waste facility that could both pack and store dioxin -containing HHW. Staff believe storage within the County is preferable, as explained below in "County oversight". Issues/Concerns 1. Method of Packing and Storage. The dioxin wastes are "lab -packed" in a safe manner. This is a method of packing in which individual containers are placed into drums surrounded by absorbent material (vermiculite or saw dust, for instance), with a 55 -gallon drum holding less than 15 gallons of waste. These drums must be stoi,_d in a properly managed storage area which is dr' and secure. Weekly inspections are conducted of the -'-aims h the facility staff to check for leaks or conta:nf det.._ which must be immediately corrected. County s- terly regulatory inspections of both the Aptus ane _si: rac__-cies. Storage will continue until these drums can be transferred to a hazardous waste facility which has been permitted to accept dioxin wastes for final disposal. All dioxin wastes in the United States have been in storage until an incinerator is permitted, so Dakota County waste may have a longer wait once a facility is opened. Estimates on an opening date range from fall 1991 to next spring, 1992. 2. Costs. Currently, storage of the 11 drums cost $660 for a 30 day month. The proposed costs for storage at UMRRC are $150/month for up to 25 drums of dioxin waste. As collections continue, staff expect to add drums of waste, but will not exceed 25 drums during the next two years. Storage at Aptus has cost $8,030/year storage at UMRRC will cost $1,800/year for a savings of $6,300. Costs for storage at UMRRC from now to December 31, 1992 will be $3,300. 3. County Oversicrht. The County currently licenses UMRRC as a hazardous waste storage facility. As part of the regulatory effort, staff inspect the hazardous waste facility four times each year, with review of training records, on-site inspections, safety equipment, the hazardous wastes in storage, and other aspects of the facility operation. UMRRC is regulated by County Ordinance No. 111, Hazardous Waste Management, which authorizes licensure as a hazardous waste facility. UMRRC staff will inspect each drum in storage weekly. If a County dioxin drum were to be found in improper condition (dented, leaking, etc.), UMRRC staff would contact County staff immediately, and County staff would access the state contract for repacking the drum to bring it back into compliance. Recommendation The Community Services Committee raised the following questions: 1) whether communication had occurred with officials of the Cities of Rosemount and Empire and the University of Minnesota Rosemount Research Center Advisory Council; 2) whether complete evaluation of other acceptable and safe disposal alternatives, including costs, had been done. Following discussion of these and timing issues, the Committee adopted the resolution below. Resolution l�61 WHEREAS, the Dakota County Board of Commissioners has authorized implementation of a Household Hazardous Waste Program (Resolution No. 90-461); and WHEREAS, dioxin wastes must be stored until properly permitted hazardous waste facilities are available for final disposal; and WHEREAS, Aptus Environmental Services, which has been storing ±yJ" �'�County dioxin wastes, has informed staff that they will no longer store these wastes after March 31, 1991; and WHEREAS, the University of Minnesota has indicated a willingness to store this waste at the Rosemount Research Center at a price significantly lower than the price charged by Aptus. 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that County staff be directed to define further alternatives for proper storage or disposal of dioxin -containing household hazardous wastes and communicate these alternatives to the affected community; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that County staff report its findings and recommendations directly to the Dakota County Board of Commissioners if no major issues or opposition are encountered or through the Community Services Committee if concerns arise. L Leb - VV Lyler D. Wray County Administrato 438-4418 G4 vid A. Rooney Community Services ector 450-2742 JR5.5:EXE-HHW Date:3/05/91 Donna M. Anderson Public Health Director 450-2608 Jeff Harthun Environmental Health Services Director 891-7555 Alternatives for storage or Disposal of Dioxin- Household Hazardous Waste ,irm and Location Services Offered Regulation Costs Optus Drum storage for eleven Fully MPCA-permitted and $2.00/drum ,nvironmental drums. No further dioxin County -licensed facility. /day or services, waste accepted at Dakota County staff inspect between Lakeville County household drums and storage area $616 and hazardous waste during regulatory $682/month collections until waste compliance inspections. moved to different storage location. Will move wastes to new storage location. rniversity of Drum storage for up to 25 Fully MPCA-permitted and $150/month [innesota- drums in area. currently County -licensed facility. for up to :osemount permitted for dioxin County staff inspect 25 drums. esearch storage. drums and storage area 'enter, during regulatory :osemount compliance inspections. rSPCI-Oklahoma Although U::�._I operates County oversight would be Company ind Utah permitted hazardous waste more difficulto will not landfills and offer bid. incinerators, they are not interested in storage of dioxin drums. The company representatives predict their Utah incinerator will open in 18 months to 2 years, at which time they would take County waste. afety Kleen- This is a company with many permitted storage N/A None available. acilities facilities and hroughout the incinerators throughout .S. the United States. They have no storage areas for dioxin wastes. 'hemical Waste This is one of the County oversight would be Company [anagement, largest hazardous waste more difficult. will not :nc. - management firms in the offer bid. -acilities world, with EPA permitted .hroughout the incinerators, landfills (.S. and storage facilities in many states. Chemical Waste Management, Inc., does not take dioxin drums for storage. .shland This is a MPCA permitted County staff could drive Company hemical, commercial storage to facility for will not hakopee facility in Shakopee. inspection. offer bid. They do not store any drums at their site. .qua Tech -Port The local representative County oversight would be Higher 'ashington, WI indicated their storage more difficult. than price would be higher $2.00/drum than that charged by /day. Aptus and did not wish to specify a firm quote. Drums would be transported to a Texas facility operated by another firm for storage at higher cost. ay West, St. Bay West has no permitted N/A None aul facilities, but "brokers" available. wastes to other firms. Representatives knew of no storage areas which would accept dioxin wastes. This company would not be N/A None aste Research allowed long term storage available. nd at their site due to eclamation, nature of Wisconsin au Claire, WI permit.