Council Minutes
17521
April 16, 2001
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
April 16, 2001
The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in its regular session in the council chambers in City Hall on Monday, April 16, 2001 at the hour of 7:00 o’clock p.m. with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim (on telephone system), Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 13; absent: none; 1 seat vacant.
Mayor Brown announced that anyone wishing to speak to any item may do so by being recognized prior to a vote being taken on the matter, and advised that the meeting is being televised.
CANVASS RESULTS OF SPECIAL ELECTION HELD
ON APRIL 10, 2001
Mayor Brown appointed the members of the city council as the canvassing board to canvass results of the votes cast in the several precincts of Ward 6 of the city in the special election held on Tuesday, April 10, 2001.
The city auditor reported that his office had received returns from the four precincts of Ward 6 on the results of the special city election held on April 10, 2001, and presented the information to the council members with instructions to confirm the number of ballots with the vote tabulation summary, that when they have completed the verification to sign and date the canvass certificates they have received. He reported they did not have any additional absentee ballots so simply verifying that the total number of votes cast in your precinct equal the vote tabulation summary.
Council Members Klave and Lunak confirmed and certified the number of votes cast in Precinct 4.
Council Members Bakken and Kreun confirmed and certified the number of votes cast in Precinct 3.
Council Members Brooks and Bjerke confirmed and certified the number of votes cast in Precinct 2.
Council Members Burke and Gershman confirmed and certified the number of votes cast in Precinct 1.
Carried 13 votes affirmative.
The canvassing board submitted the following report: Document No. 8070 - Election Summary.
Municipal Judge Jack Widdel administered the oath of office to Dorette Kerian as council member for the 6th Ward to fill the unexpired term ending in June 2002. Council Member Kerian took her seat at the council area for Ward 6.
AWARDS PRESENTATIONS
Todd Feland, acting director of public works, recognized retiring employee, John Scheffer, for his 25 years service with the Water Maintenance Distribution Shop.
FLOOD UPDATE
Al Grasser, city engineer, presented an updated flood report on emergency actions to date, and pleased to say that in contrast to last week’s report when giving some dire predictions and potential consequences, our potential flood crest never did materialize, the rain events were much less and fell in portions of the valley that had minimal impacts on our actual flood crest heights, will stretch our crest out longer but took some of the peaks off the flood. He stated they wound down operations pretty rapidly towards the end of last week and over the weekend, finished moving dirt on Friday, downsized some of EOC staff but they are still on 24-hour operations but will decrease as the week progresses. He stated he wanted to recognize the public works people who have and are continuing to man the pumps in the event of a storm and rain; that they haven’t had any problems keeping up with sanitary sewer system, but it’s probably a good idea to keep plugs in the basement until get to 36’-38’ range because we are still pretty vulnerable yet for a significant rainfall event and with the slow drop that’s being predicted will probably be exposed to that for another week.
Mr. Grasser stated that we’re moving into the phase where there will be a push to remove the dirt, and would caution them that as the river is still high and will stay high; the process they are looking at now is to have plan presented as to what may go down and as they disassemble want to determine if they can use clay as part of the Corps permanent flood protection project, otherwise put in a place where it would be easily accessible for next year’s potential flood fighting event, and trying to work up some policies for sand removal, sandbag removal and should expect to see that the middle or end of this week and work that through the mayor’s office; and asked for council’s patience and the patience of the public in putting up with inconvenience and sometimes has an actual cost impact on businesses.
He noted that they will have a significant change order coming through as when they first did the bidding for this year’s flood fight, it was essentially $150,000 or $200,000 contract that was set to establish unit prices for a flood fight activity, and didn’t anticipate that we would be fighting this level of flood - the change order will cover the costs that have actually incurred in the flood fight and may include some additional items that were addressed during the flood fight that weren’t part of the basic bid and also some items they will use as they remove the dikes, including adding top soil and seeding type activities so that when the remove the dikes can put on top soil or where have a dike put on top soil, seed it and leave it.
He stated that he was asked to outline their second line of defense plan, that their secondary line has been modified several times and visual presentation was made on screen. He stated they were able to keep most people on the dry side of the dikes, and that’s due to resources council was able to provide, had excellent consultants who worked well with various neighborhoods and pleased were able to make modifications without endangering the safety of the community.
Council Member Lunak asked the amount of the change order, Mr. Grasser stated he should know tomorrow and should be substantial amount on the contract (in addition they have rented generators and pumps, etc. - will try to send generators back this week, but will keep pipes) but will probably be somewhere over $500,000 and under $1 million on the actual contract. Council Member Lunak asked if there was any discussion re. putting a secondary dike on Elmwood Drive - Mr. Grasser stated original drawing showed one piece coming off Elmwood onto Belmont but their alignment because of the interim flood mitigation dikes didn’t have to back off into those lines any more but hold those lines on Elmwood but didn’t contemplate changing that alignment.
Council Member Hamerlik asked if there was a policy/plan as to when secondary line of defense goes in, that on Boyd Drive the elevation is about 53 ft., and at what point would that be built up. Mr. Grasser stated there could be a number of different circumstances that trigger that, and that last week when had a possible 48-50 ft. prediction and saw more rain on the horizon, were prepared that the secondary alignment was going to go in on Monday, and only the fact that the precipitation event didn’t materialize to the extent that bought a few more days to back off on a decision; that part of it is timing when have sufficient time to build an alignment. He stated it also depends on how hard and fast the river is flowing and that anytime they expect to see that river approaching the 50 ft. stage, would very seriously recommend installation of the secondary dike alignment.
Council Member Gershman stated that in the Lincoln Park area the City had let a contract to remove streets, but after using borrow pit we probably would not want to take out some of those streets because of accessibility for trucks for the future; and if the City was able to stop that contract so could save that money. Mr. Grasser stated that they have had some preliminary discussions as Gowan Construction was awarded that bid and they were also our contractor on the flood fight, Gowan seems willing to hold off on actually doing that work because it became apparent that if have to fight flood in 2002 will want to access some of those areas, and because we had all weather streets around our borrow pit made a huge difference in how much production to make out of those pits. He stated they will analyze the critical roads and hold off on those.
ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3883, AMENDING STREET AND
HIGHWAY PLAN TO INCLUDE PUBLIC R/W SHOWN AS
DEDICATED ON THE PLAT OF BROWN CORPORATION
ADDITION
An ordinance entitled “An ordinance to amend the Street and Highway Plan of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, to include the public rights of way shown as dedicated on the plat of Brown Corporation Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota”, which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on March 19, 2001 and upon which public hearing had been scheduled for this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.
The city auditor reported that the required legal notice had been published calling for a public hearing to be held on this matter this evening and further that to date no protests or grievances had been filed with his office.
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none and Mayor Brown closed the public hearing.
Upon call for the question and upon roll call vote the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 14; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the ordinance adopted.
SUSPEND AGENDA TO CONSIDER ITEM RELATIVE
TO ASPEN CREEK PARK/RICHARD’S WEST PARK
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Bjerke to suspend the agenda and to consider the item relative to the Aspen Creek Park/Richard’s West Park development proposal prior to discussion on other agenda items. Carried 14 votes affirmative.
EXTEND DECLARATION OF LOCAL DISASTER/EMERGENCY
AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS
A staff recommendation from Mayor Brown to extend the declaration of local disaster or emergency for an additional thirty (30) days beginning on April 18, 2001, was presented.
It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Lunak that we authorize extending the declaration of local disaster or emergency for an additional thirty (30) days beginning on April 18, 2001. Carried 14 votes affirmative.
APPROVE APPOINTMENT TO PENSION AND
INSURANCE COMMITTEE
Mayor Brown announced the appointment of Michelle Cooke to the Pension and Insurance Committee. It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Lunak to approve the appointment of Michelle Cooke to the Pension and Insurance Committee. Carried 14 votes affirmative.
ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE
OF SEWER RESERVE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2001D
TO FINANCE THE UNDERTAKING OF AN EXPANSION
AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE MUNICIPAL SEWERAGE
UTILITY
The staff recommendation from the finance department relative to the resolution authorizing the issuance of Sewer Reserve Revenue Bonds, Series 2001D, ($13,781,500) to finance the undertaking of an expansion and improvement of the Municipal Sewerage Utility, with recommendation to approve the resolution as stated and authorize proper city officials to execute the loan agreement after review by the city attorney.
Council Member Martinson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, which motion was seconded by Council Member Lunak: Document No. 8071 - Resolution.
Upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 14; and the following voted against the same: none; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR EIS AT TURTLE
RIVER TOWNSHIP LANDFILL SITE
The staff recommendation from the public works department relating to the matter of Sanitation Department budget amendment for environmental impact statement at Turtle River Township landfill site, with recommendation to approve sanitation department budget amendment from the Sanitation Enterprise Fund cash carryover in the amount of $199,244.00.
It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Lunak that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 14 votes affirmative.
APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH GREAT RIVER ENERGY
TO RELOCATE POWER LINE FOR ENGLISH COULEE
DIVERSION PROJECT
The staff recommendation from the engineering department relating to Great River Energy power line relocation for English Coulee Diversion, with recommendation to approve an agreement with Great River Energy to relocate their power line in Section 12, Township 151 North, Range 51 West for the English Coulee, at estimated cost of $65,889.52.
It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Lunak that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 14; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.
APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH MINNKOTA POWER CO-
OPERATIVE, INC. TO RELOCATE POWER LINE FOR
ENGLISH COULEE DIVERSION PROJECT
The staff recommendation from the engineering department relating to Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. power line relocation for English Coulee Diversion, with recommendation to approve an agreement with Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. for Option B to relocate their power lines as needed for the English Coulee Diversion project, at an estimated cost of $53,000.
It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Lunak that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 14; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.
APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH NODAK ELECTRIC CO-
OPERATIVE TO RELOCATE POWER LINE FOR ENGLISH
COULEE DIVERSION PROJECT
The staff recommendation from the engineering department relating to Nodak Electric Cooperative power line relocation for English Coulee Diversion, with recommendation to approve an agreement with Nodak Electric Cooperative to relocate their power lines as needed for the English Coulee Diversion project, pending the review of right of way information and the agreement, at an estimated cost of $135,290.
It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Lunak that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members
Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 14; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.
APPROVE MOSQUITO CONTROL SUPERVISOR
POSITION DESCRIPTION
A staff recommendation from the health department relating to the mosquito control supervisor position description, with recommendation to approve mosquito control supervisor position description.
It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Lunak that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 14 votes affirmative.
APPROVE CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH ND
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (TOBACCO GRANT) AND
APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT
A staff recommendation from the health department relating to budget amendment (HL40, $30,000, 4/2/01) and contract amendment for Tobacco Grant with the North Dakota Department of Health, with recommendation to approve the budget amendment and contract amendment with the North Dakota Department of Health (new 2001 revenue).
It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Lunak that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 14 votes affirmative.
INTRODUCE ORDINANCE REVISING LIMITS FOR
INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
A staff recommendation from the environmental coordinator relating to proposed ordinance changes revising limits for Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Molybdenum, with recommendation to approve, with first reading at April 16 council meeting and second reading at the May 7 council meeting.
It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Lunak that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 14 votes affirmative.
Council Member Martinson introduced an ordinance entitled “An ordinance amending Section 15-0204 of the Grand Forks City Code relating to use of public sewers”, which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.
ACCEPT LOW BIDS FOR MOWING IN GREENWAY,
PROJECT NO. 5244
A staff recommendation from the interim greenway coordinator relating to consideration of bids for City Project No. 5244, mowing in greenway 2001, with recommendation to approve award of contract to Al Shane for Areas #1 and #5, Bosh Enterprises for Areas #2 and #3, Dakota Maintenance for Area #4, and David’s Lawn Service for Area #6 as based on the low bids in each respected areas (est. cost for 2001 $59,400).
It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Lunak that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 14; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.
SET PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO 1999 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN TO SECURE FUNDS FOR
ASPEN CREEK PARK AND RICHARD’S WEST PARK
Council Member Brooks asked Terry Hanson, Urban Development, for the proposed amendment. Mr. Hanson stated that if the council decides to put additional funds either into Aspen Creek Park or to open a project to put money into Richard’s West Park, the action for tonight would be to direct staff to do the amendment to the 5-year Plan and the Annual Action Plan and to set May 21 as a public hearing for the change to the Annual Action Plan. He stated they will move ahead and do the public notices so can hold the public hearing on May 21; and that the only thing they will have to do is de-obligate funds from the 1999 Project, which is the Grand Forks Housing Authority Acquisition Project for $90,000 and the remainder of the funds could come out of unobligated funds and don’t have to have resolution to that effect. It was noted that if the council does this, they would have money for both parks this summer. Mr. Hanson stated that they can allocate the money after the public hearing.
Council Member Hamerlik asked what status is of the City-owned land (Aspen Creek Park), whether donated or sold to Park District. Council Member Brooks stated that the parcels of land - Richard’s West Park belongs to the Park District and Aspen Creek Park is City land, and the discussion is only with completing the parks, and haven’t discussed the transfer of land with the Park District nor have they requested that of the City.
It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Gershman to set the public hearing for May 21, 2001, requesting input and comments on the proposed amendment to the 1999 Annual Action Plan to de-obligate $90,000 in funds from the 1999 Project out of an existing acquisition project (Grand Forks Housing Acquisition Project), transfer $20,000 out of an existing downtown recovery project, and additional funds from 2001 program income and/or unobligated funds. Carried 14 votes affirmative.
APPROVE 2001 BEAUTIFICATION PROGRAM BUDGET
The Chamber of Commerce Beautification Committee recommendation relating to the 2001 Beautification applications, with recommendation to approve the 2001 Beautification Program budget: (Application #1: UND-Facilities: University Avenue brick median, $10,000; Ap. #3 Urban Development, public art installation, $4,500; Ap. #4, ArtWise, tile border in Town Square, $10,000; Ap. #5, Grand Forks Park District, Awano Japanese Garden in Sertoma Park, $20,000; Ap. #6, Grand Forks Park District, complete 4th Street mini-park, $15,000; Ap. #7, Grand Forks Park District, Adopt-an-Area Program, $5,000; Ap. #9, Grand Forks Airport Authority, Airport Drive planting berms, $5,000; Ap. #10, Central Business District Association, downtown banners, $2,000; Ap. #11, North Valley Arts Council, downtown sculpture walk, $10,500; Ap. #12, Grand Forks Historic Preservation Commission, Griggs Statue site work at 4th Street and Bruce Avenue, $6,000; Ap. #13, Urban Development, thoroughfare care program (arterial streets), $5,000; Ap.#16, Downtown Leadership Group, Downtown Adopt-a-Trash Receptacle Program, $2,000; for a total of $95,000).
Council Member Burke stated that the motion pending is to approve the recommendations of the committee and moved an amendment to approve spending $20,000 on the Japanese Garden and to reallocate the remaining $75,000 in the Beautification Fund toward the flood fight for 2001. Council Member Stevens seconded the amendment.
Council Member Hamerlik stated we should allocate the $20,000 but not dedicate the $75,000 now but hold it for several weeks because there may be an opportunity for us to still go ahead with the beautification projects. Council Member Burke asked if there was any chance that we won’t have to come up with $75,000 locally for the flood fight; the city auditor stated he didn’t know what the total cost of the flood fight is and can’t address that.
After discussion Council Member Hamerlik moved an amendment to the motion that we allocate the $20,000 and determine the use of the other $75,000 at a later date. Council Member Gershman seconded the motion.
Terry Hanson, Urban Development, stated he wanted to make the council aware of several projects that are continuations of existing projects where others on the list are new projects that could be delayed for a year or so; Application #6: Grand Forks Park District for the completion of the 4th Street mini-park, that there are pallets of pavers sitting there for completion, $15,000; Application #12: Grand Forks Historic Preservation Commission with the Griggs statue site work, statue has been purchased but is not sitting on the site as no foundation yet, $6,000; Application #13, Urban Development, thoroughfare cleaning program, for cleaning of arterial streets (32nd Avenue South, DeMers Avenue, Gateway Drive), $5,000. He stated he was not sure of Application #3, Urban Development, public art installation, $4,500, and not sure what the status is.
Upon call for the question on the amendment to the amended motion and upon voice vote, the motion failed.
Upon call for the question on the first amendment and upon roll call vote, the following voted “aye”: Council Members Stevens, Burke, Glassheim - 3; voting “nay”: Council Members Hamerlik, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson, Brooks, Bjerke - 11. Mayor Brown declared the motion failed.
Council Member Bjerke moved an amendment to the motion to approve Application #7, #12 and #13 of the Beautification Program; the motion died for lack of a second.
It was moved by Council Member Gershman that we approve the recommendations as presented by the Beautification Committee; seconded by Council Member Kreun. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 11; voting “nay”: Council Members Bjerke, Stevens, Burke - 3. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.
ADOPT RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING TERM AND
DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF DEFINITIVE IMPROVEMENT
WARRANTS, SERIES 2001C, ON THE FUND OF FLOOD
DISTRICT NO. 14 AND PROVIDING FOR AND
APPROPRIATING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR SUPPORT
AND MAINTENANCE OF SAID FUND
The staff recommendation from the finance department relative to the resolution establishing term and directing issuance of definitive improvement warrants, Series 2001C (Dike Improvements) ($10,050,000) on the fund of Flood District No. 14 and providing for and appropriating special assessments for the support and maintenance of said fund, with recommendation to approve the resolution as stated and authorize proper city officials to execute the loan agreement after review by the city attorney.
Council Member Lunak questioned the reduction in the principal amount from $18,000,000 to $10,050.000. The city auditor stated that the $18 million is the 50% local share and of that the State will pay 45% and the City will pay 55%, and in reality this is a total project cost on intakes of $36+ million and our share is the $18+ million of which we pay 55%.
Council Member Martinson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, which motion was seconded by Council Member Lunak. Document No. 8072 - Resolution.
Upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 14; and the following voted against the same: none; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
APPROVE CONTRACT FOR PREPRATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) AT
TURTLE RIVER TOWNSHIP LANDFILL SITE
A staff recommendation from the public works department relating to the matter of contract for preparation of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) at the Turtle River Township landfill site, with recommendation to approve contract for preparation of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) at the Turtle River Township landfill site to Water and Earth Technologies, Inc. in the amount of $199,244.00.
Dexter Perkins, geologist at UND, with consulting and environmental geologist at various times, stated he has been very active in environmental politics and had several comments to make on this matter; that the City can go ahead and invest a lot of money and have an environmental impact statement prepared but that anybody who knows about geology and landfill sites will tell you that the report will not come back overwhelmingly positive; that it’s not going to say it’s the best place for a landfill, that it’s not a great place and not very many good places in that direction from Grand Forks. He stated that no matter what the report says he doesn’t see any reason to expect that will get special use permit from the Township to put that landfill in; which will leave the City with two choices - either spend a lot of money to change their mind or else go to court and sue them, and that it’s time to move on and look for Plan B and doesn’t see that site as turning into anything. He suggested getting farther away from the river, for higher ground in a place with different kind of soil; that he has not given up on the possibility of expanding near the current locations and would pursue with both FAA and EPA to see what could work out to make that a possible place to build the expanded landfill; and if that didn’t work, to look farther west (beyond the beach lines where get into a place where don’t have the surface water flow and all the coulees next door) ; perhaps out of Grand Forks County or go south, that Fargo has same problem with landfills and maybe cooperate with them and find something halfway in between - but thinks spending money on the environment impact statement will be money thrown away if go through with that study.
Todd Leake, Fairfield Township, and representing the Grand Forks Citizens Coalition, which is a group of County citizens concerned with a variety of issues including landfill, stated that one of the things the City should take into consideration before pursuing the EIS on the current site and the other alternatives that EIS would probably pursue, if the current selected site really is worth the intensive study, or if pursue an EIS on looking for alternative sites, that he has talked with a variety of federal, state, international agencies and they are quite concerned about the Turtle River site, the International Joint Commissions, Red River Pollution Surveillance Board are concerned that this is basically a time bomb for the Red River in location where being considered, that there are wildlife concerns, MN Dept. of Fisheries, DNR, MN Pollution Control Agency are concerned about this, etc. and list goes on about all the agencies that will have to be brought into the scoping process in EIS to consider the site at its current location, and probably not going to be favorable for that site and perhaps before pursuing better for the City to look at viable alternatives for siting the landfill rather than what was considered originally. The Turtle River site was basically not the best site that was considered but the site of last resort - should not have been a setback study but looking for a good site to site a landfill, geologically, politically and setbacks as well and would be incumbent upon the council to take a good look at what direction you want to go in an EIS, siting a landfill without going with this poor site and spending a lot of time on that.
Jay Fiedler summarized the time sensitivity issues - they are told that the existing landfill will reach capacity in 5 to 12 years, have a permit from the Health Department to continue operating the existing landfill for just short of 2 years, with an inference from the Health Department that we need to show progress in terms of siting a new landfill and have the capacity problems; the EIS has some time sensitivity issues - that representatives of the contractor would be here early in May getting lay of the land; scoping meeting would probably happen the end of May, field work happen during the summer and fall, a draft EIS would be prepared around October and public hearings on the draft EIS early winter and the process would be complete roughly June or July next summer - it’s a process that takes a little better than a year’s time.
Council Member Gershman asked if it would be a problem if this issue were held for 2 weeks for further discussion. Mr. Fiedler stated that the contractor has not given any indication that 2 weeks here or there makes a lot of difference. Council Member Gershman also stated that wherever the landfill goes, they will have politics, FAA portion not going away, and it’s at the eleventh hour - late in the process
Mr. Fiedler stated with process that a new landfill is necessary either because of the FAA regulations or federal statutes or capacity issues - there are two goals we need to meet: 1) pick an environmentally appropriate site for a landfill, that doesn’t necessarily mean the best site that there can be, universe of sites that are appropriate for landfills, some better than others, but not aware of any requirement that we select the best site, but important to select a correct site and environmentally sound site, and that’s one of the reasons he advocates an EIS, and other issue is 2) once we’re satisfied we have the right site we want to accomplish our goal and get it sited and get it constructed and that’s the other reason he advocated an EIS. He stated if it’s a non-favorable EIS then we haven’t picked the right site, but if a favorable EIS, then that puts us in the best possible position that we can be to have this site approved and have a landfill constructed. He stated he agrees with Mr. Perkins that we’re not going to win in Turtle River Twp. and it’s likely that permit will be denied and if so, will end up in the courts and if we do, a favorable EIS will be a powerful tool to use. He stated his thinking is that the EIS accomplishes two things that need to be accomplished: a) verify that we have an appropriate site or tell us that we don’t, and 2) if we do have an appropriate site get it sited and constructed.
Council Member Bjerke moved to approve the contract, the preparation of the EIS at the Turtle River Township landfill site to Water and Earth Technologies, Inc. in the amount of $199,244.00. Council Member Kreun seconded the motion.
Council Member Christensen suggested that at the next committee of the whole meeting Mr. Feland give a report as to the criteria that was used for the site section, and perhaps some preliminary environmental testing data that was done, and if site selected with no preliminary environmental testing then Mr. Perkins’ call to alarm has greater merit.
Todd Feland stated process started in 1995/96, with Burns & McDonnell helping the City select the best site, and in the process of doing that they prepared a lot of the documents that will aid the Environmental Impact Statement, a lot of the information will be released into that report; at that time the four sites were chosen, 3 in Levant Twp. and 1 in Turtle River, with the Turtle River site being the best site based on geology, transportation costs, waterway issues. He stated there was a lot of study that went into it, put lot of preliminary effort and time into selecting the site in Turtle River Township and can bring that information back out, and good to review information in narrowing it down to the 4 sites, all of which were in Grand Forks County. He stated when they started this we had a new council and reviewed the whole process and at that time did send out correspondence to Nelson and Walsh Counties and asked if they were interested in the city of Grand Forks siting a landfill in their counties, and in responses from county commissions is that they were interested in having a regional landfill but not in their particular county; and that any place they choose will not be a welcome site. He stated they met with FAA and Health Department representatives along with Council Members Kreun and Klave to discuss that very question, why not expand where we’re at, and have received cold response on that issue, that they want to see positive movement on doing something other than at current site; not a good option for expanding at that site.
Council Member Kreun stated that Mr. Feland is understating the amount of work that has gone into this study and decision to make this the particular site they would like. According to the State Health Department this is the most intensive pre-study that has ever been done in the State of North Dakota, the most work that has been done to find out which is the best particular site for a particular landfill which we are going to try to site in Turtle River Twp.; and all the particular reasons these two gentlemen have been bringing up have been directly discussed before we had our committee of the whole, and what they are indicating is very true, no matter where we go will wind up with exactly the same problems that we have here. He stated that we did look in other counties, and this is the point that we came to one more time is to find out with the EIS study if this is the right particular place to build a landfill; that we have gone through with this as a committee of the whole and prior committees, when went to Department of FAA and the Health Department, doesn’t know if we can answer any more questions or what 2 more weeks will do, not going to change until we do the study.
Council Member Gershman asked if they do study some alternatives. Mr. Fiedler stated that the contractors will look at the sites that have been considered to date; there is a scoping meeting scheduled for late May, that this an opportunity for the public and interested groups to meet with the contractors, present issues, concerns and thoughts on potential other sites, the contractors then distill all of those comments and determine from the public comment whether there are additional alternatives that should be considered, that NIPA requires those alternatives to at least be addressed in the sense they are considered, if have merit they be pursued, if not pursued, have an explanation as to why they aren’t pursued. He stated we know they will look at those already considered and may be other alternatives that are raised at the scoping meeting that the contractor deems to have merit.
Mr. Feland stated of the 4 sites, 3 in Levant Twp. and 1 in Turtle River Twp. have received from the Health Department pre-approval for those particular sites and there has been some work that has gone into those sites as landfill locations; there were soil borings done before they selected the sites and some currently in the Turtle River Twp. site, well monitoring, etc.
Upon call for the question and upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 14; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.
AWARD CONTRACT FOR PROJECT NO. 4901, ENGLISH
COULEE BIKEPATH LIGHTING
A staff recommendation from the engineering department relating to consideration of bids for construction of City Project No. 4901, English Coulee Bikepath Lighting, with recommendation contingent on NDDOT concurrence, award contract to low bidder, Moorhead Electric in the amount of $40,327.00 (City share est. to be $7,690.36).
It was moved by Council Member Lunak and seconded by Council Member Bakken that this recommendation be and is hereby approved to award the contract to the low bidder, Moorhead Electric, Inc. in the amount of $40,327.00, contingent upon concurrence from the North Dakota Department of Transportation. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Stevens, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 12; voting “nay”: Council Members Bjerke, Burke - 2. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.
APPROVE GRAND FORKS RENAISSANCE ZONE
PROJECT 2001-1
The staff report from the Planning Department relative to the Grand Forks Renaissance Zone Project 2001-1, with a recommendation to 1) grant (in accordance with the City’s Renaissance Zone Property Tax Exemption Policy C) a 100% property tax exemption for five (5) years for the value created by the purchase and remodeling investment in the second and third floors of 118 North 3rd Street. 2) approve Grand Forks Renaissance Zone Project 2001-1 and direct staff to submit the project to the State for their action.
COUNCIL MEMBER MARTINSON EXCUSED
It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Gershman to approve the recommendation.
Council Member Glassheim questioned the percentage of tax exemptions, that he thought we were going to use a sliding scale (50%, 40%, 30%, 20% or 10%); Dennis Potter, city planner, stated that when the city council adopted the Renaissance Zone Policy Exemption we had both the sliding scale for new construction and for remodeling projects had 100%.
Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun - 10; voting “nay”: Council Members Bjerke, Stevens, Lunak - 3. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.
CONSIDERATION OF PURCHASE OFFERS FOR
DRY-SIDE CITY OWNED HOMES AND LOTS
The staff recommendation from Urban Development Committee relative to consideration of purchase offers for dry-side city owned homes and lots, with recommendation to consider and make recommendation as to the process by which offers to purchase dry-side city-owned homes and lots will be considered and approved.
It was moved by Council Member Bjerke to approve the staff recommendation and that the Office of Urban Development will consider these offers, with approval authority. The motion was seconded by Council Member Bakken. Upon voice vote, the motion carried 13 votes affirmative.
APPROVE SALE AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE
BOOM TOWN BUILDING AT 316 SOUTH THIRD STREET
The staff recommendation from Urban Development Committee relative to sale and redevelopment of the
Boom Town Building at 216 South Third Street, with recommendation for approval of staff review committee and, as a appropriate, authorize staff to proceed with the sale of the building.
It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Bakken that the staff recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative.
COUNCIL MEMBER MARTINSON REPORTED BACK
APPROVE PROPOSED TERM ADJUSTMENTS FOR
GRAND FORKS HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD MEMBERS