Committee Minutes

Minutes of the Grand Forks City Council/Service/Safety
Standby Committee - Tuesday, June 19, 2007 - 4:00 p.m.

The city council of the city of Grand Forks sitting as the Service/Safety Standby Committee met in Room A101on Tuesday, June 19, 2007. Present at roll call were Council Members Kreun, chair; McNamara; absent: Bakken (sick). Also present: Al Grasser, Todd Feland, Brad Gengler, Chief Packett, LeahRae Amundson.

Chairman Kreun opened the meeting at 4:10 p.m. and noted there were no changes or additions to the agenda.

1. Landfill update.
Todd Feland, director of public works, reported he had met with developers of Strabane Twp. site, Paul Sproule, John Scott and Gary Bridgeford; that the site is 320 acres and is 8 mi. from Larimore and 38 mi. from existing landfill, site nestled in trees, closest town is Inkster, there is one residence over half mile from site; developers will go to the County on July 10 for zoning approval. The developers have told him that they have not heard of lot of opposition, Twp. Board members are aware but need more details.

They will be doing soil borings this week, and is outer limits of a haul area - 38 mi. He stated it had been stated at previous meeting that they should meet to see if there could be a reasonable and legitimate outcome from partnership and should know if that could be; that he had discussion with them and they have some preliminary estimates on what the landfill would cost, asked how they would operate and they are open-minded - but they want a return on their investment. He informed them that from the City's standpoint what would be a deal breaker on this is that if the costs were too expensive; that after they add their landfill costs plus transport costs plus baling costs - and that we need to add all the costs to see whether feasible or not. He stated they want to go through our process, that we get pre-application approval; next step is permit application process which is more expensive and that we would have to decide at that point whether we formally get involved with this group, they can't go forward without the City being involved in their project - would encourage them to continue on with their process and that we should continue on with ours, but by this fall have to make a decision because step after pre-application is where talking real money - $300-$400,000 - continue to work over the summer on what costs would be so in 3 months have a better understanding of whether we can get together on this - or which direction we should go. He stated he didn't think they would go to permitting stage without having sense that the City is with them. He noted that if Strabane site is one we want to go with, would be significant investment and then discuss how invest in permitting process and how operate, - will meet with them over the next couple months to get some numbers and will continue to update the committee when he gets more information on that issue. He noted that when discussing this that we want control, predictability and long term successful outcome. It was noted that they have 320 acres for the landfill site and have surrounding land for borrow material and probably have ability to buy more land; that 320 acres depending on height of landfill, 30 to 40 years. Committee stated to continue going down both paths, we look at our ET and they look at their business models.

Mr. Feland presented information re. ET zoning briefing - that he wanted to look at our ranking system and be more deliberate in this process and at July meeting give rankings. He stated he has an exclusionary map where went from No. 4 to No. 1 - #1 is Interstate buffer, #3 used airport compatibility (2 mile exclusion zone, Airport Zone D from airport's master plan that they don't want anything in that zone - 3 to 3.5 mi. buffer area around airport, and also used the 5 mi. exclusion zone of concern - which is policy that FAA recommends that no solid waste landfill be located within 5 miles, however, they say you can opt out of it. He stated he has had a meeting with Mr. Perkins and Mr. Schaefer and that they want to try to assist in this process, their thoughts were maybe we should look north for a site - concern is doesn't want to put something somewhere would have to move it again - not knowing what future is and requirements; have hesitated going north because within 5 mi. of that advisory, Mr. Perkins more optimistic in regards to getting FAA sign off on that, that they do it all the time, and that if FAA has a policy that it is a big deal, They have also used the aquifer exclusion and the 100-year plain exclusion.

He stated they have not looked outside of our ET area because of rules changing in the midst of the process, don't want Twp. getting involved in zoning or have new people on Board that would change everything in a Twp. and are looking in our ET area and those are the 4 defining principals that are defining how starting this process. Kreun stated that people don't have the concept of what it actually takes to build one of these and all the regulations that become pertinent and thinks if become very deliberate and methodical and if find a place in our ET that fits, should take the owners of the property and the surrounding owners and bring them to an existing subtitle D up to date landfill so that they understand that it is not a garbage dump any more, also show them the closure process and a closed landfill - have to invest that money and actually show them an operating class D landfill.

Mr. Feland reviewed the 10 ranking criteria for potential sites - some of the 11 sites that are in the same neighborhood are going to be very equivalent in the criteria and that he was going to have our landfill consultant, Burns & McDonnell, rate the sites based upon the criteria, when they would provide rankings, review internally and bring back to committee in July for their review.
He stated that landfills are a permitted use in our ET zones and there really aren't rules per se other than have to meet subtitle D rules with the ND Dept. of Health. After the rankings are done
the next step would be to provide options for potential site or sites because have to get on these properties for soil borings so can do the next step, which is pre-application over a 3 to 4 month process, cost of Burns & McDonnell to complete about $40,000 for up to 4 sites. He stated when they get to pre-application stage when they have identified whether it is 4 or 6 sites, etc. we need to tour leading facilities as large portion of these sites are urbanized and what we intend - and that we don't want to create a project that will hamper our development either. He stated once past the pre-application site and get approval, next would be the zoning process which would be in November/December, 2007 timeframe and finally the permitting - and by that time know what we want landfill to look like. He also noted would have to make a decision re. Strabane site before going to the final step, before or after zoning in November, decided when this has to come back to city council to determine whether go forward based upon what developers or our process.
Lot of work and decisions in the next 6 months; and at the same time looking at interim process of hauling our garbage away.

He noted on the listing he handed out to committee 11 potential sites based upon the exclusions he reviewed, and presented map showing various locations in Walle, Allendale and Brenna Twps., and also showings residential and future residential areas. Part of the decision with ranking the sites they feel are appropriate, should they rank all the sites or if find areas where they don't want to rank them, some areas with higher residential density and more of a haul distance. Kreun stated not to preclude anything but rank anything that is within criteria and rank it but Mr. Feland stated not rank anything in the north end because of FAA and Air Force Base . He noted that most of the property is zoned agricultural and most valued at $700-$800/per acre, lot are multiple property owners.

Committee stated to continue going forward using all the criteria that we have had in the past and all the experience that we gained from our last attempt - follow guidelines and keep everybody informed. Mr. Feland stated he would do the ranking, come back in middle of July and come back with contractual service contract to proceed with this, contact property owners in that area and try to get on the property. No formal motion by committee.

Mr. Feland stated that last night the Fargo city commission was to act on the letter sent by Mayor Brown with the resolution to study the impact of accepting our solid waste, both on revenue side and loss of capacity - but hasn't heard as yet whether they passed that or not. He stated decision will have to be made whether we go to Fargo or Gwinner sites, have transportation hauler and wanted to see what was best option. He hoped we could work with Fargo, they have a baling facility and a $30/ton tipping fee and that if we bale they will reduce their tipping fee.

2. Public Transportation update.
Mr. Feland stated they have been running Route 12/13, that it is gaining some popularity, but the struggle on the route system is people in the south and western parts of the city are standard users, and Industrial Park is a peak service in the mornings and late afternoons and looking at some different concepts for that route, perhaps doing a peak service into Industrial Park - met with Cirrus, Stevens Mattress, Amazon.com, etc. and would like to keep experimenting on the routes and bring that back to the meeting in mid July with a final recommendation as will have run the route for a month and have better data. Committee stated to continue until have accurate data to make a decision.

3. RDO Foods, Inc., wastewater billing update.
Mr. Feland stated decision has not been made on this matter, careful because setting precedent and only doing it because RDO has been a good corporate citizen, that he talked to Mr. Henry Fietzek plant manager, and he was being bugged by the accounting department in Fargo corporation, that they have this receivable outstanding to the City of Grand Forks in the amount of $500,000+ and the accountants want to get that resolved. He stated that even with a recommendation from this committee to city council it won't be until in July, and their fiscal year ended at end of April and that is not an issue anymore. He stated they are looking at both the operational side and at the debt service on the plan, and how much of that capacity and debt service did they use; maybe overdoing it but trying to be as thorough as possible. Normally, we bill it and people pay it.

Kreun stated that this will be a policy issue and have to look at the ramifications of whether we do this or not before starting to count kilowatts. Mr. Feland stated if did do it, would have conditions attached - maybe pay so much a month, they would have to make repairs, and only way is not to give them the whole thing but give back slowly - can't be painless either. It was also noted that it was not City's fault that created the problem. RDO has been very good to work with and they worked very hard to fix the problem. He stated he would present draft to the committee.

McNamara stated some determination should be made about whether it involved negligence, would want to reprove our cost and if it does involve their negligence, that information provided to committee to make determination of cause, or if lack of maintenance, negligence, etc.; that be provided to committee; committee will make recommendation to council. It was noted that even though negligence, there are mitigating factors in that. Committee stated they will listen and want to help but not going to take care of the whole problem. Grasser stated if policy setting and that every time somebody does something we have to go through process of determining whether negligence, what actual impacts were. McNamara stated that if don't ask that question how help RDO Foods - becomes capricious, helped RDO but not another company. Grasser stated that he thinks the process of going through the negligence determination gives you the sense of not being capricious or trying to make it a definitive process, not going to be very clear. Kreun stated they need to know if it was something they could have been avoided or failure that was unavoidable and need to go to that level; and have to find out if it was something that could have been avoided and determine how we react to it. Committee asked that they bring information with answers to the request that was made. Grasser stated they could recognize efforts they made in trying to mitigate that and consider that an offset. Kreun stated that is one of the considerations they can put in there.

4. Disposition of old Red River Raw Water Intake.
Mr. Grasser stated they were looking for guidance on the raw water intake and reviewed memo - that before the flood the City had 3 raw water intakes, one on the Red Lake River and two on the Red, although one on the Red was on the MN side, the intake at Almonte Ave. was demolished by the Corps of Engineers under the flood protection project. The second structure on the Red Lake River will be demolished as part of our project but not through the Corps of Engineers because they have budget constraints. The cost of demolishing these structures is approx. $250,000, are substantial structures and piping. The third intake is on the MN side (photo showing location), across the river from the Lincoln Park area and there has been some interest expressed by East Grand Forks in obtaining that intake because that will give them potential access to Red River water, some of that goes back to the Lake Agassiz Water Authority, some drought planning, and they see some value in picking that structure up; and we see some value in getting rid of it. The Corps has determined it is not a hydraulic impediment to the river so it doesn't fall under construction of Corps project, and there would be considerable local costs in demolishing it. He stated he discussed this with Hazel Sletten, water supt., and she expressed same concerns about looking at it as a possible liability for future demolition.

The Corps has determined preliminarily that it is not necessary to remove the intake structure and if it is to come out it would be considered a relocation expense - no federal dollars and becomes cost sharing between the City and the State, that the City went to the Legislature this year and successfully got the legislation changed so that we can access our full $52 million without having the 45% State share being the limiting factor and that changes the outlook of a facility like the Red River intake structure, and if tear it down and apply for State dollars do we consider it 55% City and 45% State, and is leaning towards it as 100% City cost. It was noted that if East Grand Forks wants to obtain the structure, that absolves us of responsibility, cost of demolition and gives us the ability to use the funding mechanism from the State on other projects.

Mr. Grasser stated there was some issue with the process of disposing of the property, discussed with Mr. Swanson, city attorney, and he advised that we need to go through the normal disposition process, which declares property as surplus, goes out for public bidding option. He stated they have gone through an opinion of value, talked to Mr. Carsen and he has deferred to Polk County, there are two parcels, one is 0.4 acres in size valued at $7,500 and the other is 0.9 acres at $1,700, for combined total of $9,200; one is an access route and other is the site where the structure is located.

Mr. Grasser stated their recommendation is to declare it surplus and offer it for public sale, with minimum bid of 10% of the value of those properties as combined, that it is on the tax rolls as $9,200 and 10% would be $920.00, and could set that as minimum bid threshold and would also have conditions and that the two parcels go as one sale and retain the right for the City of Grand Forks to reject all bids in case we get into situation of somebody or group trying to get in there to purchase this for some other unknown reasons, the site is only good for the use in which it is.
The question was raised if we could give the City of East Grand Forks preference because of their need for it for the public good. Mr. Grasser stated that they would retain the right to reject all bids and rather than trying to quantify that in the bidding process, that would be one of the considerations that we would have as to whether we want to reject all bids or not. He stated the $920 will keep the casual person from bidding (riverfront property - fishing area) - and thinking 10% and thinks that is doable for East Grand Forks; there is more liability there than there is value, that Mr. Warcup was invited to the meeting and was provided these documents and assuming that they are relatively comfortable with what proposing.

It was moved by Kreun and McNamara to recommend that this property be declared as surplus and offered for public sale, with a minimum bid of 10% of the value of the two parcels, that the two parcels be combined as one sale, and that the City retain the right to reject all bids. Motion carried.

Adjourn.

The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. NO MEETING ON JULY 3, 2007

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk