3.1. & 3.2. PCSR 06-23-2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

known, such as the fact that the land will carry a lower market value as a closed landfill than it would if it was a gravel mine or vacant property. Thus a closed landfill will also generate less tax revenue than the other uses. There are also some assumptions that need to be made to complete the analysis. The City has intentionally been conservative in its assumptions. Naturally, there are differences in the assumptions made by the City and ERL. The HKGi supplemental report identifies those differences in assumptions. Because the impact of the proposed land use change will be long term, the City's analysis extends well beyond the time frame used by ERL as we must assume if the landfill expands, it will remain a closed landfill beyond the 2050 timeframe used by ERL. The impacts of the land use change in this proposal are more dramatic as time passes. Third, several comments were made at the meeting about gravel mining development; however, as you know, .this item is not about gravel mining. It is about changing land use to accommodate a landfill. We assume that as long as the gravel in the SDA has more value than the property, it will be mined at the time the owner chooses. Conversely, if the property has more value than the gravel, the owner may choose to sell the property at any time without mining it. The same applies for the other gravel mining companies and property owners who have property in the gravel mining district. Similar to the gravel mining EIS process that was completed in 1994, the gravel mining area study the City intends to undertake in the future, possibly within a year, will include considerable participation by the gravel miners and property owners. Further, here is a response to the questions raised by ERL in Debra Walter's letter distributed at the planning commission meeting about the memo from Cathy Mehelich. The City has for many years identified the gravel mining area as a critical area for future development of both the jobs and tax base that are vital to the City's future. As we all know, the development of an area is affected by what surrounds it and the image it portrays. The City has identified image as an important factor in what types and quality of development will choose to locate in the City. Similar to other communities, Elk River wants to attract high quality development. This type of development demands an image that reflects the high values of the developer/company. When the Target store recently relocated to Otsego because the store could not physically expand on its existing site and no other large site was available in Elk River, the opportunity for a future store in northern Elk River was discussed by Target representatives. If that is to happen, it is important that the City position itself to fit the image that attracts that type of development. As to the question about timing of the expansion of urban services to the mining area, the timing has not changed. It has always been the City's position that the extension will occur when the property in the mining area is ready for development. Finally, the Planning Commission must make a recommendation to the City Council, based on the study of many factors including those presented by ERL, stating whether the commissioners believe the proposed landfill expansion merits a change in the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council will do the same when it decides if changing the land use to allow for the expansion meets its long term vision and goals of the City and is of benefit to its constituents.