EDC 06-18-2013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

EDC Meeting Notes June 18,2013 Page 6 a. At a minimum,we have been advised to respond to the MPCA formally in writing outlining the City's position. This would also be an opportunity for the City to tell its side of the story on the record. Our environmental counsel will help in this effort. b. Join forces with other stakeholders or interested parties in developing the agency's pending policy guidance on dump development. There are many communities in a similar situation that may be unaware of this issue. Staff would recommend working with the League of Minnesota Cities or possibly Metro Cities on this effort. Legislation has also been proposed that, if enacted, would restrict development at or near dumps, the City and the League should monitor the legislative efforts carefully. o Comply with the agency's request for additional venting. The agency has suggested that the City install additional vertical vents on a 30' spacing in the perimeter of the dump in Block E. These vents would penetrate the existing soil cap/membrane into the garbage. Aesthetically,the vents would be unsightly and a better scenario might to connect the pipes underground and reduce the number of vent risers above ground. a. Vertical venting estimated price tag: $150,000 b. A different version of this concept would be to convert the existing passive system to an active system with a fan or blower to mechanically vent the methane. This option is more complicated and costly. Estimated price tag: $500,000 to $2.0M depending on scope of work. o Remove the garbage from Block E and eliminate the agency's underlying concerns in this area. This would also make the site more attractive to prospective development interest. The City did pursue federal stimulus funding for this in 2009 and was unsuccessful. It is unlikely that the City could apply for additional DEED or Met Council monies, but we have not fully explored that option. The estimated price tag: $3.0M. This cost should be weighed against the potential development benefit. Under best case scenarios, the site could be developed for a 50,000 SF office building, which might generate a little over $2.1M of tax increment(gross value). o Concede to the agency's apparent concerns that development is too challenging at a dump site and give up the ability to develop on Blocks B or E, perhaps for anything but surface parking to support adjacent development or other surface uses. This option would likely result in the greatest financial impact to the City. Under the best case scenario (215,000 SF office development), Block B could generate up to $5.1M of tax increment (gross value). As part of this option,the City might want to condition this decision on a third-party review that there are no technologically feasible or cost-effective ways to address the agency's concerns and that abandoning development is the best course of action. This is something the City would need to carefully evaluate and might be an option of last resort.