Committee Minutes

Minutes of the Grand Forks Service-Safety Standby Committee
Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 4:00 p.m.______________________

The Service/Safety Standby Committee met on Thursday, June 22, 2006 at 4:12 p.m. in Room A101 in City Hall with Committee Chair Kreun presiding. Present at roll call were Kreun, Kerian, Brooks.

Others present were John Schmisek, Rick Duquette, Police Chief Packett, Fire Chief O'Neill, Brad Gengler, Todd Feland, Al Grasser, Ryan Brooks, Melanie Parvey-Biby, Doug Christensen.

1. Landfill Update.
Todd Feland, director of public works, presented copies of his interim solid waste disposal plan to the committee and reviewed the update; and reported that this item will be on the agenda of the committee of the whole meeting on Monday and will include any items from today's meeting to committee for Monday's meeting..

He reported they are still in District Court; that they have looked at their landfill capacity timeline and their goal has been that they correspond with east/west runway at the Airport; that they have met with the ND Department of Health and are going to propose to modify the landfill closure plan to go up in elevation which would give us another year of capacity and are planning to work on that in July and August. He stated it does require a permit change and will require a public comment change in September or October, and a public hearing, and has been told during discussion with the ND Dept. of Health that there should be no show stoppers, and thinks it would be a wise investment to go ahead; that he is working with CPS, and is important for us to make it through the process that can raise our elevation and if get another year or year and a half out of our landfill, save City of Grand Forks upwards of approx. $2 million in savings.

He showed April, 2006 aerial photo of landfill area, areas that have been closed, last year's closure project, and the closure plan that was contracted and approved on Wednesday that CPS worked on that 24 acre closure project; concern is that they are working in area of the landfill and beyond this area have haul roads that go back to the end of the landfill and that is only the remaining space they have left in the landfill, and what they are going to propose to do is modify the closure plan, and showed area which is top of the landfill and which is 25 to 30 ft. high and propose to change the elevation in areas, have to maintain the slope and to make sure they have proper drainage; and if can raise the elevation in certain areas 5 to 8 feet can get another year. If doesn't work out, will draft RFP and get proposals out, fall of this year is critical point.

He reported the second issue and has had discussions with 3 area landfills in our region; 1) Waste Management and they are interested in accepting solid waste from the City and surrounding region, they own landfills in Gwinner, Sawyer and Linton and would probably use the Gwinner landfill which is about 150 miles from Grand Forks. He also presented letters that he sent to Mar-Kit landfill at Hallock, MN and is supposed to be receiving a letter in regards to his inquiry if they were interested in accepting waste, and verbally has been told that the answer is no, and concern is it is about 100 tons facility and they are in negotiations with several MN cities and will take MN in surrounding area and think our volume is too great, and thinks we will loose some of the Min cities, Thief River. The third issue is that he has talked to the City of Fargo officials and they are interested in discussion of accepting our solid waste in the interim, they are also interested in working with the City of Grand Forks on integrated solid waste solution and would like to work together to see if one solution for the whole region.

He stated that he felt that either Gwinner or Fargo are two remaining options and looked at the tipping fees, Fargo's fee is $30, and at Waste Management landfill in Gwinner is $30 but used $20 to $30 because he thinks they can negotiate that and speculation is less than $30; truck costs from trucking firms around Grand Forks and Gwinner $22-28/ton and Fargo number is $11-14/ton; and transfer baling costs $6 - 10 /ton for each, have to look at whether we operate a transfer facility or a baling facility and looked at transfer at $6 and baling $10/ton; and has a range of costs - $48 to $68/ton for Gwinner; and $47 to $54/ton for Fargo.

He reported fees based on 70,000 tons of solid waste, that in 2005 they took in 92,000 tons and is assuming that 22,000 tons decrease from MN and noted that these numbers within the Sanitation Enterprise Fund do have direct costs, tapping fees, debt service and fees currently being paid through tipping fees at $33.50/ton and also have PILOT which is on payment in lieu of taxes and Interdept. Reimbursement, and Wage/Salary Reimbursement; and will effect residential and commercial users. He stated that about 50% of the rate of $11.45 per month for disposal costs and that if it goes up double to $67.50 and user rate will be $17.18 per month. Part of the problem of tapping fees should be included unless they can disburse that to water utility and partly to wastewater utility as both have utilities along that road and share that funding and that serves all the related baling facilities so should probably be incorporated into the tipping fees and the remaining three currently are not part of the tipping fees and those relate to overhead regarding the sanitation utility funds. He stated part of what we are going to go through when looking at the $17.18 and look at the collection part of what it costs, the other $5.00 + cents and look at how can we do things differently and probably look at the other overhead that we have including what we actually have in Operations budget because there will be some changes in the sanitation fund because of workers there.

He stated he will be working on the proposal and look at whether 100, 200 and/or 300 tons, and probably be 200 tons per day facility which means the City of Grand Forks is 100 tons and would have enough coming into Grand Forks from surrounding area so 200 tons per day facility but after the Wednesday meeting and further follow up with the region after this summer have a better chance of who is going to come to Grand Forks, and will be working on that over the summer to try to define who is going to be part of our final solution.

He stated they are working on Red River Valley and Lakes Region Solid Waste Disposal Study which looks at including the options and option will probably be a landfill, and the landfill is going to be in Cass County where we can send the waste and at some point are going to determine whether the City of Grand Forks working long term as final solution.

He stated we have 5 interims which could become long term solutions, that currently working on Turtle River Township landfill site, that in vicinity of Lakeville Township has had 3 farmers contact him and they are working on a landfill solution which is west of Manvel and they are going to plan a presentation to Lakeville Twp. Board in near future, this is a possibility but expect concerns as in Turtle River Twp.; the other interim solutions and should explore the Fargo option on both interim and long term basis, and could have an interim contract with Waste Management, Inc.

He stated the estimate on the post-closure cost is est. for next year at approx. $3.4 million
and estimates at the end of this year that they will probably have $3.8 million in closure account; and approx. $400,000 in contingencies; another issue they had if continue to operate landfill where it is at is save money and able to put more money aside in cash balances for future issues. He stated the sanitation enterprise fund is anticipated to have $1.9 million of cash balance at the end of this year, revenues are coming in over expectations in both user utility and in the landfill; and should have about $600,000 in contingencies for future needs. Over last couple years have spent lot of money - $1 million re. engineering issues, legal issues, hearings and preparation of documents, and funded that through our fees, landfill fees and trying to build up cash balance as much as can by trying to keep as many customers as can, etc.

He reported they met with the Dept. of Health on May 25 and June 15 and that is where a lot of these ideas came from and have been running ideas past them; that they will have a meeting on June 28 at the Alerus Center and has received several RSVP's back from the region, that people are concerned and that he wanted to give a general overview at that meeting and get information back from them.

He stated the other issue that came up is landfill alternatives, Fargo and Waste Management, Lakeville Township, Turtle River Township site and also looking at our own ET area; and showed areas on the map including area where new E/W runway for airport will be. He noted that the 10,000 ft. or 2 mile ET where absolutely cannot have a landfill because of FAA; the Airport has been doing some master planning, land use planning, and area where no landfill and overlap that with FAA circular 34 which draws 6 mile area around all landfills and expanded zone where FAA has review of up to 6 miles. He stated between the 2 mile ET and 6 miles and if want to place something within there have to go to FAA for approval as well as ND District Office and ND Aeronautical Commission and from there to higher office for authorization; and burden of proof on city and thinks can give good reasonable plan or argument to be within 6 miles and having a landfill. He showed area where the city is growing, Merrifield Road, 47th and 32nd. He stated is looking at sites in our own ET area and gauging the council's interest in trying to look within our 4 miles ET area for a particular site and is one of the 5 options that we need to look at.

The city auditor stated in looking at budget or personnel changes and overall automatically readjusted downward - total personnel for sanitation will be going down.

Mr. Feland stated that the question has been asked where does their solid waste come from, MN about 20,000 tons, NE ND about 70,000 tons for total of 92,300.- listing shows counties and when used 70,000 tons looked at as losing all of MN to Hallock, MN landfill and deducted 22,000 tons and if kept all of ND would be down to 70,000 tons that he used in his math. over next couple months should have a better idea on numbers.

Kreun asked what are locations within ET. Mr. Feland stated could argue and could engineer any landfill as long as not in a floodplain, could demonstrate it anywhere within our ET area except for airport restrictions, and need to stay out of land use plan of the airport, but could argue but go through FAA and that we are going to bale garbage, bird control project and could go through process; that in looking at corridors and need to keep them clean but need to be on corridor otherwise have lot of cost for t4ransportation, don't want to upgrade roads, but stay along major corridors - city is growing south and west, and trying to make a long term 50 to 60 year decision and griping now about why they made decisions 40-50 years that we have to deal with, that we spent a ton of money on wastewater that we didn't have to spend, spending a ton of money on landfill because we decided to locate out there, and would be wary of that same concern, have to look at one of the corridors, whether it is Merrifield or 47th.

Kreun asked if there were any areas that identified as a current study, locations they identified as a current that is within circle - Mr. Feland stated all in Manvel area. Kreun stated he was trying to get idea of where there is a potential area to study if we want to get in as close to or within our own ET or within 5 mile radius because that is one of the things that Mr. Thompson told us to do. Mr. Grasser stated one of the significant criteria in that study that was done in the '80's was relationship of how close we were to existing buildings and one of the reasons, and other reason was that occupied residences and reason you don't see anything that close in and probably something we haven't evaluated pretty stringently on any kind of siding and that is one of the biggest challenges in the county or keep that separation from existing dwellings.

It was noted that the City Code is literally silent on how to site landfills in the city proper. Mr. Feland stated in looking at exclusion maps, two mile circle around any city and now because of zoning issue can't get it permitted and now looking internally. Kreun stated in Chandler, AZ they are building houses right across street from the landfill, one of the fastest growing areas in the US, built buffer zones and put in criteria and an aesthetic amenity - trees, grass across the street and don't see what is taking place inside, and technology that has come about in last 10-15 years and since we started this, has changed great deal so that it is not such a drastic eyesore and distraction in a community, and doesn't think the criteria has changed at this point to look at out of the norm - and have to take that into consideration and one of the items coming up is our annexation planning review.

Mr. Feland stated the landfill issue going to extract $1 million out of everyone's pocket in Grand Forks and compound that over a lot of years, that is money taking out of economy - maybe only option is to truck it a long distance. Kreun stated that is an option but that we want to continue to explore various options and proposals, one of the things is how we look at recycling, and look at wastewater treatment plant and how we want to incorporate some of that in the sludge and fill our lagoons at that point as holding ponds, etc. and options that can be done and also the Red River Valley Lake Regions solid waste disposal but they haven't designated any site and will run into the same problems that we did and that looking at our own options yet is one of our best ideas.

Committee noted that on the 28th this will give communities security they need and that we will in turn ask them to start making commitments so we can start planning, and will be able to give costs, etc. and that is goal on the 28th, will continue to explore and discuss an existing landfill for ourselves teaming up with another city, whether Lake Region or with another company, like Waste Management, and those will be our options but not throw out our own option which is the best alternative for the citizenry of Grand Forks.

Christensen stated when make decision, drop-dead date for people to make decision and costs. Kreun stated we will dump it at our baling facility, bale it and haul in bales wherever we are going as that is the most economical way to haul it. Mr. Feland stated they are trying to reduce the hauling - that towns haul to Grand Forks and then Grand Forks takes that garbage and hauls it farther and bill for that also. Have to remind elected officials about cost factors.

Kreun asked when is the budgeting process for most cities - calendar year; and that we should know at end of the year whether they are on board or not. Mr. Feland stated that first we need to get closure plan changed to go up vertically by fall, and from all indications that is wise investment of our time and money and work out some of these issues; and if don't get that done either end up in Fargo or Waste Mgmt. and if we know who is going to be with us, will help determine our price, whether interim hauling or for our long range. - have to do a new financial closure plan, put out for public comment and public hearing in Grand Forks, plus final approval by fall. Mr. Feland stated we are running out of landfill to-date and that this summer while working on the court case, and working on each one of them

Kreun stated after Wednesday's meeting will know more what the requests are, get feedback and put this in motion. Mr. Feland stated first issue is to get our closure plan modified - he will bring updated information to the committee of the whole on Monday, and not make any decisions because they have already voted on it.

2. Bateman Property - Storm Sewer and Flood Protection/Greenway User fee.
Chairman Kreun reported that Mrs. Bateman had contacted the city auditor and Mr. Feland and several others and has informed them of the situations and asked Mr. Feland for an update.

Mr. Feland reported he has included a memorandum and that he has had several conversations with the Bateman's and sent Mrs. Bateman a memorandum and has reviewed her properties - one is on 32nd Avenue South by GFG Foods, one is on South Columbia Road on corner of 62nd and those are the two parcels the City has annexed for utilities and that the City paid fair market value; that her concern is that the parcels are undeveloped and therefore should have charges as provided by ordinance, that the City charged on the undeveloped parcels and gave her the lowest runoff factors on the storm water side; the flood protection and greenway is so much per 1,000 sq. ft., that all these parcels are protected by the flood protection project, one of the arguments that came up is that when they did the capital parts of the flood protection project there was an exemption that was provided for the properties, and that they never contemplated giving properties like hers that are undeveloped 30% exemption, and the policy of the city council was to provide fees on annexed land within the city limits of Grand Forks that are either served by storm water protection or flood protection. He stated we billed developers like Greenberg, Crary, Useldinger, etc. that have undeveloped property that is annexed and they are paying undeveloped property costs on their property. He called Bateman's today and she is out of town, and answer is No, but as a security measure would do is ask the city attorney to do one final review of the ordinance and how they apply to parcels of property and have final resolution and make sure we did apply the ordinance in proper fashion.

Kerian reviewed exceptions for private and public cemeteries, street right of way, and greenway property. The city auditor stated that when Special Assessment Commission was looking at how to assess those types of properties land for those undeveloped properties and engineering said that on an average basis how much gets taken out for right of way in a large parcel and somewhere from 20 to 30% and the Assessment Commission said for the construction side of it they would take that out, and that was strictly based for the construction of and that he met with Mrs. Bateman on May 16 and with Kreun and Mrs. Bateman on May 24, and he had the same conclusion as Todd in reading the ordinance, and that this ordinance came to you at a work session many times and decision was made that all properties where it states, "..the city council finds the cost for such operation and maintenance of these systems shall be collected from each property within the city limits on a monthly basis.." and concurs with Todd and to send this to Mr. Swanson and let him look at it but doesn't see where these are different than Useldinger and others who have undeveloped land.

Kreun stated they are not suggesting moving this to a committee of the whole but suggesting that need a motion to uphold staff's decision.

Mr. Grasser stated there is an important exemption that is available out there and that is city right of way, that based on Columbia Road corridor there is no dedicated right of way on the Bateman's side and typically would require at least 50 ft. right of way dedicated and if they would in fact dedicate that right of way which is eventually coming to the City in some manner in development, could dedicate that early and basically divest themselves of that quantity of land, and suggested we plat it for them, one way of helping City and process engineering calculate those things but our idea was to also dedicate the land and give the credit on the Assessment Commission's side but the consistency of our cost is the credits are available but there should be an action on their part to encourage that.

Mr. Duquette suggested that either under his signature or Mr. Schmisek's that we respond to the Bateman request. A motion by Brooks and Kerian that to uphold staff and that letter be directed to Mrs. Bateman informing her of that. Motion carried.

3. Animals at large and leash
Chairman Kreun stated there are a couple items, one is on premise and what wanted to deal with is when we develop some type of dog park that there will be the ability to have those animals run free off the leash and how we want to design that and there are couple questions that maybe can put together with one that Kerian brought up earlier that on your own property technically your dog has to be leashed at all time as well and maybe there can be something as far as "in control" on your property.

Kerian stated that requires that animal be leashed on the owner's property and if that is what intend in the future doesn't think it makes sense to tell people will give you an unleashed park but if have animal in your yard, you have to have it leashed, that a person should be able to have their dog unleashed on their own property but perhaps even on their own property there are couple things that have to apply, that the dog has to be licensed, have to have effective verbal control of dogs and can't be unattended or out of sight, and incorporate that, that in addition to the invisible fence - that we shouldn't be able to have dogs within invisible fence and control issue on people's property, but Howard is saying that essentially that they have to be restrained on owner's property in that ordinance and included invisible fence -- but to tell him to write something that allows people to have dogs on leash as long as they're in control on their property, and then carry the same thing over to the unleashed dog ordinance.

Melanie Purvey-Biby stated she forwarded the memo of June 5 and Howard had sent out the memo for June 13 and the June 13 memo does include changes that would allow for the invisible fence as well as off leash in a dog park, and the one thing it doesn't do would be to allow dogs to be off leash on premises without some sort of restraint and could ask them to incorporate that part of it.

Kerian moved to forward this ordinance with the adjustments to allow dogs off leash on owner's property as long as they are in control of the animal; Brooks seconded the motion. Motion carried.

4. Annexation planning and review.
Chairman Kreun stated he had asked Mr. Grasser to put together a plan, that we have within the city numerous places that would meet the criteria of annexation into the city, and ask Mr. Grasser and Mr. Gengler to put together a rough idea and prioritize how we should go about annexing this property into the city

Mr. Gengler stated he and Ryan started work and if understanding what asking for, he would like to see an overall annexation study to include different types of situations, Concrete, Inc., All Seasons Garden Center, North 81, west on Gateway as there are various types of annexation and thinks that would be the best approach, and some battles where we know we don't want vs. where we know it’s a slam dunk; and asked how far they want the to go with it.

Brooks stated he brought it up because we are completing out flood protection project and looks at many cities in MN as examples that are completing their projects and completing this that are going out and annexing, and to include all that area that they are protecting under their flood protection project, huge investment and areas are being protected and ought to share in the cost; that MN has some added things and bring to the municipality service territories for their utilities but is still an issue that should go out and do that, and that we need to take that step now and bring those into the city.

Mr. Gengler stated that it was frustrating when they did the Animal Kindness to think of the battle that they went through to end up with 2.5 acres; that all the work that they put into the land use plan that stresses and is telling the city you need to decide what doing and be more aggressive, etc. and now is the time to implement that.

Kerian stated one of the problems we have is that like Kindness that can point to places within the city that we haven't touched, that there are some properties that need interim study, and what are particulars of that property and look for a staged annexation plan, and need to do the plan. Mr. Gengler stated that Concrete, Inc. and All Seasons have similar competitors in town who are paying full generals, full flood assessments.

Mr. Grasser stated that planning will be the lead and will support and work in close cooperation, and should take another look at the point rating system and will go through Planning and Zoning but being within the flood protection is not on the point system, and in conjunction with looking at the land may want to look at that and bring that all together. Mr. Gengler also noted that transportation and utility issues should be included. Kreun stated he wanted them to do that internally and doesn't want to stop this process until we get done with it and do that in conjunction with that.

Mr. Gengler stated in the next few days put more thought into the scope of work and keep continuous update but would like to get done and back to the point system and once they come up with a firm system would like to codify it. Kreun stated they want them to review this, bring it back to this committee and have a plan in place, and have to consider our annexation plans with the lagoons and landfill and that issue because it is going to be considered with the landfill, and is a priority; that we know what we need to do and the constraints that we have within the point system and things we need to put in place and come back within a month.

5. Other.
Chief Packett stated re. dogs that he and John have been meeting with staff recently on streamlining the licensing process and getting the number of dogs and cats licensed, mainly through utility bills as a reminder - that probably only licensing 10% of what should be licensing.
Mr. Schmisek stated they are working with IS and once they get program set up and make more convenient for the public, will meet with vets, Humane Society has said they are willing to license any pet that they would adopt out there.

Adjourn

The meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk