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.