Rice County exposed!!
June 29th, 2005
Today’s STrib has an article about the Rice County plans for development of I-35!
Shira Kantor, Star Tribune
June 29, 2005
Rice County’s plans to clear the way for development of some 1,200 acres west of Northfield have some neighbors concerned about growth and the way it is handled.
Late last year, commissioners voted to rezone the swath of land along Interstate Hwy. 35 between Hwy. 19 and County Road 1 from agricultural to highway commercial. The designation would allow commercial and industrial development.
“It’s almost like they’re creating another — or trying to create — another town out here,” said Diane Von Ruden, who lives in the rezoned area west of I-35.
Von Ruden and her husband, Chuck, voiced concerns about plans for utilities and roads, increased traffic, and the fact that the county “is getting into development. That’s usually what the cities do.”
A county economic development committee recently drafted a map of what could be built on the land. It includes plans for a wastewater treatment plant and a water tower.
Arlyn Grussing, the county planning director, said the county is doing an environmental study of the area, which remains zoned for agricultural use until Dec. 31. Public comments on the study could be taken from July 18 through Aug. 17.
The rezoned acreage would be by far the largest commercial/industrial area of the county. Some 90 percent of Rice County is zoned for agriculture.
Grussing said the land was rezoned as a long-term strategy to help the county boost its ailing commercial tax base. Commercial property accounted for 26 percent of the county’s tax base in 1993, he said, but it dropped to 16 percent by 2002.
That is largely because of an influx of new residents, Grussing said. Some 1,700 new residents come to Rice County per year.
That explanation doesn’t help Stephanie Henrickson of Bridgewater Township, who worries that the district will disrupt the environment.
“For me, the most immediate shocker was the map they passed — a utilities map with a wastewater treatment plant located on Heath Creek, which is sacred ground to many of us,” Henrickson said.
A group calling itself Rice County Land Use Accountability Inc. has sued Rice County over its land-use planning and environmental review policies. The suit addresses the rezoning of the 1,200 acres and other land-use decisions.
Contact the writer at 612-673-7275
or skantor@startribune.com.
I-35 Development in Rice County – Stinkin’ thinkin’!
June 28th, 2005
Whatever are they thinking? Let’s take a close look at this. That’s why I went to last night’s Northfield League of Women Voters discussion of Rice County’s “Master Plan” for developing 1047 acres, figure out the rationale, justification, whether the plan proposed by the County makes sense:
The discussion was moderated by Kathleen Doran-Norton, of the League (photo from another venue):
Here’s what Rice County is proposing, they call it “Economic Development”, their Master Plan:
North Section
South Section
Infrastructure
How did they choose that area? That’s confusing, because the County Board did NOT vote on that land. First, it was not even on the agenda, it happened under an item listed as “housekeeping,” bait and switch. And here’s how the discussion went in that “housekeeping” section:
Brown: … I’d like to move that we ask Staff to initiate a rexoning of the area from around the Highway 1 intersection of 35, to, ah, going north up to Highway 19 as a Commercial, ah, Highway zone area and proceed with the necessary steps of public hearing and additional …
Grussing: Would this be on both sides of 35 or just on the west side?
Brown: West side.
Grussing: OK
Chair Olson: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Minnick: Second.
Chair Olson: Second by Commissioner Minnick.
OK, let’s see, it was only for area west of I-35? And I got this information from the tape of the meeting, with two others present also observing the same statement, and I submitted an affidavit of this fact to the County. Given that the motion was specifically for the west side only, even after prompting, I think the county should start by removing anything east of I-35 from consideration.
Back to the meeting. It was standing room only, even the kids chairs were covered with adult gluteous maximus overhangs, but only one County Commissioner bothered to attend. Jessica Peterson was that lone Commissioner, she is on “Committee 1,” and she did a good job updating the group on how we got to where we are, a balanced account of history and overview of process and what to expect with the steps going forward. You would think that Jim Brown, who represents the affected area, would attend, but nooooooo….
There was also the full presentation by Loren Abraham, Abraham + Associates, an Architect from Hastings (Boat, anyone? Pup too?), not the abbreviated version we saw when the Rice County Planning Commission so rudely cut it short.
As he mentioned, there is information available for the taking at the Rice County website that shows that this area is not suited for this development, take a second and look at all that’s offered! And here are some examples:
And Rice County does have a Water Plan! I’ve yet to hear anyone talk about it!
I’m very concerned about the proximity to Union Lake and drainage to the wetlands across 35 to the east, and about Heath and Wolf Creek. I asked about baseline studies of the condition of Heath and Wolf Creek, and Cannon River Watershed Partnership does not have that info, per Hillary Ziols. If CRWP doesn’t have this info, who does??? Apparently, there are no baseline studies, and they have not been tested and so logically could not appear on the state’s “Impaired Waters” list. I’ve contacted Arlyn Grussing to get this information included in the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). This is the environmental review that the Planning Commission had adopted without any idea what the EQB’s guidelines are, they admitted on the record that they had not reviewed the EQB’s report! As I told Arlyn Grussing, given past performance of the County, I’m not confident that they will complete the AUAR as required, but I am certainly giving them every opportunity to get familiar with the rules and follow them!
The Infrastructure issues are extensive. The County’s consultant, RLK Kuusisto (oh, my, talk about a hyperactive website!) partially addressed sewer and water, but have NOT addressed who will pick up the $17,000,000 price tag. Here’s the RLK review of comments made at the June 9, 2005, Planning Commission hearing.
What I want to see, the BIG issues (I’ll get more specific as the AUAR moves forward):
Water Quality – baseline reports on all affected waters, and plan accordingly
Infrastructure – what’s needed, what does it REALLY cost, and who pays $17 million for water and sewer
Cost/Benefit Analysis – what’s the point of this, let’s get specific
Traffic and Road Infrastructure – what’s needed, what does it REALLY cost, how long do we have to wait for it, and who pays
Most important is the cost/benefit analysis. I see many concerns, many people voicing concerns, and I don’t see anyone lining up to develop out there, certainly not saying so at the public meetings. What’s driving this, Commissioner Brown?
I-35 DEVELOPMENT – Northfield League of Women Voters Discussion
June 26th, 2005
Kiffi Summa stopped by on Friday and she told me that tomorrow is the first of the “4th Monday” discussion series, and this month’s topic is the I-35 and Highway 19/Co.Rd. 1 Development proposals.
This is from the LWV site, and I see Griff posted it too:
Proposed I-35/Hwy 19 Development Area to Be First 4th Monday Discussion Topic
The Northfield League of Women Voters is beginning a new public meeting series called 4th Mondays. On the fourth Monday of each month, at 7 P.M., beginning June 27th, at the Northfield Public Library, there will be a “lightly moderated” community discussion of a current issue or topic.
The topic for the June 27th session will be the proposed commercial development corridor along I-35, south of Hwy. 19.
Each month¹s topic will be announced the week before the meeting in the Northfield News and on the Library bulletin board. The League¹s goal is to share information, gather input, and encourage civic participation. All the public is welcome. If you have questions, call (507) 663-6097.
——————————————————
Here’s what Rice County is proposing, they call it “Economic Development”, their Master Plan:
North Section
South Section
Infrastructure
You might want to call your County Commissioner to make sure they’re there to hear the discussion! Here’s their contact info.
Rice County sued under Minnesota Environmental Rights Act
June 14th, 2005
It’s official – Rice County has been sued for its repeated pattern of violating and ignoring environmental law related to Environmental Assessment Worksheets. This is a suit under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, which allows anyone to sue about a violation of environmental law, substantive or procedural. This suit is based on some of Rice County’s many procedural violations of environmental law.
By Pauline Schreiber
Daily News Staff Writer
FARIBAULT — Rice County is being sued by a group of citizens over alleged violations of the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act.
Carol Overland, Northfield, prepared the complaint, filed Friday in Rice County District Court, on behalf of a group called Rice County Land Use Accountability Inc.
“This is really about the county board’s repeated pattern of violating environmental law,” Overland said Monday. “How else can citizens hold the county accountable for not abiding by environmental laws?”
The lengthy complaint outlines 10 incidences of alleged violations of procedures by the county involving Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) petitions and rules set down by the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act.
“We’re asking for declaratory judgment that Rice County has violated the rules regarding EAW multiple times,” Overland said. “We’re asking that the county board’s right to be responsible government unit (RGU) in regards to EAWs be taken away and given to the EQB (Environmental Quality Board). And then, we’re asking that remedial training be provided to the county board, planning commission and staff in regards to environmental rights rules.”
Rice County Administrator Gary Weiers said Monday that he received a copy of the complaint Friday, and has forwarded it to the Rice County Attorney’s office.
“I really can’t comment on it, other than to say the county has received it, and the county attorney’s office will proceed with a legal response to it,” Weiers said.
The lawsuit alleges the county:
— Improperly subtracted a restored wetland area from a residential development on Circle Lake. As a result, the project was under the 80 acre threshold needed for a mandatory EAW when farmland is converted to residential use;
— Did not comply with the times limits set forth in the rules regarding a petition submitted by citizens asking for an discretionary EAW on the Circle Lake project; and did not provide proper notice to the Circle Lake petitioners of the county’s determination regarding their EAW petition;
— Did not provide proper notice to petitioners in regards to the county board’s determination regarding their petition for an EAW on the conversion of farmland along Interstate 35, south of the Big Steer Restaurant, and around the County Road 1 and I-35 intersection, to a commercial zone; and also violated rules requiring a mandatory EAW when farmland of more than 80 acres is converted to commercial development;
— Violated environmental rules when it finalized a conditional use permit for a new Wheeling Township hog feedlot with an EAW petition pending.
— Pauline Schreiber can be reached at 333-3127 or pschreiber@faribault.com.
Here’s what Pauline Schreiber missed — the relief requested. This suit requests that:
1. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.1000, subp. 4 by segmenting in a phased and connected action to avoid environmental review of the project that was the subject of the Circle Lake EAW Petition.
2. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.1100, subp. 7, through non-compliance with the time limits set forth in the rule regarding the Circle Lake EAW Petition.
3. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.1100, subp. 8, by not providing notice to the Circle Lake Petitioners of the county determination regarding their EAW Petition.
4. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.1100, subp. 8, by not providing notice to the Interstate 35 & County Rd. 1 Intersection Petitioners of the county determination regarding their EAW Petition.
5. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.1100, subp. 8, by not providing notice to the Wheeling Township Feedlot Permit Application Petitioners of the county determination regarding their EAW Petition.
6. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.3100, by making a final governmental decision regarding rezoning while the Interstate 35 and County Road 1 EAW Petition was pending.
7. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.3100, by making a final governmental decision approving a permit application while the Wheeling Township Feedlot EAW Petition was pending.
8. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 27, regarding the Circle Lake project, where a mandatory EAW is required for projects having an impact on wetlands.
9. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 36, regarding the Circle Lake project, where a Mandatory EAW is required for projects that result in conversion of more than 80 acres of agricultural land.
10. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 36, regarding the Interstate 35 and County Rd. 1 rezoning, where a Mandatory EAW is required for projects that result in conversion of more than 80 acres of agricultural land.
11. Order that due to Rice County?s violations of environmental law, for a reasonable term of years Rice County shall not be designated RGU for Environmental Review, and that the Environmental Quality Board shall be designated the RGU.
12. Order remedial training for Rice County staff, Commissioners, and Planning Commissioners regarding Environmental Review.
13. Award Plaintiff reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys? fees, necessary to bring this action.
14. Award such other relief as the court deems proper.
WOW! That’s a long list! I put that list here for a reason — so that you’ll get an idea the magnitude of violations on the part of the county. This long list of violations comes from a review of the county’s treatment of only three recent EAW Petitions. Unfortunately for Rice County, the cumulative impact of their pattern of violations of environmental law is something we cannot undo, but we must make sure that the violations do not continue, and that county officials learn how to conduct proper environmental review.
It’s numbers 11 and 12 that are particularly important, because that long list of violations showing the pattern of behavior demonstrates that they don’t understand environmental review or just don’t care, and that’s not an appropriate attitude for those engaged in environmental review, much less governmental officials and staff on the taxpayer payroll who are supposed to be representing the people! In this suit, we’re asking that the powers of environmental review be taken away from the county and that the Commissioners, Planning Commissioners, and county staff receive remedial training in environmental review. It’s this equitable remedy that can correct the problem.
A recent example of the Rice County Planning Commission’s lack of knowledge of environmental review — just last Thursday, when the County’s Planning Commission met to decide whether to go forward with an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR), I asked whether they’d read the Environmental Quality Board’s overview of content and form necessary in an AUAR. I showed them a copy and later entered it for the record, it’s called Recommended Content and Format — Alternative Urban Areawide Review, asked them all with good eye contact, and not a single one had read it! It’s on the EQB’s main web page, not hidden. I guess I should have also asked on the record whether they’d read the AUAR rules, but if they hadn’t read the “Cliff Notes” I’d bet they don’t even know where the rules are! I get really tired of this brazen ignorance, and it’s time they were held accountable for doing proper environmental review.
EAW’s don’t stop projects, and none of the handful, well two handfuls, of EAW’s I’ve worked on have ever advanced to an EIS stage, though some certainly should have. An EAW is designed to show that project proposers have considered the potential environmental impacts of their project and have presented that information to project reviewers, and that project reviewers have taken that information into account and that the public has been allowed to address those issues prior to a decision being made on the project.
“Some people,” Ray Cox for example, think EAW’s are “abused” and use of them should be limited or eliminated. “Some people” think that the people should not be allowed to request that this environmental information be provided on projects, and that citizens should not be allowed to comment on environmental impacts. Ray Cox acted on this belief — He was the deciding vote in the House Environment Committee that allowed HF1202, a bill eliminating, ELIMINATING, use of EAW’s for feedlots under 1,000 animal units to pass through Committee and go on to the House floor (1000 animal units is 3,000 finishing hogs). Here’s a Guest Column Ray wrote, Process for EAW, after Rick Nord reminded him that Ray had said he would not weaken environmental review yet had done exactly that with his vote on HF1202. Ray confirmed he’d said that to Rick, but goes on to try to explain that his elimination of right to Petition was not weakening of environmental review… yeah… right…
So Rice County has been sued for its pattern of violations and disregard of environmental law. I’ll keep you posted as it moves forward.
Rice County Planning Commission goes for AUAR
June 10th, 2005
… and I’ll bet they can’t even spell it! It is so frustrating dealing with folks who have no desire to educate themselves.
Rice County Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 2005
Here’s Chair Ross Nelson, who plays the “butcher the Commentors name” game, it is so juvenile — every person who signed up to speak was subjected to this dismissive treatment of affected and exaggerated mispronounciation of names that that don’t require instruction to pronounce correctly, and these are regular testifiers, people he should be on a first name basis with by now. He tried, but couldn’t find any bizarre version of “Overland.”
One thing I don’t understand…an aside here, but an important one.. here they were talking about 1080 acres, BUT the original public hearing way back when they rezoned it was for 1047 acres. This is where they issued the two Notices for different parts of the Interstate 35 and Co. Road 1 area, one for 341 acres, the other for the balance, because, they claimed, they did not interpret Jim Brown’s motion correctly (oh, get real, I went to the County and listened to the tape and he said clearly that the area he intended to be covered by his motion was that area WEST of I-35, he was specifically asked if he meant east and west and said “WEST, ONLY WEST.” I submitted a transcript of that part of the tape for the record. Classic Rice County, make it up as you go along.)
The meeting was ostensibly to determine whether they should go forward with “Committee 1’s” recommended plan and complete an AUAR.
First, what’s an AUAR? Thanks to Kathleen Doran-Norton for spreading this around, it’s an EQB explanation of what to include in an AUAR! She’s blogged some about plans for the I-35 and Co. Rd. 1 intersection. And that’s why I’m frustrated with the Planning Commission — not one of the Planning Commission members had read this important document! I asked them on the record, and I hope the minutes reflect this fact.
Here’s who’s on Committee 1
Here’s their brilliant idea, the Master Plan:
North Section
South Section
Infrastructure
Comment time was limited to 2 minutes, and people could not speak again if an important issue was raised that requried clarification. Gordon Kelley, known for his distaste for citizen questions, remember his editorial “Rezoning is the right thing to do!” made sure that those in attendance understood that questions would not be answered. For example, it was clear that the Planning Commission didn’t know what all was entailed in an AUAR because they hadn’t read the basic EQB document, didn’t want that sort of info on the record it seemed, but approved it anyway.
Kathleen Doran-Norton spoke that night on behalf of the Northfield League of Women Voters, requesting a transparent process, citizen input and protection of the water. She noted that there are no committee members from the area, and that their process has begun and is felt already in impacts on the area. Who will be paying the estimated $17 million in infrastructure? There is no estimate of the short and long term benefits. An important point, she strongly recommended that the “no build” option be considered, and it’s my guess that analysis and consideration of the “no build” option is required under NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and MEPA (Minnesota Environmental Policy Act).