The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPacket 4 ROSEMOUN] AGENDity Cou cil Special Work Session Thursday, March 8, 2007 CITY COUNCIL .m. City:30 Coupncil Chambers, City Hall 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. Miall=• .;,0—8:00 ..m. A. SKB Expansion Request 8:00—8:30 p.m. B. Greening Initiatives for Rosemount 8:30—9:00 p.m. C. Discussion of Rental Housing Inspection Program 3. UPDATES 9:00—9:15 p.m. A. WO:k4. )--- 4. ADJOURNMENT q Y ,3-\,..) (2,3 City Council work sessions are held for Council and staff to discuss items for future Council agendas. Comments from the public during work sessions are not generally solicited. (b."'I 1 1 / /�, ROSEN4OUNTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session: March 8, 2007 AGENDA SECTION: 144 AGENDA ITEM: Discussion of Rental Housing Inspection Discussion Program PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development AGENDA NO. 1,(e) Director ATTACHMENTS: Rental Housing Program Overview, APPROVED BY: Inspection Checklist for Rental Properties (! RECOMMENDED ACTION:LProvide Staff Direction) DISCUSSION After the meeting in December, staff has continued to work on the rental housing program outline for the City.The program focus, consistent with previous discussions,is on life/safety issues to ensure adequate protection for renters. The program has also moved away from licensing and focuses more on the inspection end.The intent is that at the inception of the program, staff will begin inspections of all rental properties to ensure they are in compliance with the appropriate life/safety issues. After that time, staff will conduct an inspection on a predetermined time period, two or three years, at which time it is expected that the rental unit will continue to be in compliance. Failure to maintain the standards after the initial inspection and subsequent compliance would lead to assessment of a fine or penalty. There are two potential penalty phases for the Program. One is if there is a violation,based upon complaint, after the initial inspection and property compliance.The other time staff would consider a fine is if the property owner did not bring the site into compliance after repeated work order requests. To address some of the Council concerns about the inspection program, staff is interested in providing some communication about the initiation of the Program to the community.Through the GIS data, staff will identify properties that could potentially be rental due to their"non-homestead" status. An overview of the Program will be distributed with the contact letter. Staff is also interested in holding a workshop for rental property owners going over the Program and what types of items will be reviewed during the inspection process. Staff is using as the basis for the review the City's Property Maintenance Code and the State Building Code. This will address the health and safety issues of interest as well as recognizing the outside code violations that can annoy adjoining neighbors. CONCLUSION If the Council is comfortable with the additional material provided,we will continue to work on drafting an ordinance and other programmatic needs. ROSEMOUNT Rosemount Rental Inspection Program Purpose: The regulation of the rental practices of single-family and multi-tenant residential dwelling units through an inspection program will promote the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the city, particularly those residents who live in rental properties and neighborhoods surrounding them.The purpose of the Rental Inspection Program is to establish minimum standards, and procedures for their code enforcement consistent with the right to personal privacy, for the protection of life,limb, health,property, safety,and welfare of the general public and the owners and occupants of all rental buildings and properties within the city. Exempt Properties: A property owner that leases the subject property as set forth on the following list is exempt from this chapter: (A) Retail/commercial/industrial rental activities. (B) Nursing homes as licensed by the State Department of Health and Human services. (C) Assisted living facilities as licensed by the State Department of Health and Human Services. (D) Manufactured home parks where the owner of the building is the primary occupant of the structure. Codes Applicable for this Ordinance: The City of Rosemount's Property Maintenance Ordinance and the State building code, which adopts by reference the International Building and Residential code and the International fire code in their entirety, except as modified or amended in this code, adopted by reference and are made a part of this chapter as if fully set out at length. Rental Inspection Educational Program: All property owners,landlords and managers will be invited to a seminar conducted by City staff with regard to the Rental Inspection Program. The seminar will cover in detail what the City of Rosemount is looking for when performing the inspections. The seminar will also offer helpful Dakota County contact information with regard to issues not covered in the inspection program. Following the education program each rental unit will be subject to an initial inspection. If any non-compliant items are found, the owner will be contacted and then a follow up inspection will be conducted to ensure that compliance with the base standards are met. The penalty grid will not apply for the first two inspections. Fines will take affect once the property falls out of compliance on inspections. C .-St Required Inspections: 9 P 1) Initial inspection of the property 2) Follow up to the initial inspection if any non-compliant items were noted 4----- -- 3) Inspections in response to complaints made to the Code Compliance office 4) Biannual inspection of each rental property iolations: The following actions by property owners or license holders are subject to civil penalties and constitute the basis for revocation of licenses. 1. Violation of the City of Rosemount's Property Maintenance Ordinance. 2. Violation of the State Building code and all of the references adopted. Penalties for violating Rental Inspection Ordinance: Violation: First violation $100.00 fine Second new violation (based upon complaint) $200.00 fine within 12 months or failure to comply with initial order Third or more new violations (based upon $300.00 fine complaint) within 12 months or failure to comply with initial order Inspection process based on complaints made to the Code Compliance office: • Initial inspection of rental property for non-compliance • Re-inspection of rental property to ensure compliance is met,if all requirements for compliance have not been met the property owner would be subject to a fine for failure to comply with the Rental Inspection Program • Re-inspections of the rental property will be conducted until the rental property is compliant per the Rental Inspection Program. Each subsequent inspection resulting in non-compliance will result in a fine based on the penalty grid. Anticipated Appeal Process: (A)Hearing: Following receipt of or a notice of a violation and penalty issued, a property owner may request a hearing before the city council.A request for a hearing shall be made by the property owner in writing and filed with the city administrator or city administrator's designee within ten (10) days of the mailing of the notice of the alleged violation. Following receipt of a written request for hearing, the property owner shall be afforded an opportunity for a hearing before a committee consisting of the city administrator or city administrator's designees. After the committee conducts the hearing it shall report its findings and make a recommendation to the full city council. (B)Findings: If after the hearing the property owner is found in violation of this chapter, the council may affirm the fine given to the property owner. (C)Default: If the property owner has been provided written notice of the violation and if no request for a hearing is filed within the ten (10) day period, then the civil penalty imposed shall take immediate effect by default. The city administrator or designee shall mail notice of the fine to the property owner. Payment shall be made within 30 days of this notice. Based on Research from the cities of Bloomington, Hastings,Burnsville, Redwing and St. Louis Park, the following checklist of some sample inspections was put together. This is not the full version of the list. Inspection Checklist for Rental Properties Required Inspections Yes No Comments ,BUILDING EXT'E IOI Entrance stairs in good condition PMC 9-4-7 Guard railings installed per code IBC 1003.2.12 Siding and Trim in good condition PMC 9-4-7 Roof covering in good condition PMC 9-4-7 Fire escapes and Walkways free from obstructions IBC 1003.2.5.4 Doors, hinges and locks installed properly and in good working condition PMC 9-4-7 All signs securely mounted and in good condition PMC 9-4-7 Address Numbers PMC 9-4-7 (EMERGENCY EX `s .4 I' IN Exit doors swing in the path of travel IBC 1003.3.1.2 Exit doors equipped with panic hardware in good working condition IBC 1003.3.1.9 Exit Path clearly marked and accessible IBC 1003.2.10.1 Exit lighting properly place and operational IBC 1003.2.10.1 Exit sign illumination IBC 1003.2.10.4 Proper placement of exit sign IBC 1003.2.10.1 BUILDING INTERIOR/I.NDIVIDUAL 4U'NIT .*e . Smoke detectors IBC 907.2.10.1 Handrails present and to code 1003.3.3.11 Finish materials securely fastened and in good condition PMC 9-4-7 Stairwell and hallways properly illuminated IBC 1204.4 Dead bolts in good working condition with a key free unlocking system on interior of unit IBC 1003.3.1.8.1 All fixtures in good working condition and securely fastened PMC 9-4-7 PMC= City of Rosemount Property Maintenance Code IBC= International Building Code Minnesota State Building Conservation Code/Minnesota Rules Chapter 1311 ROSEtV1OUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session: March 8, 2007 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM: Greening Initiatives For Rosemount Discussion PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development AGENDA NO. 2..1?j. Director ATTACHMENTS: Outline of MSBG and LEED programs, APPROVED BY: LEED checklist example RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide staff direction ISSUE The Council has indicated that greening is a goal of the community and that staff should begin investigating options for introducing sustainable development and energy conservation into our operations and future development. Staff is looking at several approaches to bring this issue more to the forefront of the City's activities. DISCUSSION Staff has devised a three-prong approach to introducing greening into the community: 1. Building and renovation within-the community. Community Development Department will take the lead to review potential Green Build and LEED programs and compare to existing building code and site plan requirements. Consult with other appropriate staff as needed. Bring each of the program overviews to Council to review program components and discuss various options for the City. Explore ways to incorporate greening in construction on a voluntary basis with education component. Explore greening education with Planning Commission and other advisory boards as needed. Incorporate some of the tenets into City Comprehensive Plan. 2. Building and renovation of public buildings. Community Development Department will investigate programs to assess whether City should commit to specific green standard for new and renovated public buildings within community. Bring discussion to Council for direction and discussion. 3. Greening operations within the City facilities. Put together internal task force to review current operations and assess for opportunities to incorporate greening techniques. Quantify list of recommendations and bring to Council for information and update on quarterly basis. The first part of the program deals with the entire community and it is imagined will be hardest to implement. It requires cooperation from private parties, or more regulatory oversight,to bring properties and neighborhoods into a Greening Program.At this time staff is looking at more of an education and voluntary compliance program rather than adopting ordinances mandating program specifics.As more investigation takes place, certain highly desirable design attributes of the Program may be incorporated into ordinances, recognizing the overall public policy benefits. It is expected that the UMore property development will live up to the goals initially set forth, embracing sustainable development. The City may wish to explore in cooperation with UMore or a different developer obtaining a LEED for neighborhoods. The information states "the rating system is designed to certify exemplary development projects that perform well in terms of smart growth,new urbanism, and green building. Projects may constitute whole neighborhoods, fractions of neighborhoods, or multiple neighborhoods."The LEED document also notes that LEED for neighborhoods differs from other programs because, "unlike other LEED products that focus primarily on green building practices,with relatively few credits regarding site selection and design,LEED for Neighborhood Development places emphasis on the design and construction elements that bring buildings together into a neighborhood, and relate the neighborhood to its larger region and landscape." The result of the second phase of the program is to have new and renovated public buildings meet a particular green standard. Please see the attached information regarding the Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines and LEED standards. Based upon reading and information from outside sources,it appears that criteria are similar for both programs. One of the main differences is that LEED is a certification program which requires an application, submission of documentation, and review by a 3`d party.The MSBG program requires documentation at the end of each phase of a project be submitted to the Appropriated Agency and the Center for Sustainable Building Research for compliance review. The information attached also indicates the cost associated with certification for LEED.Additionally, the City Administrator and I went to a seminar last month where the speaker indicated that documentation for LEED certification can cost"tens of thousands of dollars." It was also expressed that applicants should make the decision up front to become LEED certified because obtaining the necessary documentation after the fact is harder and more costly than going into the project knowing what documentation is needed for the program. The final idea is to put together a work group to continue to investigate the on-going operations of the City to explore more green ways of approaching day-to-day operations. While much of the focus of the various programs is on initial construction, there are also on-going commitment items such as sustainable energy,use of generated stormwater for irrigation,and use of environmentally friendly cleaning supplies and appliances. The City working group will be exploring these types of issues in the upcoming months and will report back to the Council. At the recent work session staff also mentioned that they would be going to the HiPP group to make one of the research areas the greening initiative.At its last meeting City Administrator Verbrugge raised the ideas which piqued interest from the group. The group has asked for a formal proposal from the Mr. Verbrugge so it may formally take the matter up for discussion. SUMMARY Staff is looking for feedback from the Council regarding the Greening Initiative. Staff has been investigating various programs such as LEED and MSBG to be more informed. The Builders Association is also looking to develop a program for the State relating to this same issue. Staff would like to move forward with an education program for builders and residents in the community to assist with their construction needs. Our goal is to provide information that will allow them to make a more informed decision about choosing various construction methods and specific materials.We also will be convening the in-house group to begin operational analysis as it relates to greening. 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA SUSTAINABLE BUILDING GUIDELINES (MSBG) The Minnesota Legislature required the Departments of Administration and Commerce, with the assistance of other agencies,to develop sustainable building design guidelines for all new state buildings funded by bond money after January 15, 2004. According to the legislation,the guidelines must: • Exceed the energy code in effect in January 2004 by at least 30 percent • Achieve lowest possible lifetime costs for new buildings • Encourage continual energy conservation improvements in new buildings • Ensure good indoor air quality • Create and maintain a healthy environment • Facilitate productivity improvements • Specify ways to reduce material costs • Consider the long-term operating costs of the building including the use of renewable energy sources and distributed electric energy generation that uses a renewable source of natural gas or a fuel that is as clean or cleaner than natural gas. To achieve these goals, The State of Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines (MSBG) build on previous local and national efforts. The guidelines are designed to be clear, simple and easily monitored with explicit documentation that will record progress. They are designed to be compatible with national guidelines such as LEEDTM while maintaining regional values, priorities and requirements. Most importantly,the guidelines set up a process that will eventually lead to a full accounting of the actual costs and benefits of sustainable building design. The State has further clarified the scope of the guidelines to focus on new office and higher education classroom facilities, although many of the guidelines are suitable for other building types and renovation projects. Sustainable design is a means to reduce energy expenditures, enhance the health,well- being and productivity of the building occupants, and improve the quality of the natural environment. All of these can contribute to high-performance State buildings with lower life cycle costs. To move toward ensuring these outcomes,the guidelines attempt to quantify the human, community,environmental, and life-cycle economic costs and benefits for each project. The guidelines are a part of the Buildings, Benchmarks &Beyond (B3) Project. Project management and delivery is led by LHB, Inc.; the guideline development process is led by the Center for Sustainable Building Research (CSBR) at the University of Minnesota; and public building benchmarking is led by The Weidt Group. The Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines attempt to address some fundamental problems that have not yet been resolved adequately in existing guidelines. For example, current guidelines such as LEEDTM use prescriptive,point-based, and proxy measures that simplify both compliance and enforcement but in many cases do not connect to real human, environmental, and lifecycle economic outcomes and in some cases may lead away from desired results. The development of the Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines is based on the following key concepts. 1. Reduction in Guidelines Guidelines have been eliminated that are either already required by code or do not apply in this region. 2. Required Guidelines There are no points for meeting certain criteria. Guidelines are simply required when they clearly contribute to the desired outcomes. Some guidelines are recommended rather than required until their benefits to the State can be clearly demonstrated. In some of these cases, however, the team is required to evaluate implementing a recommended guideline to calculate the costs and benefits for their particular project. Where any inconsistencies may appear as to the extent of performance required or whether an item is recommended or required, the more strict (higher performing) case shall apply. 3. Connection to Real Outcomes Performance-based guidelines replace prescriptive measures wherever appropriate. The outcomes are documented on six forms (Forms P-1 through P-6) with embedded calculation tools. The purpose is to collect data on outcomes wherever possible and educate all participants in the process of determining outcomes. The performance indicators of real outcomes to be calculated in applying these guidelines (to be further developed in following phases) include the following: Project Lifecycle Costs • Project capital costs • Operation and maintenance costs Human Impacts and Related Cost • Health and Well-being • Productivity • Absenteeism • Employee turnover • Health care costs Environmental Impacts • Primary energy • Global warming potential • Waste production • Community Impacts and Related Cost • Community infrastructure demand and associated costs • Community assets contributed by project • Economic impacts • Social impacts 4. Relationship to LEEDTM and the existing Minnesota Sustainable Design Guide (MSDG) It is not the intent of The State of Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines to follow LEEDTM requirements specifically,but wherever requirements are the same or similar, documentation required for these guidelines may be useful in achieving LEEDTM credit. There is no guarantee, however,that compliance with these guidelines will result in a LEEDTM credit. Refer to LEEDTM sources for specific requirements and documentation required for certification. One benefit of making The State of Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines transparent to LEEDTM and other guidelines is that LEEDTM certification serves as one incentive to achieve higher performance than the basic requirements of these guidelines. LEED The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System'T M is the nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction, and operation of high performance green buildings. LEED gives building owners and operators the tools they need to have an immediate and measurable impact on their buildings' performance. LEEI) promotes a whole-building approach to sustainability by recognizing performance in five key areas of human and environmental health: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, and indoor environmental quality. LEED provides a roadmap for measuring and documenting success for every building type and phase of a building lifecycle. Specific LEED programs include: • New Commercial Construction and Major Renovation projects • Existing Building Operations and Maintenance • Commercial Interiors projects • Core and Shell Development projects • Homes • Neighborhood Development • Guidelines for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Projects • LEED for Schools USGBC is also developing LEED Retail for New Construction, LEED Retail for Commercial Interiors, and LEED for Healthcare. How is LEED Developed? The LEED Rating System was created to transform the built environment to sustainability by providing the building industry with consistent, credible standards for what constitutes a green building. The rating system is developed and continuously refined via an open, consensus-based process that has made LEED the green building standard of choice for Federal agencies and state and local governments nationwide. What is LEED Certification? A project is a viable candidate for LEED certification if it can meet all prerequisites and achieve the minimum number of points to earn the Certified level of LEED project certification. To earn certification, a building project must meet certain prerequisites and performance benchmarks ("credits") within each category. Projects are awarded Certified, Silver, Gold, or Platinum certification depending on the number of credits they achieve. Who Can Use LEED? Everyone: Architects,real estate professionals, facility managers, engineers, interior designers, landscape architects, construction managers, lenders, government officials... Eligibility Commercial buildings as defined by standard building codes are eligible for certification under LEED NC, CS, CI and EB. Commercial occupancies include—but are not limited to—offices, retail and service establishments, institutional buildings (e.g., libraries, schools,museums, churches, etc.),hotels, and residential buildings of four or more habitable stories. If the application of LEED for a unique building type is questionable, USGBC encourages the project team to tally a potential point total using the LEED Rating System Checklist that is provided with each LEED Rating System. The project is a viable candidate for LEED certification if it can meet all prerequisites and achieve the minimum number of points to earn the Certified level of LEED project certification. Registration The first step toward earning LEED certification is project registration. Registering during the early phases of project design will ensure maximum potential for achieving certification. Registration is an important step that establishes contact with the USGBC and provides access to essential information, software tools and communications. Once a project is registered, the project team begins to prepare documentation and calculations to satisfy the prerequisite and credit submittal requirements. ti LEED REGISTRATION Et CERTIFICATION FEE SUMMARY* As of November 15, 2005, for LEED-NC, LEED-CI, LEED-CS, & LEED-EB Registration Fees i5, ., .'1t fi. • Members $450.00 Non-Members $600.00 Note: All fees are subject to change. Sorry, no refunds. Certification Fees Design Review Members $1,250.00 $0.025/Square Ft. $12,500.00 Non-Members $1,500.00 $0.03/Square Ft. $15,000.00 Construction Review Members $500.00 $0.01/Square Ft. $5,000.00 Non Members $750.00 $0.015/Square Ft. $7,500 00 Combined Design Et Construction Review Members $1,750.00 $0.035/Square Ft. $17,500.00 Non-Members $2,250.00 $0.045/Square Ft. $22,500.00 !Ti s+ ` ..,`t. :,.� ,t .�hs atc' L,,.0 ns..u� u,�.$�y A.''+g .T., ...m, Initial Certification Review Members $1,250.00 $0.025/Square Ft. $12,500.00 Non-Members $1,500.00 $0.030/Square Ft. $15,000.00 Note: All fees are subject to change. Sorry, no refunds. LEED for Core and Shell Precertification Fees: $2500 for Members or$3500 for Non-Members LEED for Core and Shell Precertification is a unique aspect of the LEED for Core and Shell program. Precertification provides the core and shell owner/developer with the ability to market to potential tenants and financiers the valuable green featurs proposed in the building. Precertification is a formal recognition by the USGBC given to a candidate project for which the owner/developer has established a goat to develop a LEED for Core and Shell building. Once a project is registered as a LEED for Core and Shell project, the project team may submit for Precertification. Precertification is granted to projects after the USGBC has reviewed early design stage documentation. Download this PDF for detailed information on how to submit for LEED for Core and Shell Precertification. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Certification fee for projects registered under NC Version 2.1 from November 15, 2002, to November 15, 2005 NOT using LEED Online. Certification fee for projects registered under EB and CI v2.0 before November 15, 2005, NOT using LEED Online. These fees are: Etna • Based tin Setre.<%, ',Mid Rate Certification** Members $1,500.00 $0.02/Square Ft. $6,000.00 Non-Members $1,875.00 $0.025/Square Ft. $7,500.00 Note: Alt fees are subject to change. Sorry, no refunds. **Certification fees for projects registered under NC Version 2.0 (prior to November 15, 2002)is $1200 (members)or $1500(non-members). *Projects that registered before November 15, 2005, that wish to use LEED-Online are subject to the new certification fee structure and a possible credit towards that new certification fee. For more information please contact us at leedinfo@usgbc.org. Certification & Documentation To earn LEED certification, the applicant project must satisfy all of the prerequisites and a minimum number of points to attain a LEED rating level. The certification review process includes the following: 1) Application Documentation Submittal 2) LEED Technical Reviews: 3) Certification Award. 4) Appeal. If the project team feels that sufficient grounds exist to appeal a credit denied in the Final LEED Review, it has the option of appeal. How are credit points awarded under LEED? Credits are awarded based on five categories of performance: Sustainable Sites, Energy and Atmosphere, Water Efficiency, Indoor Environmental Quality, Materials and Resources. Within each of these credit areas a project can earn a certain amount of points. Projects can earn additional points under an Innovation in Design category, through demonstrating exceptional performance above LEED requirements. The number of points the project earns determines the level of LEED Certification the project receives. ROSEMOUNT C E SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL ,Cq` City Council Work Session: March 8, 2007 N. AGENDA ITEM: SKB Expansion Request AGENDA SECTION: Work Session PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development AGENDA NO. 2 A. Director ATTACHMENTS: Location Map, Ehlers Financial Information and Memo, 4/18/2006 City Council Work Session Memo and APPROVED BY: Minutes, Proposed Hwy 42/Hwy 55 Realignment. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide Staff Direction ISSUE Last year the City Council had a brief discussion regarding the potential expansion of the SKB operations. The request was for expansion of the construction waste cells beyond that currently approved and also consideration of adding municipal waste in the expansion area. The expansion area would be east of the current facility, running between Hwy 55 and Ehlers Path. The Council indicated that they would entertain the expansion but additional information was required. Ultimately, to permit the expansion, the City Council would need to reguide the property from Agriculture to Waste Management and rezone the property from AG Agricultural to WM Waste management. The property was designated for Industrial/Mixed Use in the 42/52 land use study approved by the City Council in 2005. The current land area dedicated to the facility is 236 acres. The expansion area would be an additional 155 acres. DISCUSSION Financial Implications Based upon information made available by SKB, Ehlers and Associates assessed the financial impacts of the expansion versus use of the property for other light industrial uses. In the scenario attached, the expansion permits both an increase in City revenues due to new C &D cells and also due to municipal waste. It is anticipated that these areas would be opened in 2010 allowing for host fees to be paid over a 20-year time period. The projection is for$456,000 per year generated from the two waste streams. SKB indicates that the projected revenues are conservative because they are based on current tipping fees and do not include any increase in fees,which would most likely occur. For comparison, the City received $257,000 in 2006 for the most recent C &D cell expansion, slightly under the$300,000 projected from the expansion approval in 2003. The financial run for the SKB development indicates a total of$20,070,000 or a present value of $11,778,433 to be paid to the City over the life of the expansion area. This figure does not include current host fees being paid under the existing agreements and approvals. For comparison purposes, staff provided estimated square footage of an industrial development which could occupy the same land. It was assumed that development on the site would occur later (first payment received in 2015) and be phased in (full development realized in the second year). Because the land associated with each scenario --waste facility or industrial development--would be taxed as industrial land, the value is the same under both options and therefore not included in the estimated industrial scenario. Under the projection, the total taxes paid would be $84,854,369 with a present value of $30,711,334. However, these taxes are spread over the various taxing jurisdictions: Rosemount,Dakota County, School District, fiscal disparities, and state education taxes. The present value of the amount estimated for the City only portion of the tax payment would be $4,957,937. The industrial valuation is based upon total construction on the site of 1,700,000 square feet. This is arrived at by allowing the maximum building and parking/loading area (not to exceed 60% of the entire site) as dictated by ordinance. It is estimated that 15% of the building would be dedicated to office, 50% assembly, and 35%warehousing. Staff used an estimated value based upon the valuations experienced in the Rosemount Business Park, looking at surrounding communities for similar types of developments as a check on our figures. Other The April 2006 memo listed a variety of items to be considered when discussing the landfill expansion: Potential impact on tax base. The financial information from Ehlers attempts to answer this question with the information attached. Impact on economic development potential of the surrounding area. Staff is aware of a variety of closed landfills that have economic development activity or housing adjoining them. Residents are assured that the space will remain open,which could even be seen as a positive. However,it is unclear how the expansion would impact economic development interest during operation. It is unclear if new businesses would be concerned if they were located near a landfill,particularly while it is open and operational. During the course of discussion with the Port Authority regarding marketing of the community, there was talk about the community image. This also arose during the branding of Rosemount through the new logo and tag line. The image many have of Rosemount is the view driving down Hwy 52: Flint Hills Refinery and Continental Nitrogen. Staff has reservations that increasing less-desired uses within the community may adversely impact the image, and therefore the economic vitality of the City. The "east side" business area has, at times, created concerns about the image of the entire community as well as environmental concerns. Expansion of the landfill may further this image problem. How does the current facility compare to other communities with facilities in size and location. The current facility is approximately 236 acres. For comparison purposes, staff called several other cities requesting general information regarding landfills in their communities. The following comparative information shows that Rosemount already has more acreage dedicated to waste management activities than many other communities: 2 Eden Prairie Closed landfill 90 acres (36 s miles) Inver-Grove Heights ' e Bend Landfill 216 acres existing has mixed municipal waste sq miles) PAB Enterprises 50+ acres has demolition materials Closed landfill 43 acres Burnsvilll Closed landfill 27.6 acres mil Closed landfill 98 acres Active landfill 225 acres has demolition materials and solid waste Elk River Closed site (44 sq ' ) Active landfill 92 acres; expansion of 73 acres has demolition and municipal waste East Bethel Closed landfill 40 acres (48 sq miles) Landfill Sites as a Percentage of each City's Total Square Footage Eden Prairie Inver Grove Burnsville Elk River East Bethel Rosemount Rosemount Heights (before exp) (after exp) 0.39% 1.61% 2.03% 0.59% 0.13% 1.11% 1.89% Land Use Distribution within the Rosemount Based upon Approved Comprehensive Guide Plan Rosemount's existing Rosemount with the proposed Comprehensive Plan SKB Expansion Agriculture 24.7% 23.9% Agricultural Research 14.7% 14.7% Rural Residential 7.5% 7.5% Urban Residential 14.5% 14.5% Transitional Residential 3.6% 3.6% Medium Density Residential 1.4% 1.4% High Density Residential 0.6% 0.6% Public/Institutional 1.8% 1.8% Existing Parks/Open Space 2.3% 2.3% Business Park 3.7% 3.7% Commercial 2.8% 2.8% Industrial/Mixed Use 4.3% 4.3% General Industrial 11.2% 11.2% Waste Management 1.1% 1.9% Flood Plain 0.5% 0.5% Water 5.2% 5.2% 3 How would municipal waste compare to the existing condition. What are the pros and cons of the change. Staff has not explored the changes in operations or the potential impact to the area. Additional information would be needed from the applicant to address this question. What other development potential is there for the proposed facility expansion location. This area is designated by the 42/52 study as Industrial/Mixed Use. It is expected that the zoning for that property would be a light industrial use so that it could transition from the landfill to uses similar to the adjoining properties. The property to the north is guided for Corporate Campus due to its location along the River and adjacent to the County Park. The property to the east is commercial on the southeast side of County Road 42, although realignment will modify that parcel in the future. Property to the south is designated for Business Park although a portion of that property has been purchased by Great River Energy and is intended as the future site of a power plant. Is this consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the City Council. Under the 42/52 study, expansion of the waste management use was not contemplated. However, the primary focus of that study group was not the far east side, of which this property is a part. There was discussion about the east side and the desire to define the general industrial properties so there was a clear delineation of the zone for those more intense industrial uses. Further, the more recent zoning ordinance changes for Heavy, General, and Light Industrial zoning districts were prompted by a desire to upgrade the standards in our industrial areas and ensure that future development entailed higher more quality performance standards to upgrade the appearance of the area. The question for the Council is whether the expansion of the landfill is consistent with the land use and economic development goals of the existing and future Comprehensive Plan and also reflects the overall community goals of the City. Landfill Remediation. Another issue that was discussed briefly by the Council in April was final reuse of the site. SKB representatives indicated that the property could be used for some type of park purpose and they were aware of cities where a closed landfill had been converted to a ball field or golf course. In its present configuration, and the approved remediation plan, the site would not allow for these types of active uses. The primary reason is the grades on the site. During the 2003 approval, the Planning Commission and City Council approved the recent expansion but required a remediation plan that would have required significant vegetation on the slopes. The owner would have had to place a substantial amount of fill on the site to permit rooted plants without negatively impacting the lining of the landfill. In 2004 SKB received a modification to their Interim Use Permit so they did not have to comply with the previously approved landscape plan. The Council approved the modification and in recognition that the site remediation would be less expensive under the proposed changes versus the previous landscape plan, SKB agreed to pay$25,000 per year for 10 years to the City for landscaping and natural resource projects. The reason for this discussion is that there are a variety of things that could be done with a closed landfill but all are substantially different from the more common remediation, consistent with the current condition in Rosemount. Additionally,it is staff's understanding that this "tailored"remediation is more expensive than the traditional closure and would take pre-planning and a firm commitment from the owner. The Council should also consider whether it is desirable to expend that type of financial resource, private or public,in an area that is removed from the general population of the community. Is the SKB location the best place to put financial resources for a recreational amenity, either passive or active, given its location, access and surrounding uses? 4 Hwy 42/55 Reconfiguration. Most recently Staff met with the County and State regarding design work for the 42/52 interchange. One of the topics discussed was the reconfiguration of the Hwy 55/Cty Road 42 intersection. As part of the project the interested parties are looking to come up with a design which emphasizes Hwy 42 by making it a through movement with Hwy 55 being the turn movement. The State intends to turnback Hwy 55 to the City after the work is completed. One of the issues the design work will entail is where intersections will be appropriately located to achieve adequate spacing and sight distances. It is assumed that an intersection will be created north of Emery Avenue to provide a full intersection movement. The northern connection actually is the new terminus point for Hwy 55, heading south from Hwy 55 and crossing Ehlers Path. Attached is an excerpt from the Highway 52/55/42 Interchange Partnership Project illustrating a potential realignment of Emery Avenue, truncating Hwy 55. The new road extension would pass through property designated for potential landfill expansion making the intended road realignment difficult. Should the Council decide that the landfill expansion may be appropriate the expansion area should be reduced to ensure that the traffic pattern envisioned for this area of the community can be accomplished. The expansion area would need to be reduced from that proposed to allow appropriate grades and slopes to allow installation of the new Hwy 55 road section as the dividing line. It would seem given the land topography after development that it would be very difficult to extend Hwy 55 as anticipated through a developed land fill. CONCLUSION Staff is not requesting a formal decision from the Council regarding the potential expansion at this time. To permit the expansion,rezoning and reguiding of the property would be required with a public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting and Council deliberations. Staff has laid out information regarding many of the questions previously raised to aid in the discussion. It is expected that representatives from SKB will be in attendance at Thursday's meeting. 5 - SKI t N® 4ROSEI\ I OAT 0 750 1,500 SPP IT OF PRIDE AND PROD r'ESS Feet \ ) • l ice, . OI m12010 MUSA Line (Agricultural *Publicllnfrastructure*General Industrial D2020 MUSA Line Rural Residential *Parks/Open Space ®Waste Management• EProposed MUSA Line Urban Residential Business Park *Flood Plain -- EPublic ROW Transitional Residential :iCorporate Campus *Water 1vA,"?' OPrivate ROW 7Medium Density Residential*Commercial ROW I. -, a r 3 ,\'- *High Density Residential Industrial/Mixed Use 1 ..7wwfiwomml. -Ir., ..,,o,4,,,,%:,,,,,,,,m,,.,,,, 7 111111111111444 ice , ,. 4 7, J • Ifillisi°1411 --L-- I . 111 E.. , .J A CURRENT SITE drir 155§ 4 .. ,_.._ ',w C0 PROPOSED �.,, ', IFEXPANSION imummiallilif 1 -- ''CLb 47. - 1 142ND SI E AIII _ !Airmail/11pp pw,_ ti ter.==� ':a= J 11111 0 7 t St_.Li_. a_— .-: '1", r r 1+ 'At A•.PA... r I. I. POI P N 1+, !•' I.. ill 1 1I■ Ir IW la L lI File:T:\GIS\City 1Maps\Departmental Maps\CommunityDevelopment\Kim\SKBEnvlronmental.mad,Apr 14,2006 10:32:44 AM,City of Rosemount ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION APRIL 18, 2006 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a City Council Special Work Session was held on Wednesday,April 18,2006,at 8:34 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall,2875 145th Street West. Mayor Droste called the meeting to order with Council Members Sterner,DeBettignies, Baxter and Shoe-Corrigan attending. Staff members present were City Administrator Verbrugge,City Engineer Brotzler,Community Development Director Lindquist and Communications Coordinator Cox. Guests in the audience included John Domke and Rick O'Gara. DISCUSSION 2.a. SKB Expansion Report. Community Development Director Lindquist overviewed SKB's intent for expansion of its current facilities. Ms.Lindquist explained issues to be investigated for the expansion including the potential impact on tax base;impact on economic development potential of the surrounding area;comparison to other communities with facilities in size and location; the municipal waste comparison to the existing conditions; other development opportunities in the proposed facility expansion location; and consistency in meeting goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and City Council. Rick O'Gara described land owned by SKB and the opportunity they have for an option to purchase land owned by Pine Bend Development Company east and contiguous to their land. The cells would allow continued construction and demolition waste,industrial waste and possibly fly-ash—all of which they are currently permitted to accept. Great River Energy owns land to the south and may be interested in burning municipal solid waste (MSW) for energy if they do develop the site. The site would have to be rezoned to a solid waste district and would require significant testing by regulatory agencies. SIB would like an indication from City Council if they are willing to consider rezoning of property to permit the expansion. SKB is considering an option on the property for five years. Council Member Baxter asked if it wouldn't be built until the current site is filled. Mr. O'Gara responded by saying yes unless there is MSW in which case they may proceed earlier. Council Member Shoe-Corrigan questioned the end use plan. Mr. O'Gara stated nothing could be done which needed foundation footings but the site could be a golf course for example. Council Member Shoe-Corrigan questioned if the new site would come on line in approximately 10 years unless it was used for MSW? Mr. O'Gara stated yes and then probably another 10 years to fill it. Council Member DeBettignies asked about the adjacent home. SKB is going to try to acquire the home although the current occupant has a kennel and prefers to keep it functioning. Council Member Shoe-Corrigan was concerned about the odors. Mr. O'Gara said MSW at Pine Bend in Inver Grove Heights and Burnsville generally do not have odor issues. They are required to cover MSW daily with a 6-inch dirt cover or synthetic cover. Council Member Baxter was impressed when he visited current operations and stated he needed to know more about municipal solid waste before giving an opinion. Council ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION APRIL 18, 2006 Member DeBettignies questioned the existing life of the operation and Mr. O'Gara stated it would probably be 10 more years. Council Member Sterner was concerned about what can go into MSW versus C &D which is fairly clear. Mr. Domke stated they have an excellent management track record. Their approach is to design one-step beyond what is required by state law. Mr. O'Gara asked the Council to consider their plan. Council Members DeBettignies and Sterner stated their interest in talking to other communities. City Administrator Verbrugge gave timeline suggestions. Recycling options were also discussed. Mayor Droste thanked SKB for their presentation and noted Staff would contact them for clarity on the issues. 2.b. Special Connection Charge In-Lieu of Assessments (132nd Court and CR 38 Property Owners). City Engineer Brotzler recapped the issue that was discussed the past summer when the plan was to come forward with a connection charge policy but the Rohr situation has moved the need up to demonstrate no uncertainty for the Rohrs as the City acquires easements. Council Member Shoe-Corrigan asked if the special connection charge was specific to this district or would it be applied to other areas. Mr.Brotzler noted that the special connection charge would be a specific district only. Mr. Brotzler talked further about the North Central Sanitary Sewer area. Council Member DeBettignies said the charge should apply to the whole area. Council Member Baxter thought the CR 38 project drove the issue. Council Member Shoe-Corrigan stated this charge would save the City money and time and other areas are different because there is not a developer to pay for the improvements. Council Member Sterner questioned if the City could go back to one stub for the Rohrs. Mr. Brotzler clarified that the Rohrs would only pay for one stub at the time of connection and the City would carry the cost of the second stub in the event the parcel is subdivided in the future and new connection fees would be paid at that time. Council Member Shoe-Corrigan directed staff to go forward with the special connection charge. Mr. Brotzler stated he would work with Charlie LeFevere to bring the item back on May 2"a 2.c. Joint Powers Agreement. City Administrator Verbrugge stated the City and County must enter into a Joint Powers Agreement for the maintenance and operations of the Rosemount branch Dakota County Library. A copy of the Joint Powers Agreement was part of the staff report for Council review and consideration. Mr.Verbrugge outlined the terms of the Agreement and noted that several items were either renegotiated or clarified. Mr.Verbrugge noted the demolition obligations related to the rectory and parish center buildings. The intent is to maintain control for the leased space for whatever the County wants to do. Council Member Sterner suggested the possibility of moving the buildings versus the buildings being demolished. Mr.Verbrugge stated the large cost of moving buildings. EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC O To: Kim Lindquist,City of Rosemount uj W From: Mark Ruff and Sid Inman MDate: February 28,2007 Subject: SKB Proposal It is our understanding the SKB Environmental has proposed to increase the size of its facility by approximately 125 acres. The City has requested that Ehlers compare the proposed payments from SKB versus a scenario in which the 125 acres is developed into commercial/industrial buildings. You have requested both a quantitative and qualitative analysis of these two scenarios. Assumptions We have assumed the following in both scenarios: • Slightly less than 40 year time frame for the analysis based upon economic life of the facilities involved. • Discount rate (or present value rate)to current year dollars of 4%. • Market values on commercial industrial property increasing at 3%per year. • This is a revenue based analysis only. No difference in costs of services between the scenarios was highlighted. Public safety costs are usually very low with non-retail commercial/industrial development. The main cost would be street maintenance for a new industrial park versus street maintenance resulting from higher truck traffic associated with the SKB facility. We did not consider these differences to be statistically significant. • Flat tax rates over the life of the development. LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Phone: 651-697-8505 Fax: 651-697-8555 Roseville, MN 55113-1105 mark®ehlers-inc.com SKB Financial Implications SKB has offered to compensate the City for the opportunity cost of development through a direct payment of approximately $912,000 per year for 17 years beginning in 2010. The total payments from SKB would be $20,000,000 with a value in today's dollars of $11,778,000 at a 4%present value rate. Commercial/Industrial(C/I) Development Instead of SKB Proposal City staff has analyzed the site and projected a total potential build-out for the site of 1,700,000 s.f. including approximately 255,000 s.f. of office, 850,000 of assembly and 595,000 of warehouse facilities. On a blended basis, we assumed a valuation of the buildings of approximately $42 per s.f. in today's dollars. Land value was excluded because we assume both options would be paying taxes on land at an equal amount. It is our understanding that City staff confirmed this assumption with the county assessor's office. The new buildings collectively in today's dollars would have a market value of$71.4M. We have assumed that construction on the site would not commence for over eight years and would require an additional 10 years to be completed. Therefore this 40 year analysis assumes 20 years of full tax receipts and 30 years of partial tax receipts. Tax receipts were split into categories of tax rates. Attached is a projection which breaks down tax receipts into city taxes, county taxes, school district taxes, fiscal disparities taxes, and statewide property taxes. The present value of all of the taxes over the projected timeframe is $30.7M with a future value of over$84.8M. The City only tax receipts are a present value of$4.95M. Present Value of Income Entity SKB C/I Development City , } t ` r ,�z 3 '-$ $4.95M �V � � g� ,< f 4 County $2.99M d ISD 196 " Metro (Fiscal Disparities) a d -Zietf75,10T, $6.34M State , `� 1 ; $8.72M City taxpayers will all benefit from the $26.75M in non-City property tax revenues, but will share that benefit with members of the other taxing districts, which range in size from the school district to the whole state. We have not included an increase in the City's non-tax revenues. City residents should have lower sewer and water rates with the commercial/industrial development because there will be increased fees for major facilities and for operating costs. Without a comprehensive engineering analysis, the amount of this benefit is undefined. We have also not included any potential increase in fiscal disparities distributions from the area wide pool. We would anticipate that the City would receive increased revenues from the pool. We also recognize that if the City's tax base increases more than the average of the metro area,the distributions from the pool could be flat. To be conservative we have not increased this revenue stream, which would have the effect of lowering tax rates for the entire City. The following chart demonstrates the net present value (PV) effects of the two proposals, from the perspective of city tax receipts and city payments from SKB and the other taxing jurisdictions receipts. One could argue that the C/I development does not benefit the metro region or the state at all because if the C/I development does not occur in Rosemount, it will occur in another City in the State. This argument is true, if one does not believe that the development will go to Wisconsin instead. It may be true that the development may go to Hennepin County, but does not mean that Dakota County and 196 school district taxpayers will benefit. Comparison of Revenue Streams 14,000 000 ,,, E & ,,,,,:ti iIiiii\ � e,, 12,000,000 �' r g, w .., L 10,000 000 4 fi �«� ' yr H$t Nye 72`;� b 8,000 000 . F\,y e ,t0 f 2, P ,� �, � �C/I Develo ment Scenario �t P ■SKB Scenario 8,000000 �h gy .r . ,,:al:., � , '''::::.:141r 4,000,000 f, ll ,r .. 2,000,000 z yaii � ,,.'kill g 0 ,ym<:,. .,�.. if::::„.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, `tom ,.� / *'"'° / ,. PV of City Revenue PV of County and School PV of Metro and State District Revenue Revenue Other Issues/Perspectives A non-financial issue is the reputation that cities carry in the market place. These reputations can be deserved or can often be the relics of the past. Part of the impetus for Anoka County attracting the Vikings stadium was to highlight the new development and amenities in Blaine rather than being known only as the area with many manufactured home parks. Brooklyn Center is known as the city with the failed regional mall. Other cities have been successful with changing their image. Hopkins has capitalized on its downtown and freeway access. Richfield has revitalized its commercial corridor and is changing the type of housing stock it has from small post WWII single family stock. We serve as financial advisor to the City of Elk River, which hosts a large landfill and a garbage incinerator. Elk River staff firmly believes that these major facilities negatively impact the market's view of the commercial/industrial potential for the City as well as the higher end housing potential. There are also synergistic effects of commercial/industrial development upon other areas of the City. Companies tend to co-locate because of interdependence among businesses or because of infrastructure improvements which enable better flow of goods and employees. Rosemount has already begun to take significant strides to diversify its housing stock, increase higher quality commercial/industrial development, create a downtown as a destination, and plan for the University of Minnesota project. One could argue that a landfill coupled with the refinery would work against these efforts. On the financial side, we have not investigated the City's ability to collect fees from SKB in the event of a non-payment. Obviously property taxes are the most secure form of payment which a city can receive. There will be revenue accrued to the City and other jurisdictions after the 40 year time frame, but we have not projected revenues beyond our scope. We would also expect a positive effect upon the City's bond rating from the C/I development because it shows a higher value per capita and adds to the City's tax base. If Rosemount were to move forward with the landfill, how the funds are utilized is an important consideration. The City of Elk River has designated payments from its landfill and waste-to-energy plant for specific capital costs rather than utilize the payments for general fund operations. This approach prevents reliance upon an income stream which will end and could have significant impacts upon the city's tax rate if it is treated as a subsidy. RESE \4JI' T EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL tvogic City Council Regul-a-r-P9leetirtg: April 18, 2006 AGENDA ITEM: SKB Expansion Request AGENDA SECTION: Work Session - l\isc..(essio PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development AGENDA N * A Director • 8t ' ATTACHMENTS: Map APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide Staff Direction ISSUE SKB Environmental has approached the City about expansion of their current facilities.The current land area dedicated to the facility is 236 acres. The expansion area would be to the east, and would be an additional 155 acres. Staff and members of SKB are requesting direction from the Council as to whether they would be willing to consider expansion of the facility. DISCUSSION The City recently negotiated with SKB to open up cells C &D for construction debris. It is estimated that they have approximately 10 more years available for the current facility. It is also estimated that the expansion would add another 10 years to the life of the facility. (These are ballpark figures and actual attrition would be dependent upon a number of factors.) Currently the facility takes in construction waste and ash. SKB has indicated an interest in expanding to municipal waste in the new area. SKB representatives have indicated they may be able to have some type of partnership with Great River Energy that would allow incineration of garbage of use of pellets. The 42/52 Task Force did not envision expansion of the Waste Management land use and maintained the existing border in the proposed Comprehensive Plan.Land east of the current facility, the expansion area, is proposed for Light or Mixed Industrial in the Plan. Should the Council wish to consider the expansion of the facility there are a number if issues that should be investigated: • Potential impact on tax base. • Impact on economic development potential of the surrounding area. • How does the current facility compare to other communities with facilities in size and location. • How would municipal waste compare to the existing condition. What are the pros and cons of the change. • What other development potential is there for the proposed facility expansion location. • Is this consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the City Council. CONCLUSION There area a variety of issues associated with the potential expansion of the SKB facility. Investigation of the expansion potential will be a time-consuming and perhaps costly endeavor for SIB as well as the City. If the Council does not want to consider the expansion, that should be made clear early in the process. If the Council is willing to consider the expansion, staff would request the Council provide direction as to issues important to them in making the decision. 2 2/28/2007 Page 1 of 1 0 EWERS EAST SIDE DEVELOPMENT City of Rosemount t0 YEAR BUILD OUT y Tao Mau du$,aaa4 ,,I. Inflation Rate - 3.00% Present Value Rate 4.00% Fiscal Disparities Ratio 0.339170 2006 Fiscal Disparities Metro Wide Tax Rate 1.218020 2006 Local Tax Rate-City 0.437550 2006 Local Tax Rate-County 0263450 2006 Local Tax Rate-School 0275590 2006 Local Tax Rate-Total 1.045300 2006 State Wide Property Tax Rate(Used br total taxes) 0.308270 2006 Market Value Tax Rate(used for total taxes) 0.22% 2006 ' ' 44 ..1 k't ..--;_3ia41i61nfonna9ti „�1u 5 _ Taxes Total Market Value Market Class New PHASES Use Per Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft Per Sq.Ft. Value Rate Tax Capacity 10 Bus Perk 51.35 1,700,000 42.00 71,400,000 2.0056 1,428,000 TOTAL 1,700,000 71,400,000 1,428,000 c,. i ,,z:'..z 1 Ar, -.;4KV a O;:: . >> °i -0AL04 A3 14,.fir ;t ?k V I,= ;r,,.;W .. 1 ;VP 54,,..... Total Local Fiscal Local Fiscal State-wide Local State-wide Fiscal Use Tax Tax Disparities Tex Disparities Property Taxes Taxes Disparities Total Capacity Capacity Tax Capacity Rate Tax Rate Tax Rate Taxes Taxes Bus Park 1,428,000 943,685 484,335 1.04630 1.21802 0.50827 987,357 725,810 589,929 2,303,096 TOTAL 1,428,000 943,865 484,335 D87,357 725,810 589,929 2,303,096 ...t.. 3 ., :"' .4,-s, �;', .....> .TAX,CAS*fftOW ...., s u ✓ X. .. _...r I- ... -Stat. _.r.;i,,SAC � •ta MEnN T,AT Protect Fiscal Available Semi-Annual Semi-Annual Seml-Annual Fluid State Total Industrial Gonit and Total PAYMENT DATE Tax DIxpatlti.. Tax City County School Disparities Education _ Waste Demo Waste Waste PERIOD ENDING Capacity 6.4vc0on Capacity Taxes Texas Taxes Taxes Taxes Taxes Payment Payment Payment Yrs. Mth. Yr. 0.5 1-Aug 2007 1.0 1-Feb 2008 1.5 1-Aug 2008 2.0 1-Feb 2009 2.5 1.Aug 2009 3.0 1-Feb 2010 262,95 193,18 456,13 3.5 1-Aug 2010 262,95 193,182 456,13 4.0 1-Feb 2011 262,05 193,182 456,136 4.5 1-Aug 2011 262,95 193,182 456,136 5.0 1-Feb 2012 282,95 193,182 456,136 5.5 1-Aug 2012 262,95 193,182 456,136 6.0 1-Feb 2013 262,95 193,182 456,136 6.5 1-Aug 2013 262,95 193,182 456,136 7.0 1-Feb 2014 262,95 193,182 456,136 7.5 1-Aug 2014 262,95 193,182 456,136 8.0 1-Feb 2015 142,800 (48,43) 94,36 20,64 12,93 29,021 29,496 36,290 127,88 262,95 193,182 456,136 8.5 1-Aug 2015 142,800 (48,43) 94,36 20,64 12,43 29,021 29,496 36,290 127,883 262,95 193,182 456,136 9.0 1-Feb 2018 285,600 (96,866) 188,734 41,290 24,88 58,042 58,992 72,581 255,766 262,95 193,182 456,136 9.5 1-Aug 2016 285,600 (96,866) 188,734 41,290 24,86 58,042 58,992 72,581 255,766 262,95 193,182 456.136 10.0 1-Feb 2017 428,400 (145,299) 283,101 61,935 37,29 87,063 88,489 108,871 383,650 262,955 193,182 456,136 10.5 1-Aug 2017 428,400 (145,299) 283,101 61,935 37,29 87,063 88,489 108,871 383,650 262,95 193,182 456,136 11.0 1-Feb 2018 571,200 (193,733) 377,467 82,580 49,722 116,084 117,985 145,162 511,533 262,955 193,182 458,136 11.5 1-Aog 2018 571,200 (193,733) 377,467 82,580 49,722 118,084 117,985 145,182 511,533 262,955 193,182 456,136 12.0 1-Feb 2019 714,000 (242,168) 471,834 103,225 62,152 145,105 147,482 181,452 639,418 262,955 193,182 456,136 125 1-Aug 2019 714,000 (242,166) 471,834 103,225 62,152 145,105 147,482 181,452 639,416 262,955 193,182 456,136 13.0 1-Feb 2020 856,800 (290,600) 566,200 123,870 74,583 174,126 176,978 217,743 767,300 262,955 193,182 456,136 13.5 1-Aug 2020 856,800 (290,600) 566,200 123,870 74,583 174,126 176,978 217,743 767,300 262,955 193,182 456,136 14.0 1-Feb 2021 999,600 (339,033) 660,587 144,515 87,013 203,146 206,475 254,033 895,183 262,955 193,182 458,136 14.5 1-Aug 2021 999,600 (339,033) 860,567 144,515 87,013 203,145 206,475 254,033 895,183 262,95 193,182 456,136 15.0 1-Feb 2022 1,142,400 (387,467) 754,933 165,161 99,444 232,167 235,971 290,324 1,023,066 262,95 193,182 456,138 15.5 1-Aug 2022 1,142,400 (387,467) 754,933 165,161 99,444 232,167 235,971 290,324 1,023,068 262,95 103,182 456,136 16.0 1-Feb 2023 1,285,200 (435,900) 849,300 185,806 111,874 261,188 265,468 326,611 1,150,950 262,95 193,182 456,136 18.5 1-Aug 2023 1,285,200 (435,900) 849,300 185,800 111,874 261,188 265,468 326,814 1,150,950 262,95 193,182 456,136 17.0 1-Feb 2024 1,4213,000 (484,334) 943,666 206,451 124,300 290,209 204,964 362,905 1,278,833 262,95 193,182 456,136 17.5 1-Aug 2024 1,428,000 (484,334) 943,666 206,451 124,304 290,209 294,964 362,905 1,278,833 262,95 193,182 456,136 18.0 1-Feb 2025 1,470,840 (498,864) 971,976 212,644 128,034 298,915 303,813 373,792 1,317,198 262,95 193,182 456,136 18.5 1-Aug 2025 1,470,840 (498,864) 971,976 212,644 128,034 298,915 303,813 373,792 1,317,198 262,95 193,182 456,136 19.0 1-Feb 2026 1,514,965 (513,830) 1,001,135 219,023 131,875 307,883 312,927 385,006 1,356,714 262,95 193,182 458,138 19.5 1-Aug 2026 1,510,965 (513,830) 1,001,135 219,023 131,875 307,883 312,927 385,006 1,356,714 262,95 193,182 456,136 20.0 1-Feb 2027 1,560,414 (520,245) 1,031,169 225,504 135,831 317,119 322,315 398,556 1,397,415 262,95 193,182 956,136 20.5 1-Aug 2027 1,560,414 (520,245) 1,031,169 225,594 135,831 317,119 322,315 398,558 1,397,415 262,95 193,182 456,136 21.0 1-Feb 2028 1,807,227 (545,122) 1,062,105 232,362 139,906 326,633 331,985 408,453 1,439,338 262,95 193,182 458,138 21.5 1-Aug 2028 1,607,227 (545,122) 1,062,105 232,362 139,906 328,633 331,985 408,453 1,439,338 262,95 193,182 456,138 22.0 1-Feb 2029 1,655,443 (561,476) 1,093,968 239,333 144,103 336,432 341,944 420,706 1,482,518 262,95 193,182 456,136 22.5 1-Aug 2029 1,655,443 (561,476) 1,093,968 239,333 144,103 338,432 341,944 420,706 1,482,518 262,05 193,182 456,136 23.0 1-Feb 2030 1,705,107 (578,320) 1,126,787 246,513 148,426 346,525 352,203 433,327 1,5213,993 262,95 193,182 456,136 23.5 1-Aug 2030 1,705,107 (578,320) 1,126,787 248,513 148,426 346,525 352,203 433,327 1,526,993 262,95 193,182 456,136 24.0 1-Feb 2031 1,756,260 (595,670) 1,180,590 253,908 152,879 356,921 362,789 446,327 1,572,803 262,95 193,182 456,138 24.5 1-Aug 2031 1,756,260 (505,670) 1,160,500 253,908 152,879 356,921 362,769 446,327 1,572,803 262,95 193,182 456,13 25.0 1-Feb 2032 1,808,948 (613,540) 1,195,408 261,525 157,485 367,628 373,652 459,717 1,619,087 25.5 1-Aug 2032 1,808,948 (613,540) 1,195,408 261,525 157,485 367,628 373,652 459,717 1,610,987 26.0 1-Feb 2033 1,863,216 (631,946) 1,231,270 289,371 162,189 378,657 384,861 473,508 1,668,587 26.5 1-Aug 2033 1,563,216 (631,948) 1,231,270 269,371 162,189 378,857 384,861 473,508 1,668,587 27.0 1-Feb 2034 1,919,113 (650,904) 1,268,208 277,452 167,055 300,017 396,407 487,714 1,718,645 27.5 1-Aug 2034 1,919,113 (650,904) 1,268,208 277,452 167,055 390,017 396,407 487,714 1,718,645 28.0 1-Feb 2035 1,976,686 (670,432) 1,306,254 285,776 172,066 401,717 408,300 502,345 1,770,204 28.5 1-Aug 2035 1,978,686 (670,432) 1,306,254 285,776 172,066 401,717 408,300 502,345 1,770,204 200 1-Feb 2036 2,035,987 (690,545) 1,345,442 294,349 177,228 413,769 420,549 517,415 1,823,310 29.5 1-Aug 2036 2,035,987 (690,545) 1,345,442 204,349 177,228 413,769 420,549 517,415 1,823,310 30.0 1-Feb 2037 2,097,066 (711,261) 1,385,805 303,180 182,545 426,182 433,165 532,038 1,878,009 30.5 1-Aug 2037 2,097,066 (711,261) 1,385,805 303,180 182,545 426,182 433,185 532838 1,878,009 31.0 1-Feb 2038 2,159,978 (732,599) 1,427,379 312,275 188,022 438,967 446,160 548,926 1,934,350 31.5 1-Aug 2038 2,159,978 (732,599) 1,427,379 312,275 188,022 43E1,967 446,160 548,926 1,934,350 32.0 1-Feb 2039 2,224,777 (754,577) 1,470,201 321,843 193,662 452,136 459,545 585,394 1,992,380 32.5 1-Aug 2039 2,224,777 (754,577) 1,470,201 321,643 193,662 452,136 459,545 565,394 1,992,380 33.0 1-Feb 2040 2,291,521 (777,214) 1,514,307 331,292 199,472 485,700 473,331 582,356 2,052,152 33.5 1-Aug 2040 2,291,521 (777,214) 1,514,307 331,292 199,472 465,700 473,331 582,358 2,052,152 34.0 1-Feb 2041 2,360,2613 (800,531) 1,559,738 341,231 205,456 479,671 487,531 599,828 2,113,716 34.5 1-Aog 2041 2,360,266 (800,531) 1,559,736 341,231 205,456 479,671 487,531 599,826 2,113,716 35.0 1-Feb 2092 2,431,074 (824,547) 1,806,528 351,488 211,620 494,061 502,157 617,821 2,177,128 35.5 1-Aug 2042 2,431,074 (824,547) 1,806,528 351,468 211,620 494,061 502,157 617,821 2,177,128 36.0 1-Feb 2043 2,504,007 (849,283) 1,654,724 382,012 217,968 508,883 517,222 636,356 2,242,441 36.5 1-Aug 2043 2,504,007 (849,283) 1,654,724 362,012 217,968 508,883 517,222 638,355 2,242,441 37.0 1-Feb 2044 2,579,127 (874,761) 1,704,385 372,873 224,508 524,150 532,738 655,446 2,309,715 37.5 1-Aug 2044 2,579,127 (874,761) 1,704,365 372,873 224,508 524,150 532,738 655,448 2,309,715 38.0 1-Feb 2045 Totals 13,898,608 8,247,968 19,258,234 19,571,749 24,079,811 : 84,854,369 11,570,000 8,500,000 20,070,000 Present Value 4,957,937 2,985,187 6,969,407 6,340,181 8,715,204 30,711,334 6,790,058 4,988,375 11,778,433 Prepared by Ealua 2 21107 ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION APRIL 18, 2006 Council Member Baxter would like the City to have an approval of the end use of the building. Mr.Verbrugge stated the different access options,cost-sharing of access construction,parking lot maintenance, snow plowing and monument placing. UPDATES a. Intern/Community Outreach Program City Administrator Verbrugge noted a Rosemount resident is participating in the public administration program at Winona State University. Mr.Verbrugge would like to offer an internship to the individual to job shadow the City Administrator and work on various projects in the City. Council Member Baxter considered the internship a great idea. Mayor Droste stated it would be a good time for the intern to gather feedback on the athletic complex. b. Council Member Updates Council Member Sterner questioned the handling of emails. He proposed that the City Administrator and Communications Coordinator receive copies of all emails that the Council receives in order to provide feedback to the residents. Council Member Sterner requested an update on hiring. Mr.Verbrugge provided updates on the City Clerk and Senior Planner positions and the recent hiring of the part-time Utility Billing Clerk,Code Compliance Specialist,Public Works Maintenance Work and the GIS Tech. Council Member Sterner also suggested keeping spending in Rosemount. Council Member Sterner noted a spaghetti supper fundraiser would be held for Heidi Ness who has ALS on April 29t. Council Member Sterner suggested a railroad theme for the new library. Council Member Shoe-Corrigan wanted at the next work session agenda to talk more about 120th Street and beyond concerning rural residential and open space. Council Member Baxter would like the access issue on the CDA parcel to be discussed at a work session. Mayor Droste stated he spent the day at the Capitol and met with Senator Gerlach who will be amending the air cargo bill for the transportation study. Mayor Droste also added that Burnsville has a three million dollar request for its Water Treatment Plant in bonding bill. Mayor Droste adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Amy Domeier, City Clerk r ENVIRONMENTAL July 25, 2006 Sent via FAX 651-423-5203 (hard copy to be mailed) Kim Lundquist Community Development Director City of Rosemount 2875 — 145th St. West Rosemount, MN 55068-4997 Re: Estimated Revenues Dear Kim: The following are the estimated revenues the City of Rosemount and the SKB Environmental Rosemount Trust would receive for the proposed expansion.. These are reasonable conservative estimates based on the present market conditions, and the present design calculations. They were generated under the assumption that half the volume would be mixed municipal solid waste and industrial waste, and half would be construction and demolition debris. Please keep in mind changes in the landfill design, market conditions and waste streams will slightly alter these numbers one way or the other. Trust Fund would receive: $16,510,000.00 1/2 of this amount would go to the city as per our Amended Trust Agreement: $8,255.000.00 City would receive: (Industrial and mixed municipal waste) $11,570,000.00 Additional City Revenue (Construction&Demolition waste) $ 8,500,000.00 Total Revenue to the City $28,325,000.00 Total Revenue to the Trust Fund $ 8,255,000.00 251 Starkey St. • P.O. Box 7216 • St. Paul, MN 55107 411* 651-224-6329 • FAX 651-223-5053 tio1 Printed on Recycled Paper. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call at 651-251-6202. Sincerely, SKB Environmental, Inc. ,/ /WA Dadi—e---1 - John Domke Vice Presidient WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL-2004 ANNUAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Permit Number: SW-1 Classification: B Legislative District: 56A Priority Score: 6 Ownership: Public The Washington County Landfill is located in the City of Lake Elmo, Washington County (in the south 40 acres of Government Lot 5 of Section 10, 40 acres in the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 10 and the north 30 acres of the N '/2 of the NW '/4 of Section 15, T29N, R21W). The original permitted area was 110 acres with a fill area of 33 acres that contains approximately 2,570,000 cubic yards of waste. The landfill, permitted in 1969,was a publicly owned and operated facility which accepted mixed municipal and industrial waste from Washington and Ramsey counties from 1969 until 1975. The facility came into the Closed Landfill Program in 1996. The site currently has a 4-foot equivalent cover, an active gas extraction system with a gas flare, and a groundwater treatment system. No major construction took place at the landfill in 2004. However, a new gradient control well (GC-5) and forcemain was installed to help improve the site's groundwater treatment system. This pumpout well, however, is not yet in operation. In addition, dedicated pumps were installed in four wells in 2004. Other than the installation of the well and the dedicated pumps, only general operation and maintenance and pumpout p P some minor repairs were performed. The landfill was mowed once in August. Landfill gas, measured as methane, continues to be monitored in gas probes on and off the site. Methane, however,was not detected in the gas probes indicating the active gas extraction system is adequately addressing landfill gas generation at the site. Although groundwater flow at the landfill is complex as a result of the operation of a gradient control well and infiltration at the treatment area, flow in the superficial aquifer is generally to the south and southeast while, in the Prairie du Chien aquifer, flow is to the south. Vinyl chloride was the only organic parameter that exceeded the Health Risk Limit in 2004. Its detection upgradient of the landfill, however, does not appear to be related to the fill area. Perfluorochemical compounds were also detected in the ground water in 2004 in on-site wells and residential wells located off-site to the south. However,the concentrations detected in the residential wells were below the Health Based Value. Over 50 million gallons of ground water were removed and treated in 2004. The MPCA is currently conducting a Feasibility Study to address the perfluorochemical situation at the site. A method to address this issue, if implemented, will likely be designed and constructed in 2005. Operation of the active gas extraction system and groundwater treatment system, monitoring of landfill gas and groundwater, as well as other landfill maintenance, will continue into the future. I. Site Background The Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill (Landfill), located in the City of Oak Grove,Anoka County, (T33N, R24W, Sect. 28), received its first permit to accept waste on August 12, 1971, and continued operating until December 1, 1983. The waste footprint is approximately 50 acres and contains approximately 2,500,000 cubic yards of waste. The Landfill closed on December 1, 1983, with a limited cover of lime sludge in place. In 1993 a final cover using a 60-mil geosynthetic barrier layer was constructed. Additionally, passive gas vents and eight active gas extraction wells were installed.A map showing the Oak Grove Landfill is presented in Figure 1. The Landfill was under private ownership when in operation. The Binding Agreement between the Egan Family Trust and the Closed Landfill Program of MPCA was signed March 5, 1996, and the Notice of Compliance was issued on April 17, 1996. The MPCA removed this site from the Permanent List of Priorities in June of 1996. The EPA delisted this site from the National Priorities List on October 17, 1996. The MPCA signed a settlement with the Egan Family Trust on December 21, 1999. This settlement was a three-party agreement among the city of Oak Grove, the Egan Family Trust and the MPCA. The city of Oak Grove was holding$30,000 in reimbursement until the Egan Homestead property was cleaned up. MPCA gained clear title of the Landfill in January 2000. In accordance with the legislation enacted in 1992, (Minn. Laws 1992, Ch. 513,Art. 2, Sec. 2, Subd.3), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA)assessed and classified closed landfills in Minnesota. According to that assessment and classification, the Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill was given a rank of A and a score of 41. This classification was revised following landfill final cover reconstruction and installation of both passive and active gas wells in 1993. The revised rank was D and the score was 16.5. The site was reclassified to a rank of B in 1997 due to concerns of landfill gas migration and the potential risks to nearby homes. These homes were subsequently purchased and demolished by the MPCA. The active gas extraction system, which functioned poorly during freezing weather,was turned off and the extraction wells were allowed to passively vent. The Landfill was re-classified again to a rank of B and a score of 16 due to continued environmental concerns related to ground water contamination and landfill gas emissions. The Landfill was rescored due to the 2003 completion of the Active Gas Extraction System to a D 16.5. II. Site Engineering Summary A. Landfill Cover Maintenance/ Construction Summary There was some minor erosion of the cap noted during the 1997 inspections. Some areas of minor erosion were also corrected in 1998. In June 2002, the cap was enhanced as part of an active gas system installation. Much of the cover was regarded and reseeded in 2003. Cover maintenance will be continued as needed. B. Leachate Management System Summary 1. Leachate Management System Maintenance Summary The Oak Grove Landfill does not have a Leachate Management System for leachate collection. The Landfill is unlined. No leachate seeps around the Landfill have been observed during this reporting period. Ther is however a condensate collection system installed as part of the active gas collection system. 2. Leachate Monitoring Summary There are no leachate monitoring points at the Oak Grove Landfill. KLLI\K:\03M043\Oak Grove 2002 Report\R-OG.doc\10000 4 I. Site Background The Anoka/Ramsey Landfill (Landfill) located in Anoka County, City of Ramsey(T 32N, R 25W, Sect. 22), received its first permit to accept waste on September 28, 1972, and continued operating until October 8, 1993. The Landfill is approximately 65 acres in size and contains approximately 5,700,000 cubic yards of waste. The Landfill was under private ownership at the time it closed. In accordance with the legislation enacted in 1992 (Minn. Laws 1992, Ch. 513, Art. 2, Sec. 2, Subd.3), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA) staff assesses and classifies closed landfills in the Closed Landfill Program. According to that initial assessment and classification conducted in 1994, the Landfill was given a ranking of D and a score of 24. The rank of D indicates that this landfill currently poses no threat to public health or the environment and may meet current MPCA closure standards. A Binding Agreement and Reimbursement Agreement were signed in the fall of 1997 and a Notice of Compliance was issued November 19, 1997. A yearly forum is held among the staff members assigned to the Landfill to discuss issues pertaining to operation and maintenance of the remediation systems at the Landfill. The site was classified and scored on September 1998, to a class of B, and a score of 15.11. There was no change made to the classification of the site or to the score of the site at the forum held on December 17, 2004. The Environmental Monitoring System includes 94 monitoring wells. Of these, 7 wells are located in an upgradient direction, 74 are downgradient and 13 are sidegradient. These wells are located in five different strata: the Upper Sand Aquifer(at the water table(A) and at the base (B)), the Lower Sand Aquifer(BB), the Tunnel Valley Aquifer(BB and BC), and the Franconia Sandstone Aquifer (C) (see Figure 1.1). II. Site Engineering Summary A. Landfill Cover Maintenance/Construction Summary A composite clay and geosynthetic final cover was completed during the spring and summer of 1994. An additional nine gas extraction wells, bringing the total number of gas extraction wells to 43, and a new 10-inch diameter gas header pipe installed around the southern perimeter of the landfill, was also completed at this time. Bolander Construction installed a new concrete pad in mid to late November 2003 for the new gas flare.Above ground piping for the flare was completed in January 2004. The new flare was installed on May 22, 2004. Gas piping to the new flare was completed in June 2004. B. Landfill Gas Management System Summary 1. Landfill Gas Management System Maintenance Summary The Landfill has an active gas extraction system, maintained by the MPCA through its contract with Willow Brook Engineering. The landfill gas rights remain with the previous landfill owner, Waste Management of Minnesota. Willow Brook Engineering completes routine flare checks, operates all the gas valves on a biweekly basis, and tests the backup blower system. Start up of the new flare was performed on June 12, 2004 by both Perennial and Earth Tech staff. This flare operates at 300 cfm. There have been minor problems with the flare throughout the year including a faulty flame sensor(June 19), microswitches(August 20), the flare control cabinet heater(December 11) and oxygen sensors (December 18). Storms activated the auto dialer call out in August and settlement of waste near GEW-31 required 5 HOPKINS LANDFILL 2004 ANNUAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Permit Number: SW-58 Classification: B Legislative District: 44A Priority Score: 22 Ownership: Public The Hopkins Landfill is located in Hopkins Township, Hennepin County(in Section 25, T117N, R22W). The permitted area was 37 acres with a fill area of 26 acres that contained approximately 1,500,000 cubic yards of waste. The site was issued its solid waste permitted in October 14, 1971. The facility accepted primarily mixed municipal solid waste from the western Hennepin County area from 1971 to 1980. The facility came into the Closed Landfill Program in 1996. The facility does not have a 4 foot cover or equivalent,but it does have an active gas extraction system and an operational gas flare in place at this time. The gas extraction system is to be expanded to the south and western portion of the landfill in the summer of 2005. In addition, a condensate tank will be installed by the flare eliminating the discharge to the Hopkins sewer and the need for the Gopher State One Call service. In general, the landfill cover is in good shape and is mowed annually. There are currently 22 gas probes located around the perimeter of the Landfill and near the adjacent buildings and are sampled on a regular basis. Since the system was installed and operating, concentrations of methane directly attributed to the Landfill have not been detected off- site at this location. However, methane gas has been detected in gas probes G-20 and G- 27, which are adjacent to buried off-site waste,not associated with the Landfill, along the south-southeast corner of the Landfill property. In 2004, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), in particular vinyl chloride, have not been detected in the groundwater beneath the site for the first time. However, arsenic is still being detected in a localized area at MW-208 location and the detection levels exceed the Maximum Contaminant Level. In addition, sampling and analyses indicate that the impact of the in-organics is decreasing and that natural attenuation is occurring in the groundwater. No active groundwater remediation system is present at the landfill nor is one anticipated in the future since there are safeguards in place that restrict using the contaminated aquifer. There is a current proposal for the Hopkins School District to build a bus maintenance facility, offices and parking area on the Landfill property. The City of Hopkins, Hopkins School District and MPCA will continue to discuss and evaluate this proposal. A Land Use Plan should be completed for the site in 2006/2007. A meeting will be set up to present the Plan to the Hopkins City Council some time in 2007. At this time,the MPCA is not proposing and changes to the current County zoning ordinances. I. Site Background The East Bethel Sanitary Landfill (Landfill), located in Anoka County, East Bethel Township(T33N, R23W, Sect. 8), received its first permit to accept waste on November 18, 1971. The Landfill reportedly accepted predominantly demolition debris. Limited amounts of industrial waste and municipal solid waste were accepted between 1969 and 1976 in a 7-acre area in the southwest corner of the site. The demolition landfill was closed in December 1995. The East Bethel Sanitary Landfill is 34.7 acres in size and contains approximately 1,241,900 yards of waste. The Landfill was under private ownership when in operation. When the Binding Agreement was signed on October 11, 1995, 60 acres were transferred to the MPCA with additional restrictions and easements on some of the adjoining property. The Notice of Compliance was issued on October 31, 1995. The land titles for this property were recorded for the MPCA in 1999. In accordance with the legislation enacted in 1992 (Minn. Laws 1992, Ch. 513,Art. 2, Sec. 2, Subd.3),the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA)assessed and classified closed landfills in Minnesota. According to that assessment and classification, the East Bethel Sanitary Landfill has been rescored with a ranking of B and a score of 40. While this classification may be revised as needed, the rank of B generally indicates that this landfill requires remedial action to control gas migration, ground water contamination, and/or correct a severely inadequate or nonexistent landfill cover. There are a number of issues at this facility that contribute to the current B classification including cover issues, landfill gas issues and unregulated waste disposal on property adjacent to the fill. These problems and the proposed remedial measures to be taken in 2006 are discussed in detail below. Additional information regarding the Closed Landfill Assessment can be found in the Closed Landfill Assessment Report(January 1995). II. Site Engineering Summary A. Landfill Cover Maintenance / Construction Summary The MPCA hired a contractor to conduct a property boundary survey and investigated the volume of gas being generated by the landfill. A waste investigation of the adjacent Kurak property was completed in 2001. These investigations led to a decision by the MPCA to relocate the waste from the adjacent Kurak property and incorporate this waste into the landfill. Subsequently a new state of the art landfill cover will be installed on the landfill. Additionally the construction of an active gas extraction system and modification of the ground water pump and treat system will be completed. The design work for the waste relocation, cover upgrade and groundwater treatment system was completed in 2005. The project was bid and awarded in the fall of 2005. The construction will commence in the spring of 2006 and is scheduled for substantial completion by the fall of 2006. Details of the final cover design,the active gas extraction system and the modification to the groundwater treatment system are available in the MPCA files. The East Bethel Landfill is mowed annually. B. Leachate Management System Summary 1. Leachate Management System Maintenance Summary The East Bethel Landfill does not have a Leachate Management System for leachate collection. The Landfill is unlined. No leachate seeps around the Landfill have been observed since closure. The active gas extraction system that is being installed in the summer of 2006 will have leachate collection tanks. This leachate will be hauled off site to a waste water treatment plant for treatment and disposal. I. Site Background The Flying Cloud Sanitary Landfill (Landfill) located in Hennepin County, City of Eden Prairie (T116N, R22W, Sect. 27), received its first permit to accept waste on August 27, 1970, and continued operating until 1986. The Landfill footprint is approximately 106 acres, and contains approximately 8,000,000 cubic yards of mixed, municipal waste. The Landfill was operated by BFI, who continued to own the Landfill after the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA) Closed Landfill Program assumed responsibility for maintaining the cover and controlling impacts to the groundwater. BFI was sold to Allied Waste Industries, Inc. of Scottsdale,Arizona, in 1999.Allied currently owns the Landfill property. The binding agreement signed November 3, 1997, between MPCA and BFI stated that BFI would continue to operate the landfill gas extraction system and the gas-to-energy facility. In accordance with legislation enacted in 1992 (Minnesota Laws 1992, Ch. 513,Art. 2, Sec. 2, Subd.3), each year, MPCA staff assesses and classifies each of the closed landfills in the Closed Landfill Program. According to that assessment and classification, the Flying Cloud Sanitary Landfill was given a ranking of C, and a score of 12. The rank of C generically indicates that this landfill required a cover upgrade, and minor remedial construction (such as gas vents), and/or future corrective actions which may be needed because the cover did not meet current MPCA standards. The Landfill is still ranked C because it still may pose a slight risk to health due to the Landfill being unlined, and the current groundwater remediation system may someday have to be activated. Additional information regarding the Closed Landfill Assessment can be found in the Closed Landfill Assessment Report(January 1995). The groundwater monitoring system at the Landfill includes 62 monitoring wells, 20 of which are actively monitored (as of 2000). Of these 62 wells, 5 wells are located in an upgradient direction, 28 are downgradient and 21 are sidegradient. The remaining 8 wells are pumpout wells and are part of the groundwater remediation system. A map showing the locations of the monitoring wells and the water table elevation contours is presented in Figure 1. KLLI\K:\03M043\Flying Cloud 2002 Report\R-RC.doc\10000 4 DAKHUE LANDFILL-2004 ANNUAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Permit Number: SW-50 Classification: B Legislative District: 36B Priority Score: 11 Ownership: State The Dakhue Landfill is located in Hampton Township,Dakota County(Sec. 24,T113N, R18W). The permitted area is 80 acres with a fill area of 28 acres that contains approximately 1,500,000 cubic yards of waste. The landfill operated between October 1971 and May 1988 and came into the Closed Landfill Program in 1996. Although the landfill property was deeded to the State,the holder of title is currently in dispute as a result of a tax issue. An active gas extraction system was installed in 2004, replacing the passive system,to address landfill gas migration (a synthetic cover with passive gas vents was constructed in 1992). Also, installation of a perimeter fence around most of the site(on the west, south, and a portion of the east sides)began in 2004 and will be completed in 2005. A portion of the cover(near the center)that had some settling was also repaired during construction. New pumps were installed in nine groundwater monitoring wells in 2004. In general, the landfill cover is in good shape and is mowed annually. However,the cover was not mowed in 2004 as a result of the construction of the active gas system. Landfill gas (methane) had been detected along the south boundary prior to the installation of the active gas system. Since the system was installed and operating, concentrations of methane have not been detected at this location. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)have been detected in the groundwater beneath the site and extending approximately 4,000 feet south to Pine Creek. However, sampling and analysis show that the impact is decreasing and that natural attenuation is occurring. No active groundwater remediation system is present at the landfill nor is one anticipated in the future since there are safeguards in place that restrict using the contaminated aquifer. A Land Use Plan was completed for the site in 2004. In order to make the Township's land use plan(zoning) compatible with the MPCA's long-term care obligations for the site,the MPCA recommended the Township adopt a new zoning district and ordinance for the permitted property called Closed Landfill Restricted. The MPCA also recommended the Township adopt a setback ordinance around the landfill to prohibit development next to the landfill in order to protect human health and safety. Operation of the active gas extraction system, monitoring of landfill gas and groundwater, as well as other landfill maintenance,will continue into the future. . .. . z S eiY Minor Watersheds ire 'r �i�i to Qualifying CloseLandfills ....._ . iltNIF -- , , 11 fIF IP' ' i r A ', . y- , 4%0„,,1:1 14,I Ar i- - 1 4.---T.-- III --'., ,. Landfill proximity .4 l Proxi!tnity ial...„ ,i, ,,,, .. courta in s kaki"... . z_ ...., , ir ill, ale cent -,, i ti,....11„,,1/4.41HAi i " -:s, 4ii, ‘ .. ...„. , „ , , , „„ . ,Ewai I ,*ow_ ,v third ti er 1 . Qualifying closed landfills 11 ,, -ri -,, i # t / / k / ? / al co § § f \ g > / g / 7 » _ o 2 co3 _ ` o / > = CO $ CC " 2 y Q m % 2 = e « 17,5 / / / / / § } 2 _ ) . 0 c w § ® m f , o a) ± £ / ] _ ) ) u) » \ = e § J » E f » 2 / 2 £ e a § » G co c § a f > k f 8 f / - / t / » Z. § a o f t / / / 2 f m f 2 ƒ \ k E 2 8 f - \ i f / E 2 § 2 g ! % _ a e @ a e £ m ? _0 § C _« f % . = C « , > f 7 . - / o 0 o = o ; > . 0 0 > - / f CO o Cu § / 2 * ( co 2 & , t » r ) - — $ t « k R CO / 2 f « •© 75 o LE E. � - > 4_ / > ` . \ / / t n 7 0 — o 0 n m $ . 2 2 5 ƒ � sE C / ) } CO / E 2 § Cu2 / C E — § U $ / 2 / 7 k ) C k 2 / k \ ( 2 \ \ / •- / \ < \ / a. c \ < / \ a) _co e6.4 \ D 2 co , C & \ ) Cu ( 0 } / / n \ / f E co Q } } / \ « E / c J y y CO / k / ) 2 & g { / $ f f § CO / 2 Cu 2 a CO Cu E ` \ ° CO \ k r \ U Cu CO/ Cu $ } co y \ Cu / \ a \ ƒ \ R \ » j _ — s 2 j f / = k $ C / $ 2 f 0 t / k = > j e = CO5 g c V g o j Cu £ a \ W % Cu f f Cu j \ o w 5 CO c "E ƒ o S 2 Cu 0 § > } \ C C o \ / 5 t \ c / / J c 465 COE § ( 2 W j CO \ < Cl) \ / CO \ f CO Cu \ \ ƒ 10 Cu 2 v To >, cu a) 3 D) m rn N. c J -C L o a) co CO OO O >. (/) co >, M C in .0 V C 0 E ) CD 0) 8m o 3 coco o 0 L a) 0 o m 3 c a) o 0 > Cu E 20 o >. v L m N O C co O p >. co C .cN COLO O .E E N >. a) L CuOo co T L >- C > o N rs o •X N 't L 3 3 N _>. O Y O N LO O` N Z CA 6 0 U a '- a) O O n p_ t O03 Cu 3 m C 0) o c w E c >, m _ m E co o 0 co w 2 3 ° -0 E .0 o -c C �' a) ri O CuO L �: 5 C N U p) N -c N CO L Z. CO cO E Cl D) a) Dl C M Y N E CO 'c 0 rn t N O L = O CO L > cc) N c0 CV L CA Cu •L- N N N L O 0 N a) N C C o -0 a_) m v 3 > t in Q -C 3 o - co L O L 0 CO p) Y w O• O O a) 3 O o 7 _co) LL o O CO 0>. 45O lO L E 0 co U 0 -X o '> N 7 L 0 t C - 3 5 aa)) o () 0 3 'X o cv ° .0 aa)) -M. ' - o w o o° o O L N U 2 _ C a)O a) O C N C- C C O 3 U C L m o o ° a Z ra p_ o > co — Cu —• > u) 0 -o m a) a) c .0 �a o Cu .0 m c) 1 d 0 '' a) > a) ct a) E m aa) E g a).Z15 coaa) v r •T ' o c c E m as> c Z o o cr O T O > •— .0 o L O ... > 3 •C a) "- p C Cu a) ti m 2 in o o a) Cu o 3 °� o a) O L .c t �' , 3 0 co �y m a) m to ° L.. m c L o m C C O N L: co D L ` X 2 co 3 'X N co a) O O O L co ..Y Cu C a) m C c° E s L O U 0 O w O a) t L tpi) O t Cl) L .E U co 'x O Z O ti v0) a o C a E u) o o •E cn C o M .E o n E o : M , a) a) a < `,1- 0 < Cr) CM Z CT) CO CV W CO N ,- C/) O N CO N. < 4 - Z lO CD CC CO _N O OU 0 0 y E o C 0Cai C a a) C > ~ uC E 0 CZ --I c Cu c n � -a co oJn Cu0o tY0 `a) p co‘07) C„ cN co _ O O E 1) a q J pa) o 3 -DO 2 v U _J U cocI-- 0 Y Q O C D in 2 Co a U in a Q 2- rf Co Q 3 a- ~ U co a. Y 3 U C 3 H 0.> a°) Cl) cYo m a) a a) - F- ci Cu > co N m- o o m > ° E a > 8 m N r > a) c >, 0 o D k Y o o -o N -� a } s L C9 o cc N U E2 — ° N o o Q ti U a) a) c o 0 o 0 0 3 -c -C Y o L T a) a) c) a8 E a 0 c U z z z co O 0 a Cu a a a a IX cn w C ca c= -p J a C >. C — CO W J — — cC0 w o U o -``0 y _ k C -) 0 (0C Cu = — CO -O — CO _ �r y v J CO(0J C N a � w J c.= al J 4=. r=. wT+ w. "O w Y7y 12 C .O 7 C .T. -O C= co .>''+ C 'D — C J �_• 'C 1.4 J J J d U a) 7 p -�D O Cu 4'- J O — J Cu tt.- 'O O tOq Cu O —) N >' Y (Cl C Cu .= U U m in a) > U = Cu a) J c 0 U E -1 U _o . U C 'OC Y 4-. N _ C C J ca C OE O a) J .N O J C C Cu U O j Y O a) Q d O > 0 L L w U N ` Cl) C m N N 0 N 0 O z Q U O p Cu L p c0 2 — 0 O O (0 E U > tO P j a O 'D D Q �+ m J 0 coo co 2 z z 0 0 O O. a a Y 2 2 a Qcell' o co CO N N W M Z Z C O N U C 2. ri O 0 C a0 0 >:CI at J 3 o a 0) T U — U) J U c, -C c6 J > 0 O N C L a) 0 co V pp C N .a c6 C) O) N N T W L 0 C cc L N N o W Z Z ° L m co v CO M- °0) v c o ) rn a E 3 a) L L 3 �_ fA co ~ a) C C 0 ° 2 ,— L l0 C � r Y a T "O CON V U C T L O 7 N mt CO ° C Q' L.. ,,coas CO Q N O N v. @ 0) N 6 O O > C N - f6 L 0 N - 'Y p .'L"' N p O W Ws a w C E N F ° O co O COOi w c� .� v) E w o E uo b ( V c 3 T N a) ° O 'p N E 3 o aa)) w CO r w w 0 >, CO o L - 0) "- .0 a) p t U CO CO > c ° a) 3 a d O_ a 't E CO L > L 2 co ,n c o 3 E. °� m 3 N E ii y CC p > c6 .p •p ti N 0 3 3 '� ce >, 'X — w O p m 2 C O 0 N t L 0 c6 3 y c 0 00 U O L' u) 3 a a) a O c6 C 3 C p f6 Z 0 N m a c12 V 0 O N y L 3 iK ° c p Q) O a) .0 r c) as O C .`� c6 L 0 L 0 _c N f6 O >, a) w o 'E to Lc) c o - - ,o o E o t 0 a i° 0° E L N o w m o c a) n 'a O c6 C ct a) .� c6 C O L "t o -c XO 0 L Z C 0 y u/ N O O y J ° O O Y -p L C >` O C O) -0 = 0 N CD o Z 0 o •� rn c o m .2 t 0 c6 (6 c a aNi L m 0 t 3 a) co m I = E o > - c—z 0 0 p L al f0 - o 06 E c a .E N O L O ° C U 0 .7 ° Y C E Z y E N U 7 E r a) in M a) a) O O o N a) N T p T L J 45 a O a) E a°i ai ° a) w 3 u 0,1 T 'p 3 > 3 T N U o �, T T 0 112 _m 7 Q c 0 -, c o t o -t 3 m a 2. m 0) m rn w m a) m m H f6 0 m J E c N m o u) c u) I E c co E E t c a) m E E CO Q x o — _o — Cl) m co a�i at6i m °) o o a0i au'i o ° o o a0i m o 0 V ° L 1.) — — r — E t a — a u a ur a -c r- `>2 0 E E 0 E o E 6 m a a) E a >a)0 a <6 E IP a a 1� < Z CCO ? < N N U) ,— Z CO W < CD ti < > < W m N Q Q C EN L o cI ., . C c/) C ..+ U) m °• 0 0 - o c o w c a) o L > a) Y w 0 C 0 Y a) 0 Cl) j V v) Y 3 a) O) O ") y C C 7 J O Y U U 7 O a) 7 N 0 -° c6 0 O OL O c/) Q . = I CO Y 0 J m Y J = 2 J 2 1- U co c U CO 0 a 2 a 5 a a co y L0 c C co 30 a) co co LL = 30 CO OO o (n C ° 0. C F- C a) cc, p) Z' m c o m 0 o 0 o m m 222 W 0 as)) w D_ > > c t Y g [� a Y y 0. 7 5, N a) C 0 V N N U .Y a) Cl) 0 O) C ._ > C C C C 0 = O O O > co (6 7 co co co co a) a) o O O 7 V = 2 ' I I = C c > -) -) Y Y J J J J _J J J J J V C CO -p J C r. J 4- E N "C E a) c6 4= , V f -J a W C a) _ _ N R N _ C _ _ _ 17 ��111 C .T+ eT+ C C 4= m C Fly ''= m y= -p c a) C..) C 7 0 0 C C c w COC > J C C @ ° to C E O (°� ° CO c6 a) O 0 J ° `) C J 7 N J O ~ J (� J J U y L Q U J ". U O) U C U .E O C O . O 0 • ZTto C @ U T C O C N N a C T .0 0_ U •> 0 J (6 a) C p „,t- Y J U L O N N !/) Cn0 L ci ° Y ZT co 0 . T C •0 Q .O_ U N 0 0 0% 0 O C U c6 c6 Z c6 c6 c O a) O co O 0 (a ° _ = U = _ = Y° U -, = Y 2 J > 2 {•- 2 J 0 J I iL o "l-_ ! `�_.__J L. _1 1_..___J 1..J 1. J LJ L _I 1_ J L. J t d...../ ..r+J rn.+.d ■ ,' 1 s �ilct lt�-°rwt.. , tt• se , x _ ICoicnt ! Road ` x•� ".`°'" x a v ''° I p]� .._ , Ii o I Storsge` g y I 3a F. N—, 1 II7 Q ri c' t � Jyd Highway 52 wvc_c 1.1 Iay,,0-. 5bR Nr F -'_ -— r, -„ - . I-- - - - 1 Ai : I1 , 02I C O I .. -. II / / , I 1 _ _ // / I1 _ _ / 3�, iil �' / K t• J: t'1., ::1"11 i::1.:;:'''. 11y , 1 I w 0 o as j • ♦ ,\ ; ',- ,. g`'" � � ' : _0?' 1`.i by ,(�, �/' crci �„ ' Qta• 1�� I ,gym' tD I .` rw , ;.:,,...,..;.,- •l �r"� " +I ss " • • _... lJ�, ,- rn .+} I. ` VV r; cli 1. .: '�`t;W Sts�.•If^,.r"{y }. .. * ' ' 9*' Yt W i k FT. 0 p # „< Emery Avenue , a. - t ; ,, r ' = ' ` •O 7 �r tf]y N + S- zz e'" ',V, i�x^ F,,,nk '. '"y,r -4 rzr -•i Fischer Avenuei ..\,. T t, :ri '• ., ,,. c.)-, \ , , . t ,. .< 14. sri� S3 2r X,F .. l ., 8 �L *. _ M A Goodwin Avenue.-`' ` ; ° :: `° . ! �''s (Highway 85) �� i h r