Loading...
PCSR Tiller support letter 06-23-2009~~TILLER CORPORATION Corporate Office: PC.) 13ox 7450 '20Q 1-letnlock Lane, Suite 200 1\Qaple Grove, Minnesota a73:1.i June 22, 2009 Planning Cornmissicm City of Elk River 130fi5 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 Tiller Coxporation atzd itG operntin„ divisions Barton Sand & Gravel Co, Commercial Asphalt Co. 13a1".on Enterprises, lnc. general: (763) 425-4191 facsimile: (75.) 4?5-i153 web: i~-ww.tillercorp.com Re: P~equest by Elk River Landfill for Land Use Amendment, Case No. LU-09-U1 Dear Commissioners: The purpose of. this letter is to reiterate our sLtpport for 'Elk River Landfill's request to change the land use of our property to allow the expansion of their landfill. Further, we write to express our continued dissatisfaction. with the faulty assumptions and thus conclusions of the HKGi study of the gravel mining district. Back rg ound Tiller Corporation is the parent company of Barton Sand & Gravel Co. which has been. actively mining in Elk River far over 40 years. Capital Land Group is a land holding company for Tiller Corporation and owner of the subject property. Together the companies own slightly more than 800 acres within the City. ~~'e also own the property to the north of the landfill in Livonia Township. Elk River Landfill is seeking to expand its existing MSW facility on a portion of our adjacent property to the south of the landfill. Much of the recent discussion in rlegard to the landfill has to do tnlith the HKGi study of the gravel mining district'. This final report ~~•as dated June 2, ?009 and provided to us two business days prior to the Planning Commission meeting where it was to be discussed. Despite the fact that many of HKGi's conclusions were based on how our mining will proceed and what the development intent may be for our property, we were never asked to provide information, consulted, or met with any members of their team. Therefore, we are not surprised that the information they have provided is in error and their conclusions faulty. To help clarify our plans eve presented information before the Planning Commission on June 9, 2009 and we are providing this letter as further guidance. "Iii: Sfi11IiJ Z((AS Z1Y1~~litRl~1/ ~7lZHlIC72Bd RS i1 Sfit({l/ 0`fJ1E gt'RUCI witting d2SfY1C'~. t'L'071'eZ+CY, it ended iin being a sfuity of just our proi~erh/, b'Ue rare eincertrain cohy sf,aff rnndc the decision to limit i!s s,:.n~re. ~1anc~r~~f 4~1a3/ca ~ ~ G r =Yl l (~C(' ~1 C. ~'Y i ~(..~~ S . ~_l GTX.: ~~'~`~ ~: 1. This Company is an Equal Opportunity Employer Elk Rii>er Planning Conmtission June 22, 2009 Page 2 Our Mining Plans Currently, tine have our hot mix asphalt plant located on the subject property. We supply aggregate materials for this plant from our pit north of the Landfill in Livonia. The mining activit}~ on the subject property has been low the last five years and if the landfill does not expand our activity on the subject property will remain tow. However, there are high quality aggregate reserves on the subject property which represent approximately 20 years of reserves. If the landfill does not expand, our intent would be to continue to mine in Livonia and after concluding our activities to the north, we would begin. more intense mining of the subject property. The Livonia reserves represent 35 to 50 years of aggregate reserves. Assuming the landfill does not expand, meaningful mining of the subject property will not begin until approximately 2050 (2010 plus ~40 years). As mentioned above, the subject property has approximately 20 years of reserves. Under this mining plan, the subject property will not be considered developable until 2070 (2050 start date for intense mining plus --20 years). Obviously, the HKGi study`s assumption of development beginning in the 2050 timeframe with a 4% absorption rate is simply erroneous as are the results of the financial modeling. once again, if we had been consulted we believe their studies may have proved sounder. We are unsure why staff did not allow the consultant to meet with us to discuss our mining plans. However, if the landfill expands, our mining plans will be significantly different. The landfill requires access to the airspace provided by the subject property at an accelerated rate. To accommodate their requirements we will expedite our mining of the subject property through a combination of re-orienting our Livonia mining operation and exporting material from Elk River to our other facilities the currently receive material Erom other markets. This will have the effect of compressing the timefxame which active mining takes place in this area of Elk River. We believe this compression is desirable and may allow adjacent properties to develop earlier in concert with Elk River Landfill's business park plan. We reviewed the above plans with the Planning Commission on June 9, 2UO9 and we had subsequent discussions with staff on June 16, 2009 offering to meet with staff and HKGi so everyone would have a clear understanding of our mining plans, development plans and timing. At the last Planning Commission meeting of June 9, 2009, staff was directed by the Commission to review the HKGi findings and reconcile the questions raised during the public hearing. On June 19, 2009 we received staff's written report to the Planning Commission. Once again it does not appear that our mining plans are accurately reflected in the findings, and thus we find the conclusions, particularly the financial modeling, to be without merit. Our Perspective on Development Opportunities in Elk River The subject property is slightly more than 100 acres. The gravel mining dist~•ict is 3,500 acres. We believe that there are ample opportunities along the Highway 169 corridor far the types of extensive development potential which is described in the HKGi report. However, the future Elk Piz~cr Planning Cnrnmission Jc~nc ?2, 2009 !'nge 3 of the Elk River community does not hinge on this one property. There are numerous development opportunities east and west of Highway 169, along the three plus mile corridor extending from the current extent of development in Elk River. To us, it is logica] to allow the landfill to expand to the natural border created by 221tif Avenue. Economics arld lobs Sections of the HKGi report attempt to paint the promise of 2,000 jobs anal $400 million dollars associated with the subject property. This is simply a red lYerring to derail the expansion. However, real jobs do hang in the balance today. Business owners from the community stood up on June 9'" at the Planning Commission to let you kno~T what fihe impact this project means for their business. We whole heartily concur with their concerns as do ou.r employees. Additionally it is difficult to ignore the economic reality of the fees generated to the City of Elk River by the landfill. From our understanding these dollars represent in excess of 10`% of the City's overall budget. Dedicated and dependable revenue sources are rare and should not be so easily cast aside based on speculation by consultants using dubious models based on erxoneous assumptions. To simply overlook the budget reality of our times would be irresponsible. In Summary • As always, we stand ready to participate in the process and study of our property. We'd welcome the opportunity and we are. uncertain why staff has closed the process to meaningful input. • On June 1.9, 2009 we received staff's written report to the Planning Commission. Once again it does not appear that our mining plans are accurately reflected in the findings, and thus eve find the cone+3usions, particularly the financial modeling, to be without merit. • We believe that there are ample opportunities along the Highway 1.69 corridor far the type of extensive development potential which is described in the HKGi repor#. The future of the Elk River community does not hinge on this one property. • There are real jobs and local businesses that are dependent on this expansion for their economic livelihood. These concerns shouldn't be dismissed based on speculations of what might happen in ?080. ^ Dedicated and dependable revenue sources are rare and should not be cast aside ~nrithout hard facts. The current HKGi study is simply too flawed to be relied upon to make informed decisions. EIk River Planning Commission June 22, 2009 Page 4 If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call. As always we stand ready to provide input to the study of our Land, our mining plans and our development aspirations. I may be reached. at {763) 425-41.91. Sincerely, Taller Gc~rparation Gary B. Sauer Chairman of the Board