After a standing-room only crowd flooded the Dakota County Commissioners’ meeting room two weeks ago, the board knew they would have a similar audience when it came time to make a decision on a rezoning request project.
The decision to move Monday’s board meeting to the Dakota City council chambers proved to be a good one, as a reporter-estimated 100 people, including a contingent of supporters for and against the rezoning request by Knife River Midwest construction company, filled the room and offered their thoughts before the board voted 3-1 to reject the proposal.
Knife River was asking for a 120-acre piece of property just west of the intersection of state highways 110 and 20 for the purpose of constructing an aggregate yard that, they said, would provide economic benefits to the county and serve as an opportunity to reduce the amount of traffic their trucks create on the highways.
Knife River management and a number of employees voiced support for the project, citing its active footprint in the area with their road construction projects, including one along Highway 35 just a couple of miles south of the proposed site.
“We have deep roots here in the community and have had them for a lot of years,” said Chris Winkle, the company’s general manager, who added that 18 of the company’s 140 employees are Dakota County residents.
Winkle said that 14 different sites in Dakota County were considered for the project, which would include a rail system that would hold 100 cars. He said that there is already an industrial footprint in the area, including a sandpit.
“This is the only site that checks all the boxes and met all the criteria,” he told the board.
Environmental manager Adam Konopasek added that the company would control dust in the area through a combination of vegetation and conservative water usage of about 113,000 gallons per week.
“By comparison, the average amount of water needed for 120 acres of corn is about 4.1 million gallons per week,” he noted.
The rail yard would also provide a cost savings for the company by bringing aggregate in via rail versus the current method of trucking the product in.
“We are committed to being a responsible neighbor,” Winkle concluded.
Most of those who spoke in support of the project had connections to the company, either through employment or contract work with the company.
One of those residents with no direct connection was Taylor Nelson, who lives 2 1/2 miles north of the proposed site and farms in the area. He encouraged the board to look at the broader economic benefits of the proposal.
An attorney for Doug and Mason Nelson, owners of the property in question, said that the county has competing interests in its economic development plans for the area.
“More than one thing can be true at once,” he said. “Opponents (of the plan) are focused on maintaining the agricultural nature of Dakota County, but this board decides when a piece of agricultural property is suitable for economic development.”
That wasn’t enough for the estimated 20 residents who spoke out against the proposal.
Cindy Morgan Anderson helped lead a petition against the proposal, pointing to the county’s 2014 plan that prioritizes agricultural preservation.
“A heavy asphalt plant goes against these goals,” she said.
She also noted that Knife River’s track record in dealing with environmental issues is, at best, dubious.
“They say they do air, soil and water quality tests, however, their history of violations between 2015 and 2026 is deeply concerning,” Anderson said, pointing to issues in Sioux City and Wyoming in which the company was fined for violating air quality controls.
“These violations indicate that Knife River is not a good neighbor as they have suggested. They should not be able to move to Nebraska to continue their bad acts and escape the Iowa Department of Natural Resources’ regulations,” she added.
Emmett Albensius, whose family settled their land back in 1878, said he was against the proposal as well.
“The reason people move to the country is simple — it’s called quiet enjoyment. It’s not to have a rock and asphalt plant as your neighbor,” he said. “There are better places to build this plant, but not here in a beautiful rural environment.”
At the close of the two-hour hearing, board chair Martin Hohenstein noted that the county’s Planning and Zoning Commission had voted against the proposal, but the county board is not bound to that recommendation.
He also noted that it has been difficult for the county to afford paving the county’s roads.
“The county operates 100 percent off of your taxes,” he said. “We’ve only paved 2 1/2 miles in the last 20 years, because we don’t have the ability to just go out and pay for repaving a road.”
He also mentioned that this part of the state is looked upon by those at the state level as “an afterthought.”
“We’re not forgotten by those down in Lincoln, but we’re not thought about very much, either,” he said. “Anybody who drives our highways here will understand we’re not high on their pecking order.”
The board ultimately voted to reject the rezoning request. Hohenstein was joined by board members Brian VanBerkum and Rick Bousquet, with Rogelio Rodriguez Villalobos voting against. Board member Jeff Reed abstained, citing personal connections to the project.
