Committee Minutes

Minutes-Service/Safety Standby Committee
Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 4:30 p.m.________
Chairman Kreun called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. and rearranged the agenda, two items on the agenda, one is Solid Waste Disposal plan and contractor licensing fees. Those present were Kreun, Kerian.

2. Contractor licensing.
Bev Collings stated this is a fee that has been licensed in the city for many years and was $25.00 and this year raised to $40, and started receiving some comments on the increased fee and why charging it; other cities around the State have not been charging a journeyman plumbing license, and do charge the master; on electrical only charge the master. They raised the journeyman plumber because raised the journeyman mechanical; there are no State Board that controls mechanical installer. Prior to the increase in fees the City was charging $75.00 for both master plumber and master mechanical installer and $105.00; journeyman plumber and journeyman mechanical fees were $25.00 each; master electrician, plumber and mechanical increased to $150.00.

BROOKS REPORTED PRESENT

Journeyman plumber ands mechanical installers were $25.00 and raised to $40.00.
There were no licensing requirements for journeyman electrician, and question raised as to why there were no journeyman electricians. The reason for licensing journeymen is to help monitor and to control out in the field; fees go into the General Fund.

Ms. Collings stated that the public is asking what can be done and her recommendation would be if change to be made to do it next year, as this year already into April and licenses were due the first of the year, about 75% have paid. She noted that all electrical certificates are written directly through the State and then we get 90% back; State has not changed fees for sometime. Fees are to cover expenses of inspections; and when get to the site ask for their cards - there must be a master on every job. She also noted some concern is that journeyman plumbers are also journeyman mechanical installers so when the increase went up the journeyman's fees doubled. The city auditor reported that rates had not been changed since 1998, didn't do any changes after the flood for specific reason and is a policy decision. Brooks stated that all of the fees should be reviewed annually, whether increased or not.

Kerian stated the purpose is trying to recover our costs of administering programs and make sure people are licensed and do work expected of them, help customers with that process, costs us something to do that and what would be the reason to combine the two if there weren't some savings for the City.

Pete Haga stated it wasn't the amount of the fees but the consistency between different licenses and why journeyman plumber has both a State and a City license while others do not, and the question today is not having an answer of why doing something and are asking for a policy or direction of the committee.

Kreun stated that we go out and inspect and make sure these particular people are licensed to do the work that they doing, inspect the job and the process and doesn't know if that is too much, those are some of the costs and keeping track and to make sure that the citizens of our community have quality work. Ms. Collings stated that they will tell you that we are very strict with making sure that they are licensed on the job.

After further discussion it was moved by Brooks and Kerian to create licensing requirement for journeyman electrician with fee equivalent to that of journeyman plumber, and to be put into effect for next year, 2007. Motion carried.

2. 1 Solid waste disposal plan.
Todd Feland, director of public works, presented RFP for Transportation and Disposal Services, and looking for concurrence with the plan, additions or modifications to the plan.

He reported that they expect the Court hearings to go on this year and into next year, a year and half to two years out and by 2007 the Court issue will be resolved. He stated we have landfill space to 2008 and will be at capacity in 2008 and have sent a letter to the FAA and Grand Forks Regional Airport that they will not accept solid waste after October, 2008, at which time the E/W runway maybe done by that point. He noted as we get through the court system at the site that we are at have to go back to Grand Forks County for zoning permission, and what happens with Turtle River Twp. the zoning issue is still not done and based upon our initial response, not slam dunk to get zoning approval at the County and that will require another public hearing, after getting zoning permission then go back to the Dept. of Health who also will have a hearing on the environmental permit here in Grand Forks, have two more hearings and have lot of work ahead of us, that when look at landfill closing in 2008, the landfill will not be in place in Grand Forks and the County until 2012, have lot of work - designing it and building it on top of hearing issues

He stated because we are so far out and don't know what is going to happen in court and have included ourselves in this regional study with the Lakes Region and the Fargo/Moorhead Metro Area and their concern is that have 10-15 years of capacity but know that siting a new landfill takes a long time - that we are part of that study and if things don't go our way, that is a potential for us to go into a larger region. The study is looking at waste energy, composting, landfill and that everyone of those options require a landfill. He stated one of the things that will get us as close to October, 2008 and are budgeting and have to budget a certain amount of revenue for landfill receipts otherwise not meet revenue forecasts and then have to raise rates to commercial and residential. He stated they are also looking at operations and how can maximize how much time we have left and how much capacity we have left. We need that information so we can better determine when we need to do this RFP item.

Kreun stated that is why they want to start the RFP in advance so that if there is something they need to do before mailing it out and have it on the shelf. Feland stated that the contractor would want to know within 6 months when switch over and need to be ready in advance so they are prepared to accept our solid waste. He stated they did some preliminary estimates, not sure if Fargo would want to accept our waste because they have 30% max. that they can accept from outside the city and they are at 24%, and thinks safe to est. at $60/ton while we are at $33.50/ton. He stated while looking at how much landfill space we have, are looking at current operation and in the RFP, the proposal would be to get separate prices on transportation, trucking and disposal and also bid as baled waste and loose waste, because more cost effective to turn our baling facility into a transfer facility, looking at what do with existing facility and how modify the inexpensively to turn that into a transfer facility and not bale the garbage - baling costs are $14/ton but if not getting benefit of increasing life of the landfill, the litter, blowing debris and not enough savings on trucking part of it, then can save a significant amount of money by not baling, will look at cost estimates to retrofit our baling facility into a transfer facility, and when get numbers in on trucking bale vs. loose and cost of disposal bale vs. loose and with our ests. on what it would cost to run a transfer facility vs. a baling facility, make the best economic choice. He noted they are also working with Burns & McDonnell on what we can do with our facility to make it into a transfer facility.

Brooks stated that we handle a lot of surrounding towns, and if have heard anything from them, and concern is that going to hear from them. Feland stated they have visited with some of the ND counties that we serve - Nelson, Walsh, Cavalier, Pembina and most people assume that the City of Grand Forks is going to work this out, have warned everybody that this is an issue in which the do nothing option is not a real option. He noted that they are going to ask for a bid price on no guarantee volume to the contractor, 100 tons per day (which would be the city of Grand Forks), 200 tons per day or 300 tons per day, and 300 tons per day is our current operation but can see that we are going to lose customers but not knowing that information, part of the communication is discussing and communicate plans to our regional customers and ND Dept. of Health and what we have to do is that we need to go to Bismarck to include them in on what we are doing, and would propose that we would have several meetings at the Alerus Center where invite our regional customers to give them a briefing of what we are going to do and get feeling of what they are going to do, and offer to go to their city council or commission meeting if they would like after giving them the briefing.

Kreun stated that our general thought is to keep our customers and to serve them.

Christensen stated in the RFP there are going to have to be some options, with or without baling, but the message sending out to customers because this process is going to add some additional costs and have to start thinking about our costs - some additional costs. Brooks stated his concern is that we have to give them a wake up call to customers - if can keep them together because if leave incur higher costs and for smaller towns that is an issue. Christensen stated he thinks they should get commitments from customers before sending out the RFP because 100,200 or 300 are big spreads. Feland stated they will have meetings this summer and working on the RFP so that in early 2007 can have the commitments and release RFP and during summer better define how much landfill capacity we have and communicate to everybody what doing and get commitments, and in early 2007 when know capacity and 6 months prior issue the RFP and be ready to roll into new system. Kreun stated they would also know what our legal issues are.

Kreun stated part of this is a backup plan that may not be put into use but have to be ready for both processes because even if go through the legal process and it comes out in our favor will still have to go through County planning and zoning, public hearings, design and construction and no matter what happens we are looking to 2010 and 2012, so need an interim plan because have to close in October 2008, some of this could be interim plan while building our landfill, some could be interim plan while decide where go permanently or could be a permanent plan - have to be ready for all the scenarios. He stated we have 3 options depending on what happens but everyone of them includes some type of interim landfill, every option will have to include at least an interim landfill - interim solution is to bring it someplace else other than our own landfill; other option is permanent landfill of our own; or permanent solution somewhere else.

Christensen asked how long it would take to plan alternate solutions if we don't prevail in Supreme Court, recognizing that we are always going to be hauling until we can open our second landfill or permanent solution, when start exploring secondary solutions. Feland stated in June of 2007 if we lose in District Court, and decided need to look at alternative site and that perhaps the City of Grand Forks needs to control decision making on that because of legal standards, and take at least 2 years to get it through the process, permitting process, local zoning and permitting and environmental permitting and 2 years to design and build - looking at 4 years from June of 2007 to have a site you are operating.

Feland stated that this is what we are working on and using this committee as the working group, and on how efficient we can be as transportation costs are going through the roof because of gas prices, trying to do as best can so lower price, will talk to customers over the summer, work on interim plan and when get people committed and inform them of what is going to happen, and better idea of when that date is when we meet our capacity and issue this 6 mo. prior to that, get prices and go back to customers informing them of prices.

Feland stated our goal has to be in 2007 to have our landfill operating as is, that our landfill is next to our transit facility and inexpensive for us to run but need to get through 2007 with the amount of customers we have because determining what the revenue is going to be next year and may not have to raise the rate but know in 2008 it is coming and need to mix those 2 years together. Feland stated we need to do the RFP so get prices back.

Christensen stated another issue is going to happen, if these people plan and if we can't convince them and lose garbage coming in and projected revenue coming and that will hinder the ability of this community to properly size a future landfill facility that can adequately be paid for by this community without the outside help; need to keep customers convinced so keep the volume and have a better chance of building something bigger and adequately priced facility that the region can afford. Feland stated that garbage in Grand Forks used to be very cheap and now very valuable, need to do better job managing and pricing it and not inexpensive any more.

Kreun stated there is going to be an interim plan and how does that affect our equipment, people. Feland stated they would be working on that this summer and also disposal rates and cost of service and continue to bring back information to committee. He stated in looking at services and that this is not a service that they advertise in the calendar - that the dump boxes they have at public work and what is happening is that they are dumping those things 10 times a day, contractors are using them, people from the region are using them and could subsidize a lot of these other services but now it is a 7-day a week thing and overwhelming them and gotten out of control, started small and now has become a free for all out there, wasn't the intent and spending a lot of money on this and concern is that they need to start refining our services because we don't have the revenue source to cover all these - have the in town pickup and can go out to the landfill but are providing this free service and paying through our basic rates and commercial rates and thinks could reduce as of June 1, get through spring cleanup which is first week in May and then get those containers out - and know that we have 9 yard waste sites and will have people end up dumping stuff at those, and put an extra effort in controlling those sites because people dump all over the place and we end up picking it up, and thinks could do this to reduce our costs (have 5 dump boxes), would keep grass and used oil, recycling, branches and only thing that they take to the inert landfill where not getting paid for - people bring garbage in from all over the place and we are subsidizing that. People would have the ability to go to the landfill min. fee is $15 and $21 for inert material and $33.50 for solid waste, and for most part charged the min. fee, whether residential or not. He noted would not have to go to the landfill but go to the baling facility.

Feland stated re. recycling costs - cost is $100/ton. He stated they are going to work with the commercial businesses that are giving us inert materials, and could save them some money and instead of hauling your stuff to Gwinner, etc. could give a separate container and then sent that to the inert landfill and don't end up hauling that to x,y,z and work with them, and at their baling facility, whether baling or transfer facility, do as much as possible separating the materials that can go into our inert landfill and do more of that at commercial site and at baling facility and try to hit home on recycling as becoming more cost effective.

Kreun stated the recycling still costs us money, and will they pay us for the tonnage of the recycling and if have separation equipment there to separate out the recyclables, we would save what we are paying for recycling here and they would pull it out and pay us for recycling. Feland stated this is a draft article and will look at the different options that we have this summer.

Feland stated he was looking for concurrence that this is the planning that committee wants to go on and that they will keep coming back to committee - and this is their plan as of today.

Christensen stated this is such a big issue and that there are decision points and this is a 5-year process and is important that the council collectively know these things and people have to know when they are getting close to that decision point and have to have an idea of what is going on. He stated that if can't proceed with Turtle River Twp. and sees 4 solutions: 1) siting within 4 mile jurisdiction; 2) siting outside the 4 mile jurisdiction; 3) different solution from landfill (maybe combined facility where it becomes a municipal revenue source, some communities burning their garbage, producing steam and involved in ethanol), and 4) maybe not want to be in the landfill business and just do hauling; and asked when they are going to start pursing some of those decisions rather than just moving on the same path. Kreun stated they have been doing that for 3 years.

Kerian stated a briefing at committee of the whole on Monday - that they have talked about timing decisions and perhaps a chart that includes that; and what are the decisions following x court decision. Kreun stated they are working towards trigger points and will have some relatively quick.

Feland stated he will bring this to committee of the whole, briefing.

The committee adjourned their meeting at 6:00 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk