Committee Minutes

Minutes of the Grand Forks City Council/Service/Safety Committee
Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 4:30 p.m. - Room A101____________

The Service/Safety Standby Committee met on Thursday, September 7, 2006 at 4:30 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Committee Chair Kreun presiding. Present at roll call: Council Members Bakken, McNamara.

Others present included: Chief Packett, Kevin Storstad, Bev Collings, Al Grasser, Mike Korman, Todd Feland.

1. Landfill update.
Todd Feland presented Interim Solid Waste Disposal Plan Update Briefing and reviewed the briefing with the committee.
1) City of Grand Forks v. Turtle River Township (2007-2008 Timeframe). He reported they did win on the first issue in District Court, jurisdictional question, and Grand Forks District Court ruled that substantively we will be provided with an appeal and they are allowing us to refile, that we made first hurdle but the Township can preserve it as issuance of Supreme Court level when and if we get to Supreme Court but didn't slow up the process of us moving toward the substantive stage of the issuance of landfill. which is scheduled in December, 2006.

He stated next update is that they did receive their landfill permit extension before July 1 and will get them to the end of the year. Later will go into the permit application and operational plan and that he sent information to the committee last week and will summarize that in a presentation and cover that issue later.

The second issue was that a draft RFP for interim disposal and transport services. He stated he intends when he gets the proposal pack with real financial information, will update the financial analysis so they will have a better idea of where we are and some of the information he has provided are estimates and once get real information back, real bids, will provide you with an updated financial analyses of where we are at.

The Red River Valley and Lakes Region solid waste disposal study is ongoing and they do expect a final study reported back to the City this fall, and that will look at different solid waste proposals from Waste Energy and Solid Waste Landfill and with larger region of Fargo-Moorhead metro area, Grand Forks metro area and Lake Counties of MN from Detroit Lakes to Fergus Falls to Moorhead and are waiting on response on that and as part of that study they are going to look at Grand Forks as being a part of that larger metro area or going in and looking at different financial analyses. He stated this is a $60,000 study and MN Pollution Control Agency is funding half and other entities paying the other half - there is a panel in charge and GF has one rep. on there and each county and city have their own reps.; Clay Co. is serving as the rep. agency and agreed to be the agency in MN in charge of this study. He stated when they get results will be responding back.

Current Sanitation Enterprise Fund Financial Information: they looked at financial status January through July, 2006 revenues in the fund are higher than the budgeted amounts in both user utility and landfill accounts, that their goal is to drive up their cash balance as much as they can because they have multiple things going on at one time, and looking at siting an alternative landfill, closing existing landfill facility and also in District Court and all those things cost money. He stated in the landfill closure accounts will have close to $4 million in project by the end of the year, have about $2 million in cash balance in the sanitation enterprise fund, and drive those up as much as possible because lot of expense in the next 2 years and want to keep existing landfill going as long as possible because that helps pay the bills, that if don't have landfill revenue coming in that means start dwindling our reserves.

He reported he attached a copy of a letter he sent to FAA, Thomas Schauer, Program Mgr. of FAA out of the Bismarck office, asking for response back from FAA since they are in control of the review capacity of that zone. The letter was dated August 2 and he has not received any correspondence back. He stated he did talk with one of the owners that wants to propose a landfill facility in Lakeville Twp., that site is generally between Gilby and Manvel, about 6 miles from Manvel on County road heading to Gilby, generally that area is CRP or being used for cattle grazing, and this group owns about 1600 acres and the site we own in Turtle River Township is 760 acres, much larger site and more ability to buffer the site from area residents, is a remote site and about as remote as you could find in GF County. They are proposing to have a public hearing in October with the Lakeville Twp. Board and want to get a sense of the township and what their thoughts are, and thinks they will have opponents on the site, provides another opportunity in looking at other sites. He stated we are not afraid of the truth or other alternatives, not advocating a site but open to any alternatives. He stated if they ask him to attend the meeting in October, what are the committee's feelings, whether should have representation or just stay away. The committee stated that if they ask and invite us make it clear that they are there only to provide information.

Mr. Feland stated they did meet with the regional landfill customers on June 28, 2006 at the Alerus Center and had about 50 to 60 reps. from the region, they handed out surveys and got some response back - that they do want to be involved in the short and long term plans but almost unanimous that economics will determine what they do, and if find alternatives other than participating in what we are going to do in the short term they will seek those alternatives out. There is some concern that if they choose not to be with us in the short term, that if we figure this out in the long term 3, 4, 5 or 6 years from now, that we may shut them out of the process at that point and don't want that to be held against them if they do ask to come back to us as a customer. Kreun stated that if they leave at this point in time and we go through the expense and happen to come out with a landfill and they want to come back when we have the landfill, thinks there would be a different tipping fee than the people that stayed with us and paid through the whole scenario. Mr. Feland stated that in the late 90's the City of Grand Forks equalized the tipping fee for inside users (inside was city of Grand Forks and city of East Grand Forks), and it was brought up that all the other regional customers shop in Grand Forks, etc, that we are regional magnet and should treat them as one of us, and did equalize that based upon that notion that lets not treat the outside people differently and may want to rethink that in the future if it every comes to that point. McNamara stated that a new schedule should apply to anyone who has not shared the risk that you've all shared together. Mr. Feland stated he plans to send all our original customers a letter updating them where we are at and once things more finalized, would in late October call another regional meeting to let them know what has happened and direction we are going and that by that time have a new permit that will extend us through 2008.

Mr. Feland stated that in modifying our closure plan, are trying to maximize the existing footprint of the landfill and to do that have to go back and get a new permit from ND Department of Health based upon the new closure plan, and as part of that plan need an associated operational plan and have done that, and the plan has 19 appendices which are referenced and rates and to some degree their landfill has become much better operating over the years, and when and if they do get a new landfill they have gone through such an exercise and improving how it operates, and have a better operation when get to the new site, good work activities. He stated they submitted a permit on September 1 to the Dept. of Health, they will review the permit and new closure plan, that there is no footprint change on it and it will extend the life of the landfill, November, 2008, and the reason is that they have committed ourselves with the FAA and will not accept municipal solid waste after that date, and that date coincides with a proposed completion of a new East/West runway at the Airport that will primarily serve UND Aerospace and if they get the new runway they can have 300 to 400 new aviation students. We have updated our operation plan, revised our closure and are trying to add more volume to the landfill and required how to close this landfill in 2007, 08 and 09; and as a minimum we are required to maintain that site 30 years thereafter.
Operation Plan provides how we are going to run the landfill and organizes our plan of what we are going to do and how we are going to do it.

Mike Korman, CPS, stated they have been working with Todd and staff in developing information and data necessary to get this modification to the Health Department, and made presentation showing maps of various areas at the landfill - vicinity map, current vs. proposed grades. He briefed them on the Phase VI Closure Project, project bid out in June of 2006 and is currently under construction, the original plan was to close 24 acres of the landfill, but had to revise that so could raise the grades in certain areas to get the capacity needed to extend the life of the landfill, 20.4 acres, ands the contract was awarded to Robinson Construction for $408,200 and everything is going well, on time and on budget, completion date of November 1, 2006. He stated if the permit is approved, their plan of operation would be to fill in specific areas of the landfill during summer and fall of 2007, working counter-clockwise operation and capping as they go, and end up with disposal phasing in the landfill.

Mr. Feland stated they now have enough landfill space to get us to early in 2007, that they submitted the permit on September 1, 2006 and the operation plan and are planning meeting with ND Department of Health on September 13 and will show draft plans of where going and have received some positive feedback and goal is to get that completed as soon as can. In about 2 weeks they expect a draft for the modification and that there is a requirement for a public notice and public commentary of 30 days, based upon that 30-day review and expect to have the permit in late October of this year with new closure plan but plan to advertise that in September and get proposals back in October and bring back to this committee, proposal is going to have bids for 2007 and opportunity for the bid later in 2008 and once they get the proposals can either do in 2007 or 2008 depending on when they need to do that and that will be in the RFP. They are trying to minimize the cost to citizens and as part of that proposal they are proposing to get bid pricing for a loose fill operation or a baled fill and then evaluate based on what it costs us to do both and will bring that back. He stated he has some preliminary concept reports and have two balers in the baling facility and from what he sees on the concept report that they can run the facility either as a baling facility or a loose fill facility without any major modifications, no large capital costs if they decide to go to a loose fill operation.

He stated the landfill is about a 300 ton per day facility of which 200 tons of that comes from outside the city of Grand Forks and with the price increase thinks they will lose some of the MN customers, about 90,000 tons comes into Grand Forks on an annual basis and of that 90,000 tons about 20,000 tons come from MN and remaining 70,000 from ND side; that of Grand Forks and UND combined of 70,000 we are about 38,000 tons and the rest of northeast ND makes up that balance, most of the waste coming in is from GF County and in East Grand Forks, do have Devils Lake coming to our landfill, have Mayville and Hillsboro and those are entities that are on the fringe and can go to Minot or Sawyer, that Devils Lake, Mayville and Hillsboro could go to Gwinner or make a deal with the city of Fargo, and will lose some customers. When this all comes down and that is why it is important to meet with our customers this fall, we need to get a better stance of whether in or out because need to start planning whether this is 100 tons per day facility or 200 or 300 tons and that will be included in the RFP as will ask for prices on each of those, and will ask for a 3, 5, 7 and 10 year term contract, best case scenario is that we can maybe have a landfill in Grand Forks in 2010 or 2012 timeframe and that we're going to be out of landfill space in 2008 and are going to need an interim solution for 2 to 4 years. They have looked at the hauling cost and change in the cost could cost Grand Forks over $1 million a year in addition, and getting a new permit and saving hauling the garbage for 2 years as that is over $2 millions in savings. He stated that is what their plan is, try to maintain what we can. He stated there are 2 classified employee positions in Sanitation that he has not filled that because of concern about what the operation will look like in the future, and that he may come up with more seasonal temporary employees for the classified positions until they can figure out what the end product is going to be with the next 2 to 3 years from now and are in a transitional period.

Feland stated we will be done with our existing landfill in November, 2008; that concern is that the general public won't become fully actuated with the issue until the utility bill changes, that used to paying $11.45 per residential and have to pay $18.00, $19.00 or $20.00 month, and is trying to provide the best plan he can in the interim and long term. Kreun stated perhaps they can ease into some of those rates or when get the bid raised to maximum of actual cost at that time or incrementally step it up and lose money ion the meantime. Todd stated they could raise rates today for 2009 or when know numbers, is a balancing of those 2 concepts. Kreun stated we have been able to keep our cash up and have enough money for closure.

Todd stated one thing they need to examine is that they need borrow material, that they don't have a site where they can store that, that when ready for Phase VII in 2007 that would include in that project that we would identify the area where they can get the fill and the specific area that they are going to close and group that under one project; that they have enough for this year's project but in next 2 years will need more borrow material. Bakken stated that by the time they get this close there will be a considerable amount of work that is not going to be going on in the city, have dike fairly well completed, major projects in the city are tapering off and not have the volume of construction that we have had for the last 7 years and thinks that would help bid process going into the closing time. Todd stated one of the concerns he has are fuel costs.

McNamara stated that a lot of this is preparing the ground, that part of the world is going to be unsettled for a long time and fuel prices hover at that range, that if the Turtle River Twp. site is a no-go for the city and even if the Lakeville site is a no-go, then do we become a permanent exporter and does the Gwinner site become our primary course of action in terms of this with the City having the landfill itself and to follow project to completion, showing what final course of action and make sure we include that because when include that can see the precarious position that the city is in because then we don't control the site and are a customer like other people are customers of ours and make sure that we get that out there and say that because of the uncertainty of the sites we are not sure where this is going to go, if we do this then what you are looking at is this kind of a fee structure for this period of time, and to make sure we get that out there and is a very serious issue that is going to affect a lot of people. Kreun stated in the letter to the FAA that is opening the door to a larger area within our 4 mile jurisdiction and we have instructed Todd that in that 4 mile jurisdiction of the river out, nothing is off the table, no protected areas, south area is no longer off limits and is an option as well; and if the FAA because that is within that 6 mile area, nothing is off the table as far as the location of a landfill.

Bakken stated from the no customer standpoint and if just Grand Forks, East Grand Forks and UND and that is the only base maybe just as well to haul it somewhere else than have our own landfill. Kreun stated some of our customers will be advantageous whether bale facility and we haul it or whether a loose facility and we contract, and they aren't going to have the capability of hauling themselves all the way with one semi truck and will retain a few of them; the problem that has really been difficult for us is to get this out into the public, nobody wants to hear about it. Todd stated they have found that there is no good place for a landfill, need a landfill but nobody wants it near them.

The committee stated that this is mainly information for them at this time and would like to get this info. out to other council members and not take any action until the bids are put out and get that back for analyzing and make recommendation to the full council.

2, Outdoor solid fuel ordinance.
Kreun stated that Bev Collings, Inspections, had a meeting and they have made some recommendation re. solid fuel, basically there are outdoor boilers that can be used with different types of fuel and the Mechanical Board made a recommendation and asked for explanation and further comments.

Al Grasser, city engineer, pointed out that in the past they have had problems with some of these facilities in residential areas, that in the history have had some problems with emissions causing some problems in residential areas, the questions that are part of the decision making are, should we allow these things inside the city limits of Grand Forks, outside the city limits of Grand Forks in residential-type areas, and if they should allow that on commercial property in the city of Grand Forks and/or in the extraterritorial jurisdictions. It is allowed now in commercial areas within the city, staff recommendations are firm that not appropriate in residential areas inside the city of Grand Forks because of congestion, etc. and becomes suggestive decision when getting into extraterritorial area where have 2.5 acre lots, etc. and is an issue that people here tonight want to discuss the issue because of rising fuel prices and have definite economic issue for them.

Ms. Collings noted the boilers burn wood, corn, wood pellets, chips, coal; and stated they are reasonably new; they saw first installation approx. 10 years ago and had some issues with it and had no codes to address it, was a wood-fired burner on 20th Ave.S. and caused a lot of problems with smoke, the stack was raised but that created further problems; Code was amended to disallow them in residential zoned districts in our jurisdiction and did not approach the issue of commercial or business applications. There were extreme issues - fire department called, etc. and other health hazards - people with asthma; people couldn't leave windows open, Ms. Collings stated they dealt with issues as they came up, the gentleman removed the unit. They don't have any of these appliances installed in residential neighborhoods in the city of Grand Forks, have one in commercial application and there was an issue with that but they were allowed to replace unit and need to do more to prevent future problems and perhaps allow in extraterritorial jurisdiction.

It was noted that if allow in the E.T. area and eventually annex them in, and what happens then. Collings stated it would depend on the size of the property and issue would be if properties too close, can set different rules and could say it would have to be 2.5 acre lots and could write code in such a way that they wouldn't be allowed once they were annexed, and if property subdivided, would lose the capability of grandfather clause. She stated that there are a lot of people who burn wood to heat their homes and may see more and fireplaces, but nothing has caused a problem like the solid fuel burners - that the unit outside with high stack caused problems. It was noted that the biggest concern is nuisance from smoke, storage issue. There was some discussion relative to storage of materials - corn, wood pellets - problem with rodents.

Collings stated they had a meeting with Mechanical Board on June 28 and felt that they understand problems in residential neighborhood but in commercial and business areas that it would be for this committee or city council to make a decision on that, but they do have concerns that could have in business neighborhoods or business districts that are very close to residential areas and create problems. Kreun stated they are asking committee to analyze this and make a recommendation to the council basically to extend the banishment of it in the commercial district or to accept them with certain regulations. Collings stated that their recommendation is that in the city limits they would not be allowed at all; outside the city limits consider opening them up to residential and business and commercial with caveat that when they are brought into the city stipulate that they become non-conforming use or simply stay silent on it, they could continue to operate until they did replatting, etc

Larry Bakke, Sunrooms Plus, and Steve Larson from LibMaster in Red Lake Falls where they make boilers (wood and alternative renewable heat source boilers), that they understand smoke issues and that is a concern; but that when these are burning there is virtually no smoke at all and if committee had any questions they would be happy to fire one up, that he had it burning on the corner of Gateway Drive and North Washington Street and no one even knew he had it running (using corn and wood pellets - purchased from elevator) stated they are designed to work and that is when they operate the best; that if he sells a unit that is too big for what the customer needs, there could be issues. Grasser suggested that if fuel recommended by the manufacturer as part of the definition and gets away from railroad ties, etc. Mr. Bakke stated they have information as to the best burn practices and test literature. The Committee questioned how do you regulate what they put in, Collings stated they did present this at the Board meeting and if wanted to get that specific they could - could be problem if owner sells property.

Reps of the equipment stated they would like to start in business areas first, see how this progresses - easier to maintain and control in commercial application than residential. Kreun stated he didn't think there was much question that we will regulate it within the city limits or not be able to do within residential areas and the question they are asking is if it should be allowed in a commercial area or on large lots of 2.5 acres or larger in residential outside the city limits; that they have come to conclusion that it probably isn't the best practice to have it in residential areas within the city limits - when you see a boiler sitting outside, whether a lot of emissions or minimal amount, will get complaints and when put boilers in backyards going to have more problems and would not like to fight that battle but rather look at the issue of commercial area within the city limits and the 2.5 acres and see what deal with in that point in time. Bakken agreed, might convince him to do a trial in a commercial area but there would be restrictions and have to have some way of housing this on commercial site, can't just have sitting out openly in public - that we're on beautification city-wide and don't want to start putting things out there that contradict what already doing; and what they burn would have to be regulated. Rep. noted that the City of Crookston has one in town at their municipal swimming pool and less than 300 ft. to residential area - cannot tell it is running and no emissions.

McNamara stated he has issue around operated business or residence, doesn't want to breath what they burn and not to impact his life, lifestyle or quality of business or customers, and thinks that is a big issue; what would they do with less than responsible operator who will find other ways to burn other fuels and then get to the enforcement side of it - that once they allow it then stuck with it - concerned about something that would impact someone else's business or customers. Rep. stated he wouldn't be able to smell it as long as burning what it is designed to burn. Committee stated that would have to be part of the regulations; hardest part is to regulate second and third owners of these pieces of equipment, not too much problem with first owner because he will take care of it properly.

Greg Ethre, member of Mechanical Board, stated he was on the Board when they wrote the ordinance, have to have basic information before jumping to conclusions that all solid fuel boilers are the same when they are not. He stated to take these gentlemen up on their offer to go look at it, that he and Kevin Storstad did that; that he looked at it more than once and drove by that corner every day and they had it burning for 4 or 5 days and never saw a problem with it and would rather see committee qualify the definition of a solid fuel furnace, that is where the crux of the matter lies because technology that is here today is different than it was 5 years ago or 10 years ago, nobody else in the State of ND (check with Minot, Fargo, West Fargo, Bismarck) disallow it, because City thought they were all the same, when they are not, and should do a little investigating, take reps. up at their challenge, look at some data and a definition should be made, no regulations on the indoor stuff and they made recommendation that had to be 100 ft. from property line and should make definition for boilers, solid fuel.

Kreun stated we don't have an ordinance in the commercial area, and can be installed unless another ordinance would go into effect, and before making a final decision, there is an individual that would be a good test to see how it would operate, and would be able to leave it there because there is no ordinance against it at this point in time.

Ms. Collings stated that the reps had some brochures at the Board meeting and one of the things that concerned them was that these individuals sell one products and that there are a lot of products out there, that they recommend having 100 to 200 ft. from your home and there is a reason for that, that the Mechanical Board has discussed this and they were afraid that you're going to have to get to such a level of specific use and specific product and almost eliminating 90% of them. Rep. stated that you cannot burn wood pellets in corn burner and vise versa, two separate types of furnaces. Reps stated they are classifying them altogether, have to be specific as to different types of units and be specific in ordinance in fuel burning. Collings stated that there is more than just the fumes, storage of the unit, location of the unit on the property. Rep. stated they would invite everyone to Red Lake Falls to give first hand insight in knowledge, etc. Gasser stated the discussion infers that its all or nothing and from the ordinance standpoint we have not differentiated between wood and that is another distinction that need to make, but needs to be addressed in the ordinance, the way it is written is that it is all or nothing and need to define.

Kreun stated he would like to see one in action, installed and working and doing what it is supposed to do, and under ordinance we have today it is allowable. Bakken stated that before we do that, would like some recommendations from our people on the way it is installed and operated so if it happens to work, then in the guidelines we use going forward.

Reps stated re fireplaces, gas furnaces, insurance recommend that it be installed as to manufacturer's recommendations, they are tested for that piece of equipment so work the best and satisfy the customer the best provided that they use it and installed the way they recommend and installed properly. It was brought up at Mechanical Board meeting that the City of GF did not want to be involved in creating industry standards for situation, that as long as installed and operated to mfg's recommendation that would be up to Inspections that installed properly by mfg. Grasser stated they didn't have to make a decision today but what is hearing from the committee is guidance is should investigate differentials to identify pellet type stove vs. an all encompassing that would include wood, and can do that if that is the guidance from the committee but wanted to get sense, do investigating and bring some of those recommendation back.

Kreun stated that in the commercial area and if infringing on someone else's rights, committee's concerns are legitimate and if staff can narrow this down to more of a palatable type of unit that wouldn't create problems they have discussed, would be open to that type of ordinance recommendation for commercial only. Grassers suggested if having open availability to view this, that we invite other council members; McNamara stated he would like them make business community aware of this, and if installing near neighborhood that they notify them also. Reps. stated they have not sold one yet. Collings stated it hasn't been a good experience over the last 10 years and has had direction from other council members to approach this very carefully, asked if they would want them to put something in there for aesthetics, distance from property lines and storage of the fuel. Kreun stated the committee would like them to look at those issues and would like a memo to be sent out so all council members have opportunity to look at one that is operating.

Collings stated that these individuals have been waiting, but they don't have to wait, they could install their unit under the ordinance as it is; and that she would like to bring this back in couple weeks. Bakken stated that while getting this up and running that they follow what we think are going to be our guidelines.

3. Other.
Next meeting of the committee - Kreun stated that Gershman had received call re. noise ordinance in the University district rezoning as Dick Olson has some concerns and would like discussion with committee on adjusting the noise ordinance and at next meeting to make sure we give Mr. Olson the opportunity to come in and bring that forward. Kreun asked that when that is on the agenda to have Howard Swanson and Chief Packett at the meeting.

Other agenda items were 1) server training, that they were going to be ready 2 weeks from today, Hosp. Assn. wants to come back; 2) greenway ordinance, some urgency on this ordinance as have things going on where don't have the ordinance in place to enforce; 3) downtown parking draft study from MPO, and some urgency on that item. Kreun stated that he wanted to put presentation for the training center on COW agenda on the 25th of September.

The committee scheduled their meeting for September 28 with items to be discussed are greenway ordinance, server training and solid fuel ordinance; noise ordinance not a priority, and it was suggested that Mr. Swanson talk with Mr. Olson.

Bakken stated that some woman from Reeves Drive at midnight can't go outside because of smoke in her neighborhood. Collings stated that issue is a couple weeks old, though health or fire looked into it but didn't find anything. and stated she would check on it.

Committee adjourned their meeting at 6:35 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk