According to this blog post (the minutes of the meeting are not yet available online but I did receive a copy via e-mail), Charles Muscoplat, the University of Minnesota’s Vice President for Statewide Strategic Resource Development continues to believe that UMore Park is a potential money maker for the University. Several others on the Senate Research Committee are not so sure.
Dr. Muscoplat spoke to the committee and seemed optimistic about the financial returns of planned gravel mining on the UMore property. While the University has already thrown about $5 million at the project and probably needs to put more towards it in the immediate future, Muscoplat said that he expects the investment to be paid back “all at once because of the value of the gravel to the University’s mining partner.” In other words he feels that the added real estate development costs will be offset by the mining operation even though the gravel mining is a long-term project and will have to take place over the next few decades.
To me, the entire discussion seems a little far-fetched. They are hoping that real estate development will follow their preset plans created supposedly after public input was made in mid-2008. Gravel mining and the resulting traffic is continuing to cause headaches for Apple Valley’s City Council and more importantly, the residents nearby. In 20 to 30 years, will developers really be all that impressed with building on land that was once (and possibly still will be) heavily contaminated and dangerous all while gravel pit mining continues in undeveloped areas around the property?
You can check out the meeting minutes here (PDF) and decide for yourself whether or not this is a viable venture. Does the University have the best interests of the general public surrounding UMore in mind when it wants to make money on contaminated land all while continuing to permit it to be mined for gravel? Do you think that this project will be successful for the public at large or will this just be a benefit for the University and its mining partners?
Whatever you believe, go ahead and comment on, I’d love to hear what you have to say about the future of Rosemount and the UMore property.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
May 11th, 2009 at 10:53 am
I dont have very strong opinions either way, but I think one thing we sometimes forget to factor into our opinions is the incredible power of time and growth.
I was born in Atlanta. At the time, my parents lived near the gates to Stone Mountain. It was a two lane road from the city out to Stone Mountain. Now, 30+ years later the city sprawl extends for 30+ miles out past Stone Mountain.
When we moved to MN in 2000, the town home community behind Home Depot in Apple Valley was a grass field. There was no Home Depot. There were no homes. I went to an Open House in 2000 or 2001 at the first model in the first complex, and had to drive on dirt roads and park in a muddy field.
When my in laws lived in Minnesota in the 50′s Apple Valley/Burnsville/South of the River were not really even considered part of the city I am told.
All that said, I think if the University can look at things in terms of decades and not in terms of years, there is no reason to think that at some point all that land will be developed and valuable. Well, no reason other than the high levels of contamination that is.
May 11th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Chad,
Don’t get me wrong. I know the land would be valuable if it were like every other undeveloped farm field in the South Metro. Unfortunately for the University, this is a proven minefield of hazardous heavy metals. Add on to it the potential for mining at the same time as development and you create a situation where people just might not be all that interested in living there when compared to some other newly developed farm field nearby.
May 11th, 2009 at 10:58 am
If they are not in a hurry, and the gravel is of high quality, I can easily see them recouping money in gravel mining on the property. High quality gravel is in short supply in the metro area due to aggressive land development over the key gravel repositories.
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200001/26_losurem_mineral/
This is leading to higher cost methods for trucking or using trains to bring high quality aggregates in from the outer metro and/or other states. This should provide an opportunity for a Metro-area pit to make money.
from this link: (note my guess is numbers could be adjusted now based on the slow down in economy growth)
http://www.armofmn.com/resources/aggregates.html
According to the Minnesota Aggregate Task Force, approximately 1.7 billion tons of available aggregate materials lie underneath the Twin Cities metro area. However, due to spreading urbanization, 600 million tons of aggregate, or 35%, will become inaccessible over the next 40 years. At the same time, demand for aggregate products will increase from the current level of 27 million tons per year to between 41 and 58 million tons per year. Because of these factors, the metro area’s supply of aggregate could be exhausted as soon as 2028. Because the price of transporting aggregate doubles approximately every 19 miles, importing aggregate from outside the metro area would greatly increase the cost of urban development.
Here is a link to the report mentioned:
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/lands_minerals/finalreport.pdf
May 11th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
If UMore planners were thinking, they would wait at least until (a) the nearby AV gravel pit is mined out and (b) Lizzie Kautz gets her hands on the burnsville quarry site, before starting to mine the UMore property, so that gravel prices will be higher due to greater demand/less supply.
May 11th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
A clean pit can be like gold. A company I worked for in the past happened to own a few gravel pits. They found they could sell the material mined out of them for more than what they had to pay for gravel they bought from other companies. This due to their purchasing power.
The Burnsville pit is nearly mined out. I’m not sure how much more time they’ll get anything out of it, but it can’t be more than a few years. The Apple Valley pit may be around a while, but they don’t let them dig very deep. I believe I heard that 2025 is the outside date for that site closing down. The City seems to have that space allocated for an employeer in their 2030 plan.
http://mnsun.com/articles/2009/01/01/news/av01yearinreviewav.txt
May 11th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Well, the University owns the land and has to do something with it (even if that something is just letting it sit there). The University plan has the potential of generating funds for our hometown university while cleaning up contamination in our backyards, furthering the school’s mission with their innovative (if a little fluffy) ideas about a learning-centered community, and providing a better model for new neighborhoods than some of the characterless, cheap, less-livable developments we see. Like I said, they have to do something with the land, and I don’t see why anything else would be better than this plan.
I guess the only question is whether their plan will work. I do know that gravel pits can be a gold mine, and I also know that there are thousands and thousands of previously contaminated sites that have been successfully remediated and turned into productive and profitable uses. I’m sure there are experts with knowledge of these issues who have provided advice and projections to the University, so I’m not inclined to discredit their conclusions without knowing more.
May 11th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
How many times has the public been told that something is safe only to find out that it really wasn’t down the road?? I would never want to live anywhere near that land even if it was “cleaned”. My concern is that in the future it will be developed and people will move in without knowing what used to be there.
To be honest I wouldn’t want to live anywhere even remotely close to the refinery, so I wouldn’t want to live there even if the land was ok. There is also talk about a large facility right next door to the UMore land that would turn garbage into diesel fuel. I think there was also talk of a power plant at one point and also a massive cargo facility for the airport closer to 42 and 52. Those didn’t happen, but I think the area along 52 might be doomed to become an industrial corridor. That stuff has to go somewhere, but I would not want to live anywhere near it.
The gravel mining in the south metro is very interesting. I think Lac Lavon Lake is an old pit? Isn’t the area where Menards, Kohls and such all an old mining area too? If you notice where those large gas storage tanks sit it’s maybe 30-40 feet higher than the strip mall area. I think it would be an interesting to see what the long term plan is for mining in Dakota County.
May 12th, 2009 at 7:50 am
The area both to the north and south of CoRd 42, east of Cedar is both a previous and existing aggregate pit owned by the Fischer family. Fisher retained ownership of the property and developed it themselves when they closed the pit on the north side of 42. The Fischer family owns Apple Valley Ready-Mix. (Others operating in this earea, Aggregate Industries is a corporate owned company, Cemstone Products is a Becken family owned company)
Yes, Lac Lovon Lake was created by aggregate mining in the area.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/areas/fisheries/eastmetro/lakes/laclavon.html
Other than the planned area is a bit too much “takes a community to raise a child” like, I wouldn’t mind living there if they can prove they cleaned up the area. Maybe when I retire. Methods and technologies for cleaning up the types of waste that are “supposed” to be there are very mature. People know how to clean it up and they know what is left when they are done. The biggest issue may be from things that are there, but weren’t “supposed” to be there. i.e. if the government was doing something that wasn’t made public.
May 12th, 2009 at 7:52 am
mikeh,
My biggest concern isn’t what wasn’t made public (although I’m sure that’s there somewhere deep down) but that the levels of toxins are allowed at a much higher level than they should be.
May 12th, 2009 at 8:07 am
I have a concern as well. A little more research on my part (google search, umore park contaminated) and I find these quotes from Dave Scheer, a hydro-geologist for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency who has overseen the tests done by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.
A pdf of a Thisweek article at the Umore site has the line from the author (Jessica Harper) that says:
The next step is for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the property to determine the extent of contamination and whether these are detrimental to humans and/or the environment.
But then Dave Scheer is quoted as saying:
“The goal is to identify the most contaminated areas and find the best suitable plan to deal with the contamination,â€
I hope Dave misspoke, and the goal is actually to identify the areas contaminated which are detrimental to humans and then deal with the contamination. Not to only worry about the “most” contaminated areas. I.e. if every area is detrimental to humans, then how do you pick those that are most contaminated.
I tend to catch such things when people talk, as I think it goes to show the accepted context from which they operate. He shouldn’t be thinking about “most” contaminated. He should be thinking about those that are contaminated such that something needs to be done.
It is important that we, as the public do two things. #1 – Make sure Umore is held to the same standards as any commercial entity. (i.e. What is Ford going to have to do with their site in Minneapolis?) #2 – Make sure the standards are suddenly not changed to suit a test result that comes in. I expected it to be quite challenging to get such information since we’re dealing with the University, and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.
May 12th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Mikeh–Thanks for the info. I live south of Lac Lavon in Lakeville, but I can’t think of a single location anywhere near us that was ever mined. We live in a somewhat hilly area where the geology might not have been as favorable, but I’m wondering if this was more of a permitting issue. It’s interesting that Apple Valley is full of pit locations, but Lakeville has none that I am aware of other than maybe one or two on the far side of interstate 35. I might just not be aware of them. Are these sites really that rare in the south metro or are they all over and Apple Valley, Rosemount, and some other cities just much more favorable to mining?
May 12th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
It appears that Gravel Operations in that area occurred in the 1920′s, or about, based on this interesting PDF found while searching around:
http://www.ci.apple-valley.mn.us/Resident_Info/Historical_Information/OverTheYears.pdf
I don’t believe that there is any de-watering of Lac Lavon. I bring that up as searching found that Burnsville has quite a challenge with the Kramer pit. Once Kramer closes up shop and stops their dewatering (about 13 million gallons per day, to keep the floor dry) the pit will fill to an elevation of 700 feet with ground water. The flood in 2001, the river was over 715′, in 1997 the river was at 714′. Looks like they would like to keep the lake at around 695′.
http://www.ci.burnsville.mn.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=463
May 12th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
That is pretty damn interesting! I love local historical articles like that. It sounds like AV might have been a more interesting place to live back when Southport was a landing strip instead of a Target and Cedar was still a horse ranch. I’ve seen some of that before, but I’m going to read through that whole thing again. I love the old pictures, stories, and aerial photos.
Bill-Maybe you could offer to write an updated history for the city. I’m sure they would love to have your take on some of the newer developments like the new downtown and great new retail areas. ;)