HomeMy WebLinkAbout2. Goals & Objectives Discussion �(� f'O ROX 51O
`'�l�� �) 287!',-145TN ST W
f�` ROSEMfJUNT. MINNESOTA 55q68
��Se��u,�,� 612-423-d411
T0: Mayor Napper
Council Member K1 s en Oxborough, Willcox, Wippermann
FROM; Stephan Jil , � � � �
DATE: April 13, 1990
RE: Gaals & Objectives Workshop ��1
Tomorrow will be our first opportunity to re-visit our
discussions on prioritized issues to meet our goals and
objectives for 1990+.
Attached piease find several documents relating to tomorrow' s
discussion:
1 . A summary sheet which shows the goals and objectives
set at our 1-34-90 meeting and a "time line" for work
on them.
2. Separate sheets showing the individual goals and
strategies for issues we will be discussing tomorrow.
3. A copy of the memo outlining the University of
Minnesota, incinerator and waste management topics.
4. Copy of an article on host community fees and how some
municipalities axe calculating them.
5 . Some no�es (ideas only) I have put together on host fee
discussion. �
6. A copy of the presentation made by Mayor Hoke to the
county board on $-30-88 at a joint meeting between city
and county officials .
7 . Article in the St . Paul Pioneer Dispatch follow-up from
��6.
8. Memo and a.Gtached maps from Dean Johnson regarding
discussion on "Eastside Industrial Development" .
Tomorro�a' s agenda is a full one and I hope we can effectively set
some consensus on these items in a short work time .
d��
' _ ..__.. . _ ._ ._._ _.._�_.... .� .. _ _ . ._. ._..... ^ __.__�
:iTT OP R03RH(ftltlt t G01L$ AItA OSJRCTItR3 ►�R 1990 QOALS AND OSJECTtr�A tOR 1990 , '
RA'tt r,0114 0-i MONTq3 �-6 NONTA9 1-�2 NONTN3 > 12 NON?AS OPRd-
Coonctl SteEE P�t�oNAL
l. l. v�ete te Seetg� Plsnt Pneh ter sequ- PnAlieise bs�ele0 Res!
ieteton at Cit� Go�runil�. ,
0 ot M Lend. Stretee�.
��knevted�s
� . alCll�vt 0� �j9
t. 2. tlodete Coap. Bnids Plen O�tlne Proeeas. D� 7-1-90 • 6-4t Coepieke
3v�seria�. Biro s 8 ��oet Ce�p. �
ConsalEent. Plee.
1. 9. Gend Use Petler
�. ateft r�eo�n�enAeelon� v(11 6s �aiAwd 6� curr�nt pel�c�. xT;
6. L�nd eas dtelstens wp41nR procese rill Ae open enA
eosplete.
�. �nlenea 3Ae11 ?evn Rurel Iteee�niae is0ert- �SrRe en
Mith Crovth ence. •eentn�,
3etece
procee�.
S. NefnteininR Opan/Rnxei Aree id�nti[�
wee�a to
seintein.
6. (6) Texe�+ 7S, Ser�tes Nesd� �tt
�. 1lwtex�i�s prepe� bel�nee of ebo�e to define enA
proteet besle a�r�ics. �
b. Conelder ep�rede.
1, {_) C,tEf tnpnt/Ln�nl�e�snt Precee� Eet. pelie�
fe eoneinne
ettlsen
ln��i�ewen!
vhene►or �h ;�
[eeetlle.
e. (-) Indn�triel Ds�eloP�enE en lrslaete neeA/teesibtift� !e '
6ssE�td�, te Orertds oebtie s���te�• !e
ext�xin� lnAe�tr� �eA O�ewet•
edAitien�l de�etep�ent.
9. �. Idantt[�/Recre!! Reteil �eA e. Cewpl�ts '
LnAneEei�l $ter Cit�
6. Deterwin•
he� to
identit�
has!- '
nesses
�elteble. ,`.
c. Deterwins - . �_- �
hev !e
recreii.
(-) N�eteln Cent�et V1Eh t990 Le�t�lett•� 9essten �
I,ept�tecae�
(9.) �. Mev Cosae�etel De�ela0- e. Detlee �
sent Ont�idR o[ Dorn- • Devntovn Aree
tovn/Nev, 9tEferent
9netnese T�pee b. �eseae
bntnReeee A
esr�tee� net
eurrentl�
evnileirte !n
, Aov��evn R�w! .
c.Dtscns�toe et
bn�ine��e•
lhet wl�ht
teleeeea ent
ot Ae«nleve.
S. C1t� ►�ctl�ttas Deter�ine e
Rxpeneton preeeee te
prtorittae end
weet the eit�
epeetel aseds
te �eer 2000.
(-) 7• Non-pnznrdon� Mese• V�els Yenase- AAseee lsrrs
Dtepnenl seet iaiaetr� ei oerwlt
toeette�s. AOO�o•el.
CITY OF HOSEMOUNT GOALS SESSION 1990
Council & Staf£ #1 . WASTE Tp ENERGY PLANx ,
1 . Push for acquisition of U of M �ands, sub�ect to not
assuming liabilities. (Timeline: 0-2 months)
2. Pubiicize city strategy: rationale for position and
actions. Develop communications plan - timing and c4ntent.
(Timeline: 3-6 months)
3. Develop host communitp relationship with Dakota County .
Identifq bar�aining points. (Timeline: 3-6 months)
4. Acknowledge rece3pt of EIS (Environmental Impact Studq) .
Expect Countp to live up to letter of EIS and employ any new
technologies as they emerge. (Timellne: 0-2 mvnths)
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT GOALS SESSIUN 1990
STAFF �7. NON-HAZARDOUS tJASTE DISPOSAL
1 . Look into consolidating waste management industrp locations.
(Timeline: 0-2 months)
2. Assess terms of permit approval. (Timeline: 7-12 months)
GITY OF ROSSMOQNT GDALS SBSSION 1990
Council �$. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ON EASTSIDE
1 . Evaluate need/feasibility to provide public services to
existing indus�ries and to promote additional development.
(Timeline: Q-6 months)
TO: MAYOR NAPPFR
� COUNCILMEMBERS: KLA5SEN
OXBOROUGH
WILLCOX
WIPPERMANN
FROM: STEPHAN JILK
RE: tI qf M I,and Acquisiti.on and Dakoka Caunty Res. Rec. Project
Per the direction set at our Goa�.s and Objective session of January
30th. I have been working with Dakota Count staff on the above
projects. Dean Johnson and I have been meeting with Lou Briemhurst
and his staff and have met twice with Gus Donhowe, Vice Presiclent
of Fi.nance and Physical Planning £or the University.
The direction that we have taken in this process to date is;
UNIV�RSITY OF MINNESOTA
1 ) The University of Minnesota has indicated that they are
considering the sale of part or all of their holdings which are
referred to as the "University of Minnesota Rosemount Research
Center".
2) `Phe City wishes to acquire the eleven hundred acres from the
University which comprises most of the Rosemount Research property
narth o� 160th �treet, east of Akron AvPnue.
3) The University acquired the property free of charge from the
federal government.
4) The University has had environmental problems on the site and
is i.n the grocess of cleaning those problems up.
5) Because of the problerns that the Unive'rsi.ty has experienced and
the remnants of the Gopher Ordinance Plant left behind a large
portion of the property has become a liability rather than an asset
ta the University. The remnants of the ordinance plant require
substantial upkeep fox minimal use by private renters.
6) The City would acquire the eleven hundred acres at no cost and
would assume no liability for the environmental cleanup of the
property.
7) The eity would place the �roperty in a �ax increment district
to begin development of �he property and would pledge a portion of
the tax increment for future environmental cleanup problems.
A very preliminary draft of this concept was presented to Gus
Donhowe and he responded with the following concept;
1 ) The University needs to get "something" out of this deal and
if the �.and �.s nvt worth anything we' 11 have to find some other way
of providing the University with something they need.
2) The University has three coa]. fired heating plants on their
Minneapolis campus. The University presently takes the fly ash from
those plants to a land fill in Anoka County. That land£ill will
run out of capaeity in 1994. They woulci like to site a coal ash
landfill on their property in Rosemount. (without advising us Mr.
Donhowe issued the attached letter after our second meeting
regarding the siting process for this landfill) . At our meeting Mr.
Donhowe indicatec� wliat we could "give �hem" would be to have Dakota
County and .the City of Rosemount work with The Un�.versi,ty to site
such a landfill. This "availability" will be a big issue for the
University in the near future.
3) Mr ponhowe also indicated that the idea of condemnatton should
be looked into for two reasons; a�The University may decide that
they don' t want to sell and b) the process may not fit the time
line of the City and County so condemnatian prQceeding may be
necessary to speed things up.
USPCI
Following this meeting I took the liberty of contacting Mr. Ken
Jackson, Vice President of USPCI, and discussed the iaea of that
company doing the following:
1 ) Moving their proposed Non Hazardous Solid Waste Containment
Facility to the University of Minnesota property.
2) Constructing a landfill(separate from their other) on the
Univezsity property to take the coal ash from the University.
3) Gonstruct an ash pelletization plant on the University property
to pracess the Dakota County Resource Recovery plant ash if the
pelletizat.ion process meets with environmental approvals.
4) Construct an ash monofill for the ash residual on the
University property.
Mr, Jackson was quite interested in this concept and is willing to
discuss it in more detail if it is eonsidered feasible by the city
and county.
DAKOTA COUNTY
The relationship bPtwePn the city and Dakota Coun�y in this project
was seen as follows:
1 ) The city would ��cquire the eleven hunc�red acres.
2
2) The county is considering a portion of the site to locate their
incinerator on.
3) The county will have other site needs if it wauld locate
additional waste management facilities there such as the
pelletization plant, a materials recovery facility, a permanent
compost facility and an ash monofill.
4) The county would pay a negotiated price for the property they
would need. This infusion of dollars would provide managem�nt and
maintenance funds to the city in its efforts to manage the property
and begin development efforts.
5) The location of the waste management facilities on the property
would bring "host community" fees and hopefully other, private
sector proiects infusing dollars and jobs into the community.
6) The county needed the city to acquire this site. The city was
seen as a key player here.
�t our meeting, wi�h the county on April 5th the county provided
a dif.ferent twist to the concept. They indicated that their legal
department advice is that the County has condemnation ability to
acquire the necessary praperty ta site their facilities. They also
indicated that due to the time constraints put on them hy the
project scl�edule �hat they intend to utilize those capat�ilities.
They wanted to know how we wanted to proceed.
My suggestion was that we should go back to the University aclvise
them of this latest information, tell �hem the county will proeeed,
that the city still wishes �o acquire th� remaining one thousanci
acres, to discuss the ash landfill and to proceed with discussions
on transfer of property.
This latest twist allows the county to proceed without the city' �
direct involvement although I believe the county still understands
the absolute need for our support for the siting and all future
issues relating to this pro�ect.
I believe it is imperative for us to reach consensus on this
concept, discuss our relationship with the county, the concept of
a "waste management campus" for the University site and what our
direction should be.
I am providing this information as an update and as preparation for
our work session an April 14th.
Please consider the sensittve nature of this information and please
call me with yoizr questions and comments on this mattez.
3
�
I
� UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA ott�ce ot the sen�or v�ce Pres+dent
� � tor Finance and Operalbns R E C E [V�D
TWIN CITIES
( 301 Morriit Hali
� 100 Church Street S.E. M�� � . 1���J
Minneapolfs,Mfnnesota 55455 �
(612)625-4555 CLERK'S OFFICE �
c�rv oF aos�Mourvr
March 26, 1990
Mayor Vernon Napper Mr. Steven Loeding
City of Rosemount Dakota County Canmissioner
Mr. Stephen Jilk ' Representative Dennis Ozment
Rosemount City Administrator District 376
Mr. Joseph Harris Mr. G. E. Stelzel
Dakota County Comnissioner Chairman Empire township Chairman
Mr. Lyle Wray Or. Clifford Wilcox
Dakota County Cor�nissioner U of M Agric. Experiment Station
Gen t 1 emen:
The University Physical Plant Department has expressed to me their
concern about the disposal of coal ash from the heating plants on the
Minneapolis and St. Paul Campuses. Currently, the Unlversity disposes of this
ash at a landfill in Anoka County. This landfill is scheduled to be closed
January, 1994. While there are now other landfills that may be available for
disposal of the ash, future availability is not certain. Since it appears that
landfill space will continue to decrease in the vicinity of Minneapolis dnd
St. Paul, it is important that the University investigates this concern before
it becomes acute.
We need to investigate all options f or disposal of the ash, sinee the
continued operation of the heating plants depends on the proper disposal of this
material. One possible option is the operation �of a landfill for coal ash at
the University Rosemount site. We feel that it is import�nt to keep you
informed of any potential plans we have for this site, since probiems have
occurred with disposal of waste materials at this site in the past.
Our intent, at this time, is to perform a feasibility study on the
construction of a landfill for coal ash at the University Rosemount site. To
perform this •stidy, we wi 11 be hiring an environmental consultant to perform the
necessary environmental assessment studies of this site. If thes� studies
indicate that the site has potential , we will proceed with preliminary
engineering design and economic analysis. These studies will be available for
your review.
' � Vernon Napper, et. al.
Page 2
, March 26, 1990
The studies will be managed by the Pfiysical Plant Oepartment with
assistance from the Physical Planning Department and the Environmental F�ealth
and Safety Department. The principal contact for this pro�ect at the Physical
Plant Department will be Michael Nagel , Assistant Direetor, Physical Plant,
Utilities (625-Q597) . The principal contact at Physical Planning will be
Clint Hewitt, Associate Vice President, Physical Planning (625-7355). The
principal contact at the Environmental Health and Safety Department will be
Qr. Fay Thompson, Assistant Director (626-3676).
Since the project will be managed by the Physical Plant Department,
your best contact for project detai ls and comnents wi 11 be Michael Nage1. We
intend to share with you information c�tained from this project and would
welcome your comments.
Sincerely,
G s on h e
Senior Vice President for
Finance and Operations
GM D/p j
/ �
Siting
Host Communit Ben '
y �f�ts
Communities that a�ree to host waste-to-energy plants sometimes receive
specidl compensation, or "equity adjustments."By looking at what otl�ers have
negotiated, developers, states, and hosts ean discover optiorts ta improve the
siting process.
By Allen L. White, Samuei J. Ratick, and Jeffery Himmelberger
• �he solid waste crisis has forced i�s recent cvmpensation racli
to reexamine the nature and man- resource rec�very projects.S Ourllin s ncenfew mel�NF,P11's de�il on t�f
agemenl oplicros for solid wasle. As a formation comes from our recent "significant."
resuit, we now view waste as a survey of Northeastern states plus In the second phase, later in the
heterogeneous rather than hom�- California. We then present data and 1970s, E1Ss became more powerful
geneous material and consider the analysis from Wisc�nsin. (Its 1981 tools to scrutinize the environmenkal
true, long-term costs of disposal. We Siting Act has yieided more successful repercussions of major projects. Miti-
judge each disposal option as part of a negotiated agreements for landfills gation requirements
larger system and include host com- than any other state.) Finally, we tance. Regulators required pro ect
grew in impor-
munity benefits, or equity adjustments, discuss the past and future role of proponents to present explicit str�te-
in the planning and implementation of equity adjustments, includin some
new facilities, b gies for reducing adverse impacts
This artiele examines the last of of sol dpwaste facil thes next generatian through design, engineerin�, and
lhese elements—host eommunity ben- operational measures. Furthermore, �
efits, or equity adjustments. Negotia- How Did This Start? the enactment of the Federal Water
tors use equity adjustments to correct To begin, we should view equity 1972f nd the rCle n1eAir Act rAm ndf
the imbatance between regional bene- adjustments in the context of U.S. ments of 1970, and amendments to
fits and local burdens. This imbalance environmental management policy dur- each in 1977, f�rtified earlier legisla-
occurs when developers select sites ing the last 20 years. Three distinct tion of the mid-1960s. The new laws
fc�r new or expanded solid waste phases are identifiable.
facilities. We will discuss conce tual Pxo�ded speeific standards f�r mea-
issues and look at evidence frorn Nat onalfirEnvi�Tonrnentaga pQ1�y q t S�Ne erthelesss pe���ance.
selected resource recovery and landfill the underlying prem-
sitings durin�the last decade. �EPA) in the early 1970s. Federal ise of the EIS process remained
environmental laws and their state unchanged. Praponents described im-
In the following seckion, we briefly counterparts created the framework pacts, then outlined measures to
summarize the histarical context in for assessing prc�jects with "signifi- reduce them to socially aceeptable
wlvch equity adjustments have emerged cant" environmenCal impacts. The levels. The concepts of risk, uncer-
to eva(uate how compensation evolved heart of the project review process is tainty, and compensati�n were gen-
into an integral part of state and 1aca1 the environmental impact st�tement erally absent from the process.
siting processes. Next, we focus on (EIS). The EIS anal zes a
Y proposed Landfill and resource recovery facil-
action (project, ptan, or policy) ac- ities still encountered few regulatory
Dr. White is a senior associate dt cording to avoidable and unavoidable hurdles. Moreover, they enjoyed the
the Tellus Institute and Co-Direc- physical and social impacts. It also protection of local governments and
tvr of the Risk Analysis Grvup. He examines alternatives to the proposed solid waste districts, often the own-
also is senior research associate at action, and any irreversible commit- ers, operators, or financiers for new
the Center for Technology Envi- ments of resaurces that would result. facilities.
ronment and Development (CEN- NEPA marked the start of a new era 1'he third phase started in the early
TED) at Clark University. Samuel of regulations. The federal and state 1980s. State and local agencies who
J. Ratick is a research associate governments now hold project pro- administer EISs began to recognize
professor rzt CEN?'ED, and Jeffery �onents accountable for facility im- compensation as an essential and
Himmelberger is a research assis- pacts, at least the most measurable of log�ical extension to project mitigation.
tant at CENTED. them. However, NEF'A had little effect This development evc�lved fr�m sev-
52 SOI,ID WASTE Rc PpVyERlAPRII,1990
eral trends which undersc�red the Compensation and I,iability Act (Su- sentative cross-sectian t�f all North-
we�kne5s oE the mitigation-only ap- perfund) of 1980 that facility-related eastern projecls which are in the
praaeh. issues emerged. In particular, munic- advanced planning, eonstruction, or
First, several major industrial pra- ipal landfilis lost much of their inno- operational stage.
jects propc�sed in the late 1960s and cence; federal regulators discovered We identified eight categories of
197(?s were defeated. (�xamples in- that as many as 20 percent of all compensation measures:
clude the proposed BASF chemical Nadonal Priority List{Superfttnd) sites (1) community particxpation and
comp�ny in South Caro(ina, the Uow were traditional landfills. These reve- empowerment, ineluding all types of
Chemical piant in the San Francisco lations made it harder for regions to local involvement, control, and author-
re�ion, and the SOHIO oil terminal site new facilities. ity over construction, operations, and
and refinery in Long Beach, Calif.) States en�cted hazardous waste closure;
These projects met stiff oppositi�n facility siting laws in rapid succession (2) public service payments, such as
from communities �hat feared air in the early 198(?s. By 1982, at least road, sewer and water, pc�lice and fire
emissions, wastewater discharges, 30 states had enacted hazard�us services;
damage to coastal zones, chemical and waste facility siting laws. Virtually a(t (3) payments in lieu of taxes
oii spills, and loss of recreationa( cantained some form of host com- (PILOT), when payments offset fiscal �
areas. munity.compensation. This trend has losses from land removed fiom tocat
tax rolls;
Table 1:State Regulatory Requirements for Host Community Compensatian for Resource �4� �onEtary payments based On
Recovery Facilities faCllity use, such as per-tonnage fees
---�--,—�. .�� and surcharges, or a percentage of
State CompensatJon Type' Remarks ProSS TevenUeS;
t 2 3 a 5 s 7 8 (5) insurance and trust funds,
beyond those required by state laws,
oeiawa ecut None to assure adequate financial resources
Ma�ne x N°"e for conting�ncies and closure;
nnassachusens x x (6) special services and nts such
nnaryiand None as block grants to cover difficult to
New Hampshire None
New Jersey X uenf '
q ify quality-of-iife or stigma irn-
New York X Npne pBCtS;
Pennsylvania X
Rhode Island X X Proposed ('� pro rt valUe
Vermont Pe Y guarantees, to
None assure households protecti�n against
�Key depreciated house values owing to
1 Community Participation and Empowerment a8StI1Bt1C, heaith and safety risks,
2 �'b'�s�""°e Pay",e"ts noise, odor, and other localized im-
3 Payments in Lieu of Taxes(P1t07)
4 Monetary Payments gesed on Facility Use p8Ct5; ana
5 Insurance and Trust Funds (8� �OCa� �I1Ci11� 811(� procurement
6 Special Services and Grants
� P�o�rty Value GuaraMees pO�lC1�S, to enlarge the host c�m-
8 Local Kiring and Prpcurement Policies 1]lUtilCy's share of jobs and income
generated by facility construction and
operation.
This series of abarted large-scale slowly�enetrated solid waste planning Table 1 presents a summary of
projecis illustrated that an organiaed and policy-making. Sc�me states have state-level compensation measures
host communi ty cou l d use the F,IS passed legislati�n ta this effect. �n required under existing or proposed
process to delay and uitimately defeat others, the trend has surfaced as part legislation. We found only two states
a proposed facility. This could occur of negotiations between developer and with more than one measure.
even though the region would receive host community. Over time, compen-
sizable benefits Erom the project. If sation has become vital to successful Distribution o��enefit Types
mitigation measures were all a propo- siting of new solid waste facilities. We counted the compensation mea-
nent could of#er, continued local With this historical background in sures used for each facility in our
opposition and failed proposals would mind, we turn to an overview of the survey. The most eommon (used in 16
be inevitable. 6ndings from our recent studies e�f of the 57 surveyed) were m�netary
The second factor was the "dis- c�mpensation practices. payments and cammunity participation
covery" of toxic wastes in the late and empowerment. These measures
1970s. This led to increased aware- Resource Recovery ranged fr�m a $,50,Q(� fund for host
ness of the scope and severity �f the Compensation communities in Maine to about
waste problem, in all its forms. In We studied the equity adjustments $100,OQ0 paid t� C'lizen Advisory
1976, the Toxic Substances Contro( as of 1987 for resource recovery Committees in New Yc�rlc City. In
Act and the Resource Conservation facilities across li Northeastern states Modesto, Calif., the developer negoti-
and Kecovery Act mandated controls plus California. The results reveal the ated an innovative on-line air emissions
on a variety of hazardous substances. wide range of specific measures which monitoring provision. While these
However, it was n�t until the Gom- communities have adc�pted in recent measures give host. communities sig-
prehensive Environmental Respc�nse, years. The survey includes a repre- nificant control over facility planning
54 S�I.ID WASTE&F'OWERlAPRIt,1990
and operati�n, lhey are si�;nificantly provements to infrastruclirral re uire-
narr��wer tttan most hazardous wasle ments during [acility construclion and environmental, he�lth, and
q plant generates marginal additions to
provisions. in particular, the em- operati�n. We identified PILOTs, risks. Some contracts therefaresbase
Powerment measures in certain haz- historically one of the least contested offsettin
ardous and low-level radioactive waste eompensation measures, in nine pro- Our survey fpund 17 cases of su
laws assign stronger monitoring and jects, g PaYments on units of waste.
surveillance auth�rity to host com- ch
Moneta � PaYrnents, rangin� from a mandatoty
munilies. r'Y p yments, either lump $1 per ton minimum in New 1ei'sey to
Wc idenlified sum or pro rala, are rapidly bec�ming $2 per ton in New York. Table 2
public seroice pay- a non-negc�tiable item in sitin re-
ments in eight projects, ranging from source recovery facilities. Pro rata or negotiated pro rata a
8 provides exampies of state mandated
� new rc�ad conslruction to sewer up- payments have a particularly compel- in the$1-2 range. p �ents falling
grade and water supply expansion. ling rationale. Each additional unit of We did not find any insuranc
Agreements normally tie these im- waste handled al a waste-to-energy e and
Table 2:Selected Pro Rata
Monetary Payments
• �
� . � Locatlon Amount
Massachusetts $1.QQ ton
� , w/escalator
Rhode lsland greater of
$2.00Ron or
• , � $.5 milllonlyr
Wallingford,Conn. $1.50Non
New Jersey $t.�/ton
minimum
�"1°�" Ev�+ro�utoani sEc�,�. �,�,Y New York $2.00/ton
a's""� ���� ��'�'" E��" EroNO�" Pennsylvania
-� $1.00lton
.
- proposed
x x. z x x, x k X x Westchester County, N.Y. $1.00/ton out
of county waste
��� Warcen County,N.J.
��cow�wr _ _ $2,00lton
�""E"TF" �c*ior+�up.�wv�w SO°'�"$ York County, Penn.
ECONOMRER'�FEEDWATER $1.�/ton
sur�rw�rEo /�'�"A0R11A B1'"�'�'"`�"E w/2%esCalatol'
� BTEAM pUTLEf �---��-�---7�
- _--
. �_. ____.__'_
II--
"`�°"� trust fund measures in our survey.
"'. - - -.,;��«,r
These are more common in ha2ardous
�° and radioactive waste projects. Such
�` ��, projects have a greater risk of cata-
�"� °�_` � � , strophic accidents, and generally re-
��,�� � �� ��.� � w quire more elaborate closure methods �
�'� ��� , and long periods of monitoring and �
�`�� ��� institutional care.
,_>;: �
� "���� �"� We found a dozen instances of � �
" " ����� special services and grants in our
�� , �or��igat t�v�i�r��������i��l �blid W�§�i� ���i����tlt�h, �i� #g"�: �� �� sample. As we e�ected, the most
��� Am�ric�n ��h�ck. 11i��s�l��ntrate��5 provldi�i �
� en�e in h��fil��i��������y1��y�m�n��.�����������p�a����e �'°�' common was some form of free,
� ' reduced, or fixed fee for waste
� 1'oir�t, DE �r� e�i�d+�1� #�r���g���r�titsf�.�-�t��{��� �g�y �Ign� ` disposal. tn other cases, negotiators � �
g����f�d W�fh �+� �����ie �dil�r� re�uif�s W�t�ruy��hir��g gv�fy ��< have praposed or agreed to
14.monfhs versus�3 m+ant�i intlustry stanci�rd. yearly
(7ur reputation is ba�etl i5��Imost 3�ysar3�t su�ce�.,ful�x�ri- angeenAnother50a ant,u sed in illton
ence with heat transfer in dirty media of afl type�, he
For further information t�r�these and other waste he�t rect�v�� Modesto, Catif., and Peekskill, N.Y.,
instalfatfons, please Circle zan � � projects, ties grants to electricity
AMERICAN SCHACK COMPANY,INC.,Box 11006,Plttsbu gh,p sales. From the communit 's
15237 412/935-5725 FAX:d12/935-6580 spective, these may be riskier h n
pro rata payments. Energy sales
contracts often base payments c�n
displaced, or avoided, costs of con-
' � vent�onal fuels. Under these condi-
� � tions, high oil and gas prices yield
lucrative revenue streams. When fuel
prices dr�p, however, host eommunity
5C S�I,ID W�S�'��PpWrR/APR1t.1990 P�YTnents decline.
We did not identify property value with trends in the resource recovery ask developers to cover their expen-
guarantees as part of any compensa- area? While we cannot directly com- ses. Similarly, Maine and New York
U�n package. (New York State and a pare the measures, some features are City's community and borough in-
speeific facility in New Hampshire clear. First, negotiation and local volvement programs consider funding
indicated such guarantees were under advisory committee assistance for to be essential for timely public
discussion.) As with insurance and landfills is similar to citizen participa- participation. Of course, citizen em-
lrusl funds, this measure is more tian and empowerment for resource powerment is a(so a means for
common f�r other types of waste recovery projects. This category of negotiating other etements of the
faci}ities. We expect that future com- campensation is by far the most cotnpensat.ion package.
pensation packages will include this common in pur survey. Second, resource recovery com-
more frequently. This outcome is not surprising. pensation is, on average, cvnsiderably
Finally, Icacal hiring and procurement Since communities in Wisconsin must more luerative t� host communities
policies were neither required nor form negotiating committees to retain than landfiil compensatian. Of the 26
neg�tiated for projects sampled in our their rights, it is logicai for them to landfill host communities, 18 received
survey. This measure, often used in
major public construction projeGts, has
yet to find a place in siting resource From MAGNATECH. . .
recovery facilities.
Lessons From Landfills
0
We separately surveyed landfill �
projects, both new and exp�nsions,
t�ecause the siting prablems are similar. '
As with resource recovery facilities,
(andfill siting agreements increasingiy �
include monetary and non-monetary 'a;, +I� y�a���
equity adjustments. ,��i y+ ,9�5� �
Wisconsin has compiled perhaps the __ 4�
longest track record in landfill com- � ;;`�.''��;:'� �
, pensation agreements as a result of a � �
1981 law which provides strong
incentives for host community-de- '` '
veloper negotiations. Under the law, A shredder syst�m that meets
when a develc�per sites a landfill, lhe
host municipalities may f�rm local
committees to negotiate. (The ve- your needs, not somebody
partment of Natural Resources han-
dies technical approvals separately.) If �►'Se�s` �J'�a��s` ��Qta.
a host cor:ununity chooses not to
participate in negotiations, it forfeits As independent consultants, no reason to use one brand of
its ability to influence the conditions of Magnatech has only one s#an- machine when another would
the facilily's operations and to receive dard to meet—your exact shred- perform better.
compensation from khe project pro- ding needs. Your system is design�d with
ponent. We have no sales quotas,no blind components of any brand on the
Through December 1988, the Facili- aliegiance to a specific supplier, market,high-speed or slow-speed,
ly Siling Roarct, which oversees the new ot'used,based on the needs
� negotiation process,received 3'L signed of your application. And nothing
agreements for various waste facilities. else.
We reduced the list to 26 for further At Magnatech, there's only pne
study.
As we expected, given the nature standard—meeting your require-
and goals of the Siting Act, direct Call Ot' ments at the lov�st possibie cost!
payment for negotiation expenses �S write for
the most common form of compensa-
ti�n. Pro rata and special payments, C�@�I�S ��
or uote.
financial support for (�cal advis�ry .� Q
���
committees, and privileged waste ,,,.;-„p.�
disposal fees also occur in over half of �WAGNATECH
t.he agreemenls. I.ess frequently, the
agreetnenls include pubiic service g���Graveman: Route 2, Box 1-M Don Graveman: P.O. Box 52
payments (mainly road improvements) Tonganoxie, Ks ssoss st.Charles, MO 63302
and property value guarantees. (913)845-3553 (314)949-0096
il�w do ihese measures compare FAX:(913)845-3563 FAX:(314)723-7879
CIRCLE 139 ON READER SERVICE CARp
SOLID WASTE R�POWER/APPIL 1990 57
` '.�',< �� .
�
a �
��� less than R5O0 thc�asand in total ment to puhiic service a
= henefits over lhe life af the f�cilit . a p Yments,
+.,� Y p Yments in lieu of taxes, pro raia
��a �� t�c+wever, resource reeovery hosts fees, special grants, and properiy
� Snmetimes receive this amount per value gaarantees.
,year just in pro rata monetaty pay- tn our review ��f abc�ut 75 facilities,
ments. we uncovered a wide range of equiiy
� We can p�rtly expl�in this difference packages, which rPflect the legal,
by the smaller size oi I�ndfilis. AO but political, and economic settings in
�f � � eight of the surveyed land611s are less which negotiations occtrr. �rom a
$� than one million tans total capacity. monetaty standpoint, the resalts are
�ir
' That rc�ughly equ�ies ko three years' impressive. Some resour
ce recovery
� � F capacity at a 1,(�-tnn-per-day re- facilities pay as much as $t-2 miliion
source recovery facility. per year to host cc�mmunities in pro
f ` � ' 13eyond the scale tactor, we believe rata a
that risk p Yments atone, aside from olheY
perception and uncertainty benefits.
'?� �. - play a role in determining compensa-
E '�e�'�� ' tion levels. i,�ndfilis are a familiar �At boe�v the Future No1d?
' -7 � technology, are relatively commc�n, Snlid waste facilities �re n�f yel
,: ;� �� and historicaNy have handled wasles suhject lo the inlense I�c�i cc�nlrol
` � '�•. °x primarily from only lhe host j�risdic- exercised hy c�mmunities hc�sting
i,,` i {� i
�f tion. In contrast, resource recovety hazardous waste facifities. They may
�> � ����J► �,1 facilities represent a relativel n w
� , y e never reach this point L•ecause their
, ,{ ��'�',��� technology with unfamiliar and debat- risks are substantiaQy less. in anq
�'' ..,"�, E ` �ft�:: ��;� ' �:' able risks. They are far less common case, integrated management strategies
and often receive wastes from weil also wifl shift wastes to recycling and
i ` � beyond the host community. Further- compost facilities.
more, most res�urce recovety pro- While compens�lion p�cka�es tep-
; , ; jects began during an era ot height- resent an essential tonl in achieving
; ened sensitivity to risk, uncertainty, fair siting solutions, they �te by no
� and equity issues. In sum, resource means the only equity appraach. The
� � recovety hosts have better negotiating strategy of sharing risks amonq c�m-
leverage because of the current social, munities complements the sharing of
; political, and re�alatory environment. benefits. Such a str�tegy means
The Trends So Far ap�-scaling and spreading facilities so
i more, rather than fewer, cc�mmunities
� The principle of c�mpensation t� become hosts. Variants�f this ide�are
' � offset residua) risks started in the already visible in selected waste siting
' early 198qs for hazardous waste processes, including the salid waste
, facilily siting. Gradually, it has become strategy of New Yc�rk City and the
; part c�f solid waste facility siting. This I�w-level radioactive waste strategies
� evolution reflects the change in solid af Ehe Northeast and Northwest
wasle management. from a minor Radic�active Waste Compacts.
�ublic �licy iasue k� �ne of crisis Whether risk-sharinA atrategies are
proporti�ns. $ecause of past mis- sensible from a cost-effectiveness and
't ` .. ; "; �� ,� management �f hazard�us wastes, total risk standpoint rem�ins an open
�� F�'�� public sensitivity t�environmental risk question. But if the last five years are
,Is t�t.5d I�p��iQtlt� y" has changed from minimal to acute. a reliable redictor
? , inrrovativ!fnl�3��,�nd U , 1���Y-makers wi1F �
� ,PCI EnArpy$���,',� r; � The facility siting dilemma sits at the be forced to create and work with a
�:�the PCI t�3f�t��•, ; interseetion of these two trends. diversity of instruments to enhance �
�'' +� d1v�t�1f��;� ReAi�ns must frnd ways to offset the equity aspects of khe waste siting
.' H1chldfng tihABtWaiet 1� exhausted lanclfills. Communities cio process. �
f� � Ce�tltl�d AiAeRI�Jj� ' not want to hnst new facilities with
�'` welding,lAcludt�ur�e�w,gt�t�� seemin�ly uncertain risks. Allen L. Whir.e carx be reache� at
'� 's Cr��ttv��►�gy�+(� The imbalance of facility benefits 1'ellt�s Inst.ilu.Ee, Inc.; 89 Broad
� pCl:We't�iir�t In�fl�Id.Ca6 t��� � ' and burdens makes equity considera- Streel; Boston, MA 0211 p; (617)
� <�
2a-Naur�allRebjfAneA�tl�it�� ;�+�`_ tions an integral part of this new siting 426-5844. Samtcel J. Rcrtr.ck c�n he
� t3�2)eeaAtOtl As��orMr,k�u , landscape. Fquity adjustments are as reached at the Center For T�chn.olo-
,c�a.e ae a�t�to�t
;'� ., crucial as traditi�nal miti�;ation ap- �y F,n.vironment. �n�l Development
' f , ';",i R►'�aches in environmental assess- (CF,NTF,n); Clark 17nir.Arsity, Wnr•-
� Y'"�� ..: mc�nts. Such adjusl.ments have
en- cest.er, h/A Ot�t(I; (.508) 7.51_46(Jg,
f « '��'�'�'"'!0� compassed a wide array of monetary Je/j�'ery Himmell�erger can also he
^�E'�`+��D,'�► r �nd non-monelary measures, ranRinq reached cct CFNT'F,I); (6�8) 761-
�'�'�'� �'F from vari�us forrns of local empower- 4615.
g�,�aa���r��
58 sor.rr�wnsTr�,ro�vFR�nrRtt,�s�►
January 18, 1990
NOTES
Steve Jilk
DAKOTA COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY PROJECT
HOST COMMUNITY
l . Base Rate $1 . 50 per ton at opening of facility
rate. This rate to increase along with
dumping fee rate to facility: example - if
opening day rate is $75 .00/ton $i . 50 wauld be
2 percent of total
If $75 .00 goes up to $80 (7% increase per
ton) the $1 . 50 would increase to $1 . 61
At 800 tons per day X 52 X 6 = 249 , 600
tons/yr.
249 ,600 X 1 . 5 = $374,400/yr.
249 ,600 X 1 .61 = $401 ,856/yr.
249,600 X 2.00 = $499, 200/yr.
249, 600 X 2. 14 = $534, 144/yr.
Note : Minneapolis sponsoring $3.30/ton charge
legislation.
2. Seeondary Rate - 1/2 estimated tax which would be paid if
plant was private - to be reduced by 50 cents on the dollar
for taxes generated off of new private/taxable property on
University site .
3. No cost to city to upgrade any of designated haul roads and
160th.
4 . Pay half cost of one environmental engineer and clerica� for
the Cit�y (USPCI, Koch, Dixie to pay other) and consulting
fees to monitor and review reports.
5 . Use water system at University now - don' t add big tank at
ol� City Hall .
Up size wells at Incinerator and plug into system for
munieipal on east side - 2nd tower on University site (N.E.
corner) �or all east Rosemount which would initially provide
fire protection water from hydrants then to extend to
complete system for industrial development .
j���
August 30, 1988 Joint Coun#y/C1#y Nleetin�
Presentation hy Mnyor Floke
I. NISTORY/BACKGROUND/INTRO
Issue of Solid Waste in General
A. County and City Staff involvement in recent times goes back to
198p on siting of landfills as required by the 19�3Q Waste
Management Act.
1. Rosemount originally had three landfill search areas out of
2U in the entire County.
2. The list was narrowed to seven; two stiil located in
Rosemount
3. The process was Mighly charged and emotional . The NIMBY
syndrome was appalling.
4. Rosemount was the only city that took the hanorable
position that landfills were everyone's problem and the
City had an obligation� to respect the process and deal with
the problem --- not avoid it.
5�. The law required each of the seven counties tv identify at
least four sites that could be certified by Met Council as
suitable for sanitary iandfills.
6. Rosemount ended up with two of three certified in Dakota
County; one in Pine Bend, one on the U of M property.
B. The need for a "Land is osal Abatement Plan." required by the
WMA, was initiated by the County in a study in 1982 =_=>
Methods Identified:
* Waste Reduction
* Waste Separation
* Waste Processing
* Resource Recovery
1. Due to the County's mandatory role in Solid Waste and the
City's distinctipn as a probable waste designation center,
interest in recycling and ather waste m�nagement
alternatives was a mutual concern.
2. In the spring of 1984, the City and County began researeh
fior a pilot recycting program in Rosemount.
a. An RFP was distributed in November� 1984.
b. A single bid was received in January, 1985.
c. A number of c i rcumstances 1 ed to the rea ect i on of the
sole bid, including the City's participation in the
discussions with NSP for a resaurce recovery facility
as an alternative to Land Disposal
3. the negotiations with NSP in 1985 and subseq�aent
negotiations with Westinghouse and PLM reflected the
increasing pressure to seek mandated alternatives to
landfilling.
4. 7he City was very much involved in the latter proposal � as
infarmal siting leaned toward a Rosemaunt location for an
RDF facility.
5. The City's interest in recycling and waste processing, as
well as its disinterest in landfilling, complimented the
County's pursuit of the RbF project.
2
6. When the commitments from Westinghouse disappeared and the
tax laws changed, the negotiations on the RDF faciTity
collapsed.
7. The County essentially started the process for resource
recovery over with a formal RFP, formal siting process and
now the selection of Combustion Engineering as the vendor
to construct a mass burn facility.
�
II. PRESENT ISSUES - PERSPECTIVE
A. The past sumnary see�s tv �ake the pracess appear to have been
simple and very calculated --- but the staff involved over the
years and, perhaps, some of the County Board members, know
differently.
- 1. The time involvement leading to the present solid waste
management strategy has been extraordinary. No one knows
this better than the County.
2. Yet the City's involvement has also been extraordinary---
dating back to the early, emotional days of landfill
siting, efforts to kick off recycling in nakota County, and
recent years as the sole community involved in resource
recovery.
B. The "New" City Council does not have the advantage of
witnessing the years of activity in this area, other than
reading or listening to a summary, such as was just presented.
1. All decisions regarding the type of tacility and the siting
of the facility occurred prior to the inductton af the
majority of the present City Council .
2. A single presentation on the resource recovery project has
' been made before the present City Council � which was an
update by the County at a special meeting in January.
3
3. Almost all of the general information we h�ve received on
resource recovery faciTities, whether from city staff ar
county staff� suggests that the number one issue is siting
and the host co�unity� which brings us up to date and the
purpose of this joint meeting of the County Board and City
Council .
III. THE NEXT STEP - HOSt C(�MUNITY
A. Because of the amount of ti�e that has lapsed leading to the
selection of a vehdor� the amount of time that the City af
Rosemount has been invo�ved in the process and the overwhelming
pressure for the County to kee� on schedule with solid waste
management, some critical issues and steps in the process seem
to have fa�len through the cracks.
1. We have attempted to evaluate the status of the project and
identify the concerns that face the City at this criticat
juncture.
2. The City Council has not acted formaily on the County's
resource recovery project.
3. There has been no application or proposal to actually take
any action vn.
4. There have been no discussions between the Cvunty Board and
the City Council regarding impacts or benefits of the
facility.
5. In short, we feel the good relationship the City and County
have always had, coupled with a unique and very complicated
project and process, have perhaps allowed us to overlook
some serious issues --- issues that need resolution befare
the City should be expected to act in any formal fashion.
4
B. Role of the Nost Conmunity
1. As the process for pursuing a resource rec�very facility
continue$� the involvement of the host community will
obviously increase.
2, As we have witnessed the process in Nennepin County, we
have seen increasing publicity and mvunting publie concern
over incineration.
3. We know that the permitting process becomes more complex
with each new proposal , as the agencies involved become
more attentive to public opposition.
4. We know, now that the County has awarded a contract to
Combustion Engineering� that the lobbying efforts of
incineration opponents will be focused on the permitting
process of the PCA� and eventualty that of the City of
Rosemount.
� 5. At this point, we feel the City must be totally aware of
the issues at hand, in order to respond� under public
pressure, to the details of the County's proposal and the
impacts and implications of the public facility.
C. Environmental Imp�ct of the Facility
1. Whether real or perceived, there are a number of
environmental concerns that the City must deal with and be
knowledgeable of, ranging from air quality, truck traffic
and noise to composting and ash disposal .
2. We appreciate being involved in many of the meetings with
the PCA.
5
r
3. There continue ta be some major unknowns about the project
-- we assume this concerns the County as well -- these
include which site, if not both sites� will be permitted;
what is the actual timing of the permit process for either
site; are there significant cost differences in developing
one site over the other; what is the status of composting
at the resource recovery site; where is the Tong-term
disposal of "rejects" gaing to be directed; and where wi11
the incinerator ash be disposed of?
4. The answers to these questions� as well as a general
knowledge of the known and perceived risks associated with
a mass burn incinerator, must be understood or the City
Council will be at the disadvantage of inerely shrugging its
shoulders to such public inquiries.
5. Lacking the answers to these questions� and others posed by
the unsuspecting public and the professional antagonists�
clearly jeopardizes the City's capability of supparting the
project with any degree of certainty or responsibility.
D. Economic Impact of the Facility
1. Major projects in the City of Rosemount are evaluated on
the basis of their economic impact upon the community.
2. This analysis includes review of tfie City's capability and
exposure in providing services.
3. It includes an assessment of public reaction and
acceptability.
4. It inciudes the evaluation of known and potential risks,
both financial and environmental , that are associated with
the projecf.
6
5. And finally, it includes an evaluation of the benefits to
the community, such as property taxes and employment
opportunities, which wilt offset the provision of iocal
services and hopefully mitigate any negative impacts.
IV. SUM�IARY -- CQUNTY/CITY C(�MITMENtS
A, NOST C(NrMUNITY INGENTIVES
1. At this point there have been no serious discussiar�s vn
either the negative impacts of the garbage incinerator or
the potential benefits to the host co�nunity.
2. The nature of the project is such that tfie negative impacts
become known or perceived as a resuit of the publicity and
opposition to the incinerator and its implications for
risks.
3. The time has come to sit down and summarize the impacts
facing the City as thoroughly and quickly as possible.
4. Similarly, it is imperative that discussions on host
community incentives begin irt�nediately.
5. Based upon information the City has received from the
Coanty and has generated on its own, there is a
considerable range of incentives or fees that host
communities receive.
B. County/City negotiations
1. The City Council formally requests that negotiations begin
immediately to determine equitable host community
incentives.
2. The City has been accormnodating the needs of the entire
County in its participation in the process to date.
7
3. This participation has included considerable staff
resources over the years and out of pocket expenses.
4. To make the project work successfully and be pubiicly
" acceptable we feel the incentives should be of the highest
caliber.
i
5. We have definite ideas in this regard that are intended ta
be very definite local incentives, yet, prov�de very
credible County benefits, as well .
C. City Proposals for Nost Incentives
The following are general recommendations from the City of
Rosemount, which we ask the County Board to support, and
identify as the framework for specific negotiations to follow:
1�. The Gounty has suggested in the past that the City may
benefit from some spinoff industry, resulting from the
resource recovery project; hence� economic development is
the overall theme of the City's incentive "package." This
obviously benefits the County, as wetl as the City.
2. To assist the City in attracting additional development we
ask the County to palitically and financially assist the
City in securinq special legislation as a Port Authority.
3. In similar fashion, we seek the County's support and
assistance in examining the feasibility far the creation of
a municipal utility company� creating additional incentives
to attract major industry to the area.
4. We ask that a payment in lieu of property taxes, most
likely based on a tonnage fee, be two-tiered in concept:
the first being a typical payment in lieu of taxes, basQci
on national averages; the second being an economic
development fund, which would ultimately be elimir��ted as
income from new development is generated.
8
5. We ask that other casts and expenses be recuperated from
the County� not unlike reimbursement from the private
sector, such as development fees and dedications, out of
pocket expenses and assistance with any special needs, such
as public safety training and equipment.
6. We are aware of many other incentives that host communities
have received in addition to direct payments, such as
public utitity improvements, public roadway improvements
and public building improvements, and would hope that these
are considerations as well .
7. The County has also indicated that a materials recavery
facility will be co-located with the incinerator.
Consideration should be given for a privately owned �nd
operated facility rather than publicly owned.
V. CONCLUSION
This presentation is intended to outline our interests in the
resource recovery project, as weli as our concerns, We have
assisted and cooperated with the Caunty since the beginning of this
project. We trust our concerns can be addressed adequately and we
look forward to seeing the project successfully completed. .
We felt it was necessary to utilize a joint meeting such as this to
discuss a project of such magnitude for the County and City.
While we request no formal action by the Board at this time� we are
interested in your reactions to our position, individually and
collectively. ,
It is important for the City to have an understanding of the
Board's ideas and direction at this time.
Thank you for this opportunity. We welcome your comments.
9
. �
Rosemount vvants `
. .
1ncl�erator bonus
By Richard Chin �s•� The meeting was held at the�
s�ar�w���er , Minneapolis Marriott City Cen-
Rosemount officials are pro- tec hotel. It preceded a dinner
'posing lhat Dakota County help hosted by Combustion Englneer-
them create a port authority jng Inc., the Windsor, Conn.,
_ and a loeal ulility company if� fitm that has been awarded the
the counly bullds a garbage-ta contract to build and run the
energy incinerator in the city. g�rbage ,tnclnerator for the.
The proposals are part of a county. ;`• .
list of incentives Rosemoq�t of- Ii�ke said the cltq wanfs pa .
ficials suggested that the:clty lltieal and finanelal help from
receive f rom the county it� re- the county to get special legisla-
turn €or being the host commu- tion to create a port aulhorIty,
nity; for the ;126.8 million which could use additional tax-
project. ing powcr and bonding authort-
' Tlie county is planning to ty to promote new development
build the 800-ton-a-day project In the city,
al one of two sites in eastern Hoke also said the city wants ,
Rosemaunt near the Pine Bend help from the county to create a
area. � k public utility company. Hoke
Hosemount��Mayor Rotlan SBid the clty could use a uEility
Hoke said the c�ity has taken no companq ta try to lure new de-
official positIoq`for or against veiopment by offering cheap en-
the project.But;at a olnt meet- �rgy from steam produced by
� the garbage plant.
ing between the city council and ��oke sald the utilit com an
county board Tuesday, Hoke Y,� P Y
said the city should get some- also mlght ack as a oker for
thin g in return if tbe p r o j e c t i s energy irom a natural gas-fired
to be successfuland publicly ac- electricity generator project
r.eptcd. Ple�se see Rosemount/5D
�
.
„ �;
_7hursday,SepL t, 1988 _ SL Paul Pioneer Preas Dispatch p 5�
•
.1�.45�
m n n.0 e ed
/ In ar o s
� ou t �inerato b
�
:ConUnued from Paqe iD f�oke said he could not estlmate held a meeting at an Eegan bowl- agreed to the concept of providing
-being proposed by a private part- what the total costs of the pra ing atley Tuesday to dtseuss the Is- the city wtth some incentives for
�nership in lhe area. posed incentives would be. He said sue. She said recyciing and other accepting the project.But at'fues-
city officiais also want to get more methods of garbage disposal will dey s meeting,county officIals said
� Hoke proposed that`the county information from the county about cceate more jobs than the incinera- theq could not respond to the city's
:pay the cily a fee to rEplace prop- the possible environmental rlsks of tor. specific requests for Incentives,
�erCy taxes from the qite of the the project, saying they would be discassed !n
� ro ect. 1�e said the coMt should Michael Orange, an inc(nerator $
p � y Opponents ko the incinerator opponent who attended the Eagan future ne otiations.
'pay for public improvenenk costs praject have sai� it will create air meeting,said,"We didn't meet in a After the meeting, abaut 15 citq
and other expenses,including well- pQliukion and gensrate toxlc asfi. faney hotei,but I would predlct our and county officials and their
tcslitrg fur homes neat the area information!s better than tfieirs." 3Pauses got free drinks and dlnner
:whece tt►e caunty chooses to bury County board candidate Dee at the Combustion Engineering re-
;ash from lhe incinei•alor: Richards,who opposes the project, County offietals have previously ception.
.... A .._ ' • ,. ,...�. .....�.„�.�..�•,
�
. >
TO: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: DEAN JOHNSON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: APRIL 12, 1990
SUBJ: APRIL 14, 1990 COUNCIL WORKSHOP
"EAST END" DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION TOPICS
In response to your request, I offer the following "outline" of issues that may serve to
focus our discussions on development in the "east end." Pve attached some policies and
graphics from the Comprehensive Guide Plan, as welL
I. URBAN VS. RURAL
As the guide plan indicates, eastern Rosemount is in the Rural Service Area.
Our policies for development require that businesses be self-supporting from
a public utility standpoint. Are utility provisions a possibility -- politically?
economically?
II. LAND INVENTORY
There is a large area already designated in the Guide Plan for industrial
e�ansion. Most of this area is zoned Industrial General already. A
significant portion of this is undeveloped. Is there a need to e�and the
area further? Is there a market for additional development? Do ownership
records (i.e., Koch) suggest there is less land to develop than we think?
What additional land and where should we consider e�pansions?
III. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Pine Bend is currently designated a non-attainment area (air quality). What
type of industry is compatible with the current competition for "air space:'
A rural water system has been constructed in the area, but sized for
development at a one home per ten acre equivalent. Can we encourage
development without public water availability? Koch and USPCI have made
inquiries into connections to the Rosemount WWTP for "environmental°
reasons. Capacity at the plant may be limited to an additional 1,000 single
family connections (5 years?). Should we look at public sewer potential
from an environmental standpoint, with an outlook for development
potential? Is this politically (Metro) and economically (local and Metro)
feasible?
IV. U OF M VS. PINE BEND DEVELOPMENT
Is it feasible to consider two major development concepts, both involving
huge land areas and the same urban vs. rural policies? Are they self-
competing? Is there a market for both? Would the City over e3rtend itself
in attempting to provide services to both?
V. OTHER PUBLIC SERVICES
Aside from public utilities, all developrnent proposals create impacts of one
degree or another on police, fire and public works. Fire protection, in
particular, is an issue when we don't have a volunteer firefighter population
anywhere near the east end. A remote fire hall is apparently not a solution
without volunteers in the proximity. We implemented stringent sprinklering
code requuements in response to this. The City has defended them as
being cost effective and in the public interest. Will the development
community perceive them as cost prohibitive, unless we can provide public
water (No. I)?
� 1t�UUJ1RIHL LK."iL U.7L lLAiV .
rail transportation systems. Typical genez
Objectives processing and heavy manufacturing, large-:
� ' distribution centers, outdoor storage yardf
1. To provide industrial development in order to create diver- general commercial uses are permitted only
sified employment opportunities and a balanced tax base. the general industrial activities.
� 2. To ensure that industrial development occurs such that conflicts Although the plan depicts general industria
with the natural environment and other land uses are minimized, Service Area, it is the intent of the City
general industrial uses to the Pine Bend Ir
� Plan Elements � Rosemount. Since Pine Bend is in the Rura3
and sewer services. will not be provided to
Rosemount presently has significant areas of industrial development, developments prior to 1990. Thus, all gene
� as well as large tracts of vacar►t land in industria2 zoning districts. provide private/on-site sewer systems; the
In order to minimize conflicts between industrial activities and general industry which requires public sani
other land uses, and to keep industries of similar types consolidated, `
two types of industrial areas are proposed and depicted--industrial Industrial Policies
� park areas and general industrial areas.
It shall be the policy of the City to:
Industrial Parks
� 1. Require that all industrial developme_nt
Industrial park areas are intended to serve light industrial uses as location so as to minimiae or eliminate
well as general office development and aupporting commercial servi�e natural environment and other land u�.e:
� uses. Generally, industrial parks are developed under one single tial and recreation.
ownership, but, in any event, development must occur in a coordinated
fashion that demonstrates future phasing capability (if applicable); 2. Require that both proposed aad existinF
an internal circulatioa system with limitad access to collectors and demonstrate to the City its ability to
� arterials (and no access to residential areas or local residential Environmental Protection Agency and MP(
streets); high standards of planning, architectural and landscaping effluent limitations, as required by t�
design which remain consistent throughout the park; adequate buffering
� {through the use of extra-ordinary setbacks and/or effective screening) 3. Require that ail on-site, industrial w�
from adjacent residential uses; and no outdoor storage, Typical indus- systems be designed, installed, locatec
trial park uses include warehousing, distribution, light assembly, and to the requirements of the City's Subdi
� wholesaling as well as office uses and commercial uses that clearly well as adopted building codes and WF'C-
support, are fneideatal to, or complement the industrial park (e.g.,
office supplies and services or restaurants that serve employees). 4. Require that industrial parks be planne
� Industriai par3cs are intended to be developed within the Urban Service in a logical and visually-appealing fas
Area, ad�acent to an arterial or collector street. adjacent land uses and future industria
General Industrial 5. Underwrite the saie of Industrial Devel
� for aew or expanding industries if the
General industrial areas are those reserved exclusivelq for industries demonstrates: a) significant employn�en
requiring large sites and/or exterior storage. The general industrial systems or conservation; or c) the mand
� areas are located so as to minimize adverse effects on adjacent land control device installation.
uses and to be well-served by arterial roadways as well as barge and
,�� 6. Initiate the development of an industr�
� 15
���-"
� �� // I kl �� � ` �
�'., % �I �� �-- �� ��� ��
\\\ill
,, n� `
� „�
,t �. � \
- .._ ____.._ . _
� ----
,u j — ,
� ----
�
P/i p' k; ,� , � F �
i � J� ^ f f �
,
� �� --- ;,
a,�D � • � : _ �
� � � � ��' �
, � , � � I
� . _ � � ,s �I � .. ,� �� � �
� �__ _
�� � " RR ; `�' �� ,� _ �� _. _ ; _ _
_..
,� I rY
r/ — AG — �— — i �i ._ �b
.�%/ � _' �, . �`. _ -- �� �,�.� �� �� ;i �� �
.i/ � � QR � `� �� .r ' �`
�'' � � Cil � GI
�I ° � ���-�� � � RURAL ' ;� �
� � � � ;� � p � `��
POS P/1 P/1-; � / � _ I - 6F--- ----I � "
,�� �� �� AC' zc� ' !31 � � � � ''� y'� ',� � � i C'�
. � ,
:,. ' .
_.._ __. _ --== � '
. � — - --
- ' - -
-�, ls� /, .. . _ ;.
.
.,„ _. .' , - �. .. . � �. . . '
, R _,
°� . „ ,
� :ff� ,
.
_ ry ,
� P/1 T -_ ___ �V r '
�- :�i - :i ` P/I
m 4�.i ��,A
� 3 P/I P/1 � AGi' ..�. , AG ��
� � -' ' /1 PJI �� �_ � _ �� AG ��
i........� ��....i... P/I q 5
P/1 RR C. � ..q, ! �, ,r/� �'�� � S��I AG+
- -� 2e >, _,. ,5 /I �� - 1 -
RF1 y.r -
; !I P/1 �'-� ��
�, �� �
� ', P/I a'' IP ���,.�� ,.+P
��� � ��� ACi
. �� . ; UlMV8R81T � MINNESOTM --- �—p.�� f
� � � � � � ,., � _
� kOfliCUL7URAL EXPERIME L
RH ;' � STATION �
.�
II �� i/ � , P/I � � A �A �CE ER ��-- 1
i.�r AG � _ _ --��--- � I
� �� P/1 H� � �� � � �\�� �'l
, I --;�� ---
' '� �
-- � � � ' �� ti.�„�.�_
— , �� � �, �i „� �i i u u � j� ; '�
_ ,r,.�,.,� _
'i �II �f !I
� � il � ��t,
FIG. 12 �c�u� Q
1990 LAND I�SE PLAIV ������������� �990 URBAN SERV. AREA RH HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
P/1 PUBLIC � INSTITUTIONAL RR RURAL RESIDENTIAL
POS PRESERVATION OPEN AG AGRICULTURAL !
SPACE ■��■ MISSISSIPPI RIVER CRITiCAL """
� O �E�O��T �� �ENERAL INDUSTRIAL AREA
IP INDUSTRIAL PARK
M 1 N NESOTA � � CC COMMUNITY (CBD) ""� MAJOR STREETS
COMMERCIAL
HC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL UNDESIGNATED: MEDIUM
�.., GC GENERAL COMMERCiAL DEN5ITY RESIDENTIAL
CNC CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL
� � // INI 1F�� �� s �.€tl � �. � \. � ..
�� � � x� �� � ��� I �� ����,
, .
.. � , �
_ _ __ _ _ _ _.---- '_
i +� 1 � � � - -- , " :----____ � _- ^ ,
`J
� P/� ���— ���� �'' -- i /"'^� � � ��
e
�-+-
' � RRI� , ��r/ !' ■
e i 4 �.'' � '�� � RR _. ---_- ��_— — ��� ------ .,o�� �-�_-. _.����:, --� ■ — � � POS
� _ _ ti;�
i „�
. . ' _ _ ,� � i5 , a
� ;
, .- � `�, . �� . i� � t
i' � �' ' ' t
s
♦ +
'
� � � �n..o� �'�:, � ��.� .� � l�� '.�" �`
� r � , _ ----— � ` } :
.� �� � � r � '�AG �� ; �' #a� �. �'
.i i � _ �„ - .o/,''�� �� f31 " `�"���� ;(ii
� � � ° ��� -�'�" �RllRAL ' � � �� ��
, . ,
� °
�� � � , �
. ,�
.�
P/1 P/k ---- ' � �j - --� �- __--
.
- . -
.
� POS � -�-� � ' �J �� �� � � �� �
, �
.i .e� � % � ��/
:i 2c�� _ GI - _ = '� �z'- — - � �' �� ' �
� . " ' �
iG _._� _....__� �
•i _�_ _ _ i .. ,�Y
'� �� �'. i � � . �
J
�i l- i' � � � 'J���
;�. . �. ..1 `.
� •
. . ... ... . L_
W �
���.� •' � ._. � - f.
�r. � .._..__. .__ .
/ o
�
\
. . ,. � �;f�< � �
� . . _
�... .9 � P/t P/i ��,%� ; _ ; P1!
� P � 3'/i /i _— /� �,.�q AG� .\�
�—� � '. � = � � �'�< �� ;'
. �
� - ��..r�. P/1 �P : : ;� — _ � A
: :....��...i P/i �: � , .I �AC' G:
' � PYI Q�(�\' ,� ,
:,
P/1 r C �� G �� � ,� ' ,.- r`� _, � _5 �� __ V�(T-w ' ! 1 . .
� RH �� � � � ��
I P/! ' /
� -- P� , �''_ --
��- � F+�
/ P/1 p ;;� . ^ � \
Ip
� // .��/I••• I UNIVERSIT MINNESOTA AG .� _�� T LL —
i � GC �P �
R � IIfiRICULTUlIAL EXPERt L
� STATION I
f ; P/1 C. �� PII ' � , � 7 �--
, � .�, ' : ��)
- y --
- -- - __
'—"_ F,, .. . A �\ '
P/1 H• A(''�r i � \\
� �� �� ' � � � _ �`i
�` �r li � \,��\ ,� --- _ -
_ . . �.. ���ee.s
-- , �� ;, ,� ,� �� ;i u ��� r---
, �
��i
�� ��
. �FI 13 �,,,,,,�jg90 URBAN SERV AREA RH HIGH DENSITY RES�3ENTIAL �
2000 LA�1D USE PLAN P�� PUBLIC 8� INSTITUTIONAI RR RURAL RESiDENTUIt
POS PRESERVATION OPEN AG AGRlCULTURAL �r
SPACE ■��■ MISSiSSIPPi RfVER CRITICAI
R O S E M O U N T �� GENERAL INDUSTRIAL AREA
IP INDUSTRIAL PARK •�- 2000 URBAN SERYICE AREA
CC COMMUNITY (CSD) "' MAJOR STREETS
M 1 N N E S C]TA �OMMERCIAL
HC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL UNDESIGNATED: �1UM
GC GENERAL COMMERCIAL DENSITY RES�ENTtAL
CNC CONVENIENCE COMMERCtAL
� � � �� �� ' -- -_-— _ �� �� _. �\\ � � ,
, �
�_ � � ti+�
� a
� ii �
. _
, .-_ __._
_ � , ���. � ��� �� x � � ��, � ���
� p - -, - -- � ° ; ��
I J� H �
i / ' {� '
A�P ___ ,
� _ > _ :,, � i
�� ��a,r� � � �;� � -- — ��%" ,5 � � �4 ��; __.�.�—,� � —; � _�, F�
��� � ���� � .�� � � � �' ��� ' � ��,� `` ;1� � � �, �
� � � � �a � .
. .//� �� �- I __ � �,�' /�.aw�3� � ���' '/= i," .\ ��— ��
� � � �� , G ��� -- - ��
�� �a � �,,; — ; a ;� _ � ,
� � �} �-r--� '; � ;, � —�� /►- \
Q" �� 8� � r-_ LT
�.[ .� . ,,,� � °�' � �p,, yr'r' � i� �
`\ _ ��Bs 20�' ; i -- _" ' — �=-- -- �. —�: I .
.. !
:I ._.. .Y� .�i �:
.
�. ' s✓" /
»
� � � �
. 6� . ,- � . ..
�
.
, � ��
�. /, �
� � .�� �� �_.� �
, ! � � \y �, I � A� ----�-�- WM
.� 1'� sl—� � � I � �'�- �,,� �, _; 1i �;�(
• ,� "'" '� � 9' rI {i :�`� i� Pu8
.� �
_� �,� ; � �,� ; �; �Gr � ;� -
Mu�• Y �ni..�t� y,' . —� � I� �'�..
(� � _� ' AG
���;�1� .,', �� �� ,� .��� �
� - L�LL�LJ��� - z' ��zs - — �� -= �
B �" „�' � � '° ,
Q I � �g � --
e `'+
j ' ' '`'n"Y` I
�,
i �,� � _�___ �°
� ���,
� •••�••••• - UNIVER8IT MINNEEOT � ---- ..� .
i /�
/ � 1gw� � //� A6NICUUURAL EXPERI f ��•7 � p•,(w—
M L I � -- I'T�T �
1 gw �. STATION �
f � � I 11 CH� R �,N�--
� � r�d � �� � � .�� �
�$ ���� — -- - -- � �� -
5 � � � � ���''�'^'�---- � -
1. i � I �. ,, f I � .��•\ j �
I I 1 rygy
. _= i.., �� / II 11 il ��� 11 . ' II II . ,il . �I ���Ye�l I�JL�3'�'S.1_ — . .
i� p I I , II � p ,
FIG. 16 �� �oN �N� o
..••...•••••�� 1990 URBAN SERY. AREA r �
1990 WATERMAIN PLAN P WA°E MA NRUNK �d„r..T�- �t �j�pt,�y� I
� PROPOSED STORAGE �
� O�� I�O U�T � PROPOSED oWELL , �G �a�r�{��� �rt�e
(1000 GPM) � J
M 1 N N ESOTA � � EXIST. STORAGE �G ��)�� G,.p�pX�
(500,0�0 GAL.)
� CONNECT TO EXISTING �uPJ �Qt,ti,�p�i�,
( SEE fIGURE 10 ) �� w�t+G �
d���
� a m \\\IiI ��
ir ��Ni �_ 1\ l� � 1 ���
�� ._ _. � _-- -- --�-�-- -��,, �� --- --- - ,
,
., .�. � �
// \ �'�'
. _ ,._ _ - _ �
-- --— `i,- �, � • �"�=,.
�, -�' , q�. � � �� � `�I� -- _ �_ t' � �- � � <
� � '' L�� a----- ---� : ',i :A �� --� f ��
� �� � �.---
,� � � r � i '!� I_ _ -------- -�. _ -�'--- ' ` -- —
-I .-'--- y
.
14 ' �
�r � "� ���QI� ',�G '�� i � uY�.
� o � � F�fi.��____ -— ----- �, _ -_ �' ' I�� � .1�"
J F--"
; � �
s
; �� � � � i
� �.,.�, �
, _ a _ i ', � �;�
� r _ "�
<
. ..
� ����`�_-�� � - � ��� -
� �� ,
. : v� - _
, , , r--� � ,�a�� � . :'" � � - ---
� ;�---, y�+.; � �- �`�,�� � ,.
� • , , -
,
.,. ,
... � � .
,
;
�
._ . , �� , � - �
p � , , / ---1
.
= � , -�' � � �., � I _�___- � �,
�- � �
, _ -_�, , . �
;
—�'�(�— "t ` �'� i �� ; w'' �� � _ t� I s
� I _- , -- - - ------ '�-- -- _ _
__
i � ;� i � �w � � q �.
i '
,` � � '�. I! �" yTM .. ' .
�� � , .� ._.y� _ .
y 23
;
� � � .
,
, �,
i
�,. „ .�,_.._. __ .s al • :
- r, - . �� '. —
: -
. . .--.� .: ' —
. 7 ,, ��/ %'� � � �
,�
_ ,. i _ . __.
�,<.,�
.
._ .�..
�STATION '� , _
�c Ll�i'If'
� , `�,, ��i �4�CP
- -� '_'�-`� � � � .� % _ 1� � `� j � �
� -,�
, / r — �
� /�,
.;,� -,� � . � � q�,
. �
�
.
, � � .� , __ - �
-- ,� '� i�-"�- �' ������������ti, ■■ � I�
�__, �
� , �� LIFT STATI�N 1 I �*� , CJ J
� � ;' � A�■!tff�#�A , �� __ , - _
� , � � , � `\
, „1 1.-ATION �,' ■ • ;I_- � — ,6 ,.. .. - '^�
_ �--=���
. ..
�� ' _
_ _ ;� ; I
,� a , , �� _--�.� � .__
= ' —
� �':'� � � �� � i� ��"��'� __ ��� �
�
�
. ,
;�, �
,
� _ . ;: ,., . ♦ � --- ---�
, . �
, . ,� .. �
--� � -
� - � �r ■■■.■s'� i --=_--� _
g � . � 1 . � --__.
` UIilYER31T MINNESOTA ;; '�, ' �F�
-..�
� � � / . ��� . �, � ,I � �� ±� . . �
/ � � '�. RpgEMp{JNT��R9SEARCH CENTER :� —_—
/ "
' / '
� -------�---1 ,� --- �
,
. -
� ` i �„- _ :�
� � � ` � _ - -__ ,' ---- - \ ,,� - �I
� f� I - \
�' � I I �; \���___ �II
i
'�' . ��� J 1�l �� � �il
�'. � � I ' � . . . a ��y_-as�__ _
� _ r
� ��� �� ii " ����
�� �� ;�, i
-- �i i � o
LEGENDc � �
� F�Ci � � .�.� 6' - 10" I�
_ ..��.�� 12" - 21"
EXISTING SEWER ���Y '�'9 ...... 24- - 36•
� = 4g'
�E�O u�T r FORCEMAIN
� � ■ LIFT STATION
� Nt t N N E S OTA * TREATMENT PLANT
�
� �� /� (��� IF... U U '��;1� i . \ ,
/� �6� �� °� i� ".y� I ��
�i�'� . •� ., � ���. r - . _ � • _ - -� , � — �- - - �--"�-'�'�'�� _
_
�^1 _ �
....�
ii'I ' � � �a,'� � /'� � � . � .; .._. � � � __' _._.—__� ��a
, :: II��� k � �,-�- ; `4
; , _ ___ __ _ _;_ : '�'_'
� �I � orT � .� • „ _ _ --'_ . . F; p � . � - � .
� .� _-- . - � . ; �• � ..�: - � -_ �--
�
� • ;�'-� -
I, ��;� - � �� � , ," � ' • -_- •�; - � --
, ; •• +°.� �—_�,�_._,/ �__, � • " _ _� � �! �i ---__ ---- '�a '��s• _ � ---�- '_
� � ks
,. —, A __ .. — -
.
� •� � ,}� • , � �'�\ ,, � — -- — �' , — — -�r— - _ � —
_ i
; � - �.,��.. � .f�- � _
��
— _ �, � -.�- _
'� ' � � ,,,.= 1� �, - --�
• � , •
� , °.�" 4 —
�� .; • � i � ' _"
� < �
./�• � � �� � � � - , ,�-�� ' �1� �� �
, � p ��--' • � �,; - . ,;---��--� � --.�-
; ,
� � - -
�: ,�� � . -
---� {�j �� _ �
' ,.
. .
r-----— T '�., ' -
' i � � �i
�
� - - �� �,�
' ��• • � �d ' i �
I
� • �� � �� �-�,• = • .� r� • � •
'^� � � :•�� ._, •• �; ��' . � ���
• _ . - s
„ � �
s ---- ..-__-- -�
;
:.
- �- _ _
.
, � • � _ - - �"—' ` '; ,
,: --�-- � _ _ � `,.
, �-��---
.�� ��( � • � - �� . � � , 'i'
' � r
� I���ril �, --"��^ i !I /�; _ _ � '.��,► � _ �\� '
���( � zl �� rj • '/ �.1-% I �
�, �� ; o _
� � � � .% � � � � � / ����i ',r � / s : .; � �i �� � � �I� a . � � ��� ,.�,.
'` % ��s'�w � '
� �. I. . . i'..
,- �I i . ,. - . � . � .
� , - �r '� '�
_
�I . •
� —�- _t. � �
--- � _
j _
� •• �,���.� '� � � �, . � � � . •���� � ���
s
. � � ,�„- i` " � r c � - • -
� " { •�r � _b � t'' ��c •�.
�. � I ���... « " � . �.. i —
2a � � � �I, �;�� i�; �l;i;� •J% .� � . � ,
. , � ';) ��� � E'� 1y ._ •
� � � � �=-- .
-- � � , � � � � � � �� � � � � � ' ---�'� _ -� �� �
_
-. �-�- - e�--- � -- --
, � +� �� ;i - —
,> , ,
l
/ "4 ; ..i . . . � ii �. i ��: �. ._.
..._�,...�
•
'�� �� � � � _ � j � . � —'_ ' ..
` �� i�,�, ^ `N * i � I .� ` i. _'— �I
i I i 7
f �,
� 1 \---
- _ --�i I i � _• _
------� x ' I I� f I �\ �
�-'>/ �� �I � �:�6d►t�------
I '
41 ���� I �a!
-- « . ���in�! —�s��—� � •
ii ii � ii — —
d�f f ,� u
��i .
FIG. 5 LEGEND: o
EXISTINGLAND USE : MULTIPLEAF,9MILY �
+�Uly �979 � MOBILE HOME u
R O S E M O U N T �����'����, �OMME CIALTITUTIONAL
lNDUSTRIAL
M�N�ES OTA j �"�������� �ESIDENTIAL
� AGRiCULTURAL & VACANT
� ` " � // 1I � � �
�
� � �� �� � ��
. �� .�
^ � � -_ ___ _-- - , ------ - ----- ------ \
�
�
"j , I _. _ — _� ���
�'*� #' (� i --- _ � � ���'",c<
� �• 5 I :
�"+ r--- —�. . �—�: . � .----- — . � � _ i
�_ � . .�. ., . � . . . —
. . � l
/: / � � '
i �
y _. ?
� - ...__ � z ' _.. � r
_ � �
� �� • —
� i , i
-
, � a —-, � y i �
-
� � � 3' �'I � ��� t. ; ' ,� f� �
_ -— - s — .___. � __ -� � _
� - r - - \ ' F
� � �,�.�, i- =�-�. F -e
,
, _
�% ~
, � ' --
, ,�� ��""��'� � r � � '
;• � � . .� � "„�'1 �
� � � � �', --=--- � � _
( ' � ,�,�"',�-'$"''�' , -- � �
� ;
�, . -
�' .� `� ' � . _� 5
i r-- � , ��, ' �
- _
r-'_
I . � '0'�4� � �. � �'' . � � - -- i . � �
S -
I � /^� �
� ,� � �,., µ ' j � .
_ _ � _-.-, i .,.. _ .
�+� ' ^
� - ���u � , .c_.. - ----- - _' -- --�'- _ �. ___ _ . _ � \
�-' ,-.
/t� y � : �;
. -
, ,
� � � ��
,..., -
` �•� � -- .,, —
__ _ _� ---
�
,. - ,� __ _._- - ..
� �� � � � � �� � ��i ,
~ � :��'�' 1� ~ � .� y I
�� ''.���' , d �,ir �\b. ��..i . i _ _
s �
� \
I'I
. � �� � � I — � �, .- / �_ �^ �:� _ � .
■t.i�■ � � ����� P' _ � 'r � •�� — __ —� -- -��--
'"�J i � "i� 4 -�� _ _
' �1 i �---`j i
- .r ", ��m,�`
� ��� �� \� �� '
. � 3 �� � ��' � � UNIVE(�IT MINNESOU , —� . --- -'-� _ '_- -` '
� . � � ��� HOBEMOIINT EAXCH CENRER I � .
� .i� � ��. -�-- �
$ 1 � i�", ' , � __-_ '�.
r i ' "
------- � ------
� ' � ,_ - _ . _
I -_ --- �
, j /% ' � � -
,
�
I� 1{ �;I II{ il . 11 11 �� , �� ��Y
!' , �� i ' � ���
FIG�9 LEGEND:
EX�STiNG TRANSPQRTATIC�V �MAJOR ARTERIAL 4-LANE DIVIDED o � �
���MINOR ARTERIA� 4-LANE DIVIDEO ��
---MlNOR ARTERIAL 2-LANE
� O S��O�N T �CO�LECTOR
■■����MTC BUS ROUTE
• M 1 N N E S OTA � � �RIVER TRANSPORTATION
' Illliillillliiitll RAIL TRANSPORTATION