Working Session
MAYOR COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - - 7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
Present:
Mayor Brown, Bjerke, Glassheim, Christensen, Bakken, Kreun.
Absent:
McNamara, Gershman.
Others: Jim Goulet, Terry Stromsodt, Dave Meagher, Ray Wilkins, Jack Hermanson, Terry Stadstad.
Vice President Glassheim called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and announced that it was being recorded.
Matter of New Landfill Briefing and Intergovernmental Agreement Discussion between the City of Grand Forks and Rye Township.
Todd Feland, Public Works Director, began the meeting with a quote from Sir Winston Churchill, “The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees opportunity in every difficulty.” He stated that the quote seems fitting for the opportunity that the new landfill presents to both the City and Rye Township. He continued that at the meeting tonight he plans to update the group on the landfill in regards to handling of surface storm water, leachate (garbage juice), and the plans for the road maintenance and upgrades. He added that individuals from CPS are also present to assist with details on some of these areas.
Feland explained that Rye Township has 640 acres and that the proposed landfill will use 190 acres. It will be made up of 10 cells, each 19 acres and anticipated to last for years. The new landfill will have an elevation of 50-55’, as compared to the current landfill with an elevation of 45’. The proposed landfill will be a balefill with a bird mitigation plan. Refuse will be bailed at the current landfill site, then bagged and trucked to the new site. The permit for the existing landfill will be modified to allow it to continue to receive nonputrescible waste, waste such as ash from UND, Walhalla and the Grafton plant when it is running, asbestos, but will not be accepting any hazardous or toxic substances.
Feland stated that CPS will now brief the group on the technical development and then the presentation will conclude with a brief overview of where discussions are at between the City and Rye Township officials.
Mike Korman, civil engineer with CPS, Ltd, stated that CPS is a subcontractor of Burns McDonnell that has the contract for design of the landfill site. He stated that their area of work includes site drainage and haul road areas.
Drainage – Korman displayed a map showing the three watershed areas of the parcel and the nonlandfill use area of the parcel and explained how drainage would be accomplished for each of the areas. He explained that some of the area will drain to the legal drain, some will drain in its natural path as it does now, and some will be designed to drain to the NE corner to retention ponds. The ponds will be designed to be protected from a 100 year natural event, and to meet all state health requirements. He continued that the purpose of the ponds is to allow the sediment from the drainage to settle out prior to discharging the water into the storm system. Two options were looked at for draining the ponds – either pumping straight to the English Coulee or using the existing 36” line to the Wastewater Treatment Plant and then sending to the Red River.
Flood Plain – Korman displayed a map depicting the flood plain and noted that Rye Township is well outside the 100 year flood plain. He stated that is a new letter of map revision (LOMR) due out soon and that based on that the proposed site is still outside the flood plain. The elevation of the site is between 827 and 829 on the north end and the new LOMR for that area would be 825.4 and for the southend currently 830-831 and new map would place it at 827.2.
Leachate – Korman explained that the cells of the landfill will be designed with a collection system for the leachate or as commonly labeled “garbage juice” which is water that has come in contact with garbage. Korman continued that there were options that were discussed for disposal of the leachate – 1) truck from the site or 2) tie into the existing forcemain system and use a pump station to move it to the Wastewater Treatment Plant for treatment and then discharge. He stated that at the present time the preferred option is option 2.
Deon Wawrzyniak, CPS, explained the two haul route options for the group. He stated that Option 1 was to utilize the interstate and routes that would proceed back through the City, but would not require road reconstruction. Option 2 would involve the reconstruction of some township roads but would be a more direct route straight north from the baling facility and then east to the southeast corner of the proposed site for entry. He explained that the improvements would increase the size of the road to a 28’ width and described the options for reconstruction of the roads to allow them to handle the expected truck traffic of 10-15 trucks per day, 6 days a week. Wawrzyniak stated that right of way acquisition for the project will affect two property owners.
A question from the audience asked what the difference would be in the two retention ponds or if there was one. Korman stated that there may be two ponds, and in that case the water would flow into the first, let sediment settle, then move to the second pond for pretreatment before discharge and that the two would be divided by a levy. It was noted that the ponds would be for stormwater drainage only and would not be used for leachate. Feland added that there was an option discussed of drainage going directly to the 54” pipe and to the river and may use this as a backup, but prefer to use the sediment ponds so that as sediment drops out water that goes to the river is cleaner.
An audience member inquired if there would be any effect on 70
th
Ave S. Feland stated that will be discussed later in the presentation, but that there is no direct usage planned for 70
th
Ave S for hauling as that is on the northside of the parcel for the proposed landfill and the refuse will be coming in an entrance on the south side.
Feland gave an update on the discussions with Rye 13. He explained that in October will be continuing with appraisals, have been meeting with landowners Litchy and Molenaar and have been great to work with, Klein property has been bought, Scott’s is in appraisal phase, Josie’s have asked to wait until later in the year to work on appraisal so will be coming to them later, landowner Wixo has not approached the City yet.
Feland displayed the timeline that has been in place on this project and showed that we are currently on schedule. Feland displayed the Good Neighbor Policy that was approved by City Council as a guide for this process and that he believes we have been following it in our discussions with the township. Feland continued that a main concern that the City has been discussing is that between existing public works facilities, the proposed new landfill and the airport, 22% of township land is government owned and does not pay property tax. He added that most of those facilities were installed long ago and before when governments typically offered payments in lieu of taxes to offset lost revenue. He stated that the City has been including this in conversations as they feel it is fair to offer something to the township.
Feland stated that at the July 8 Service/Safety Committee meeting there were five main issues that were discussed with the township:
1) Road maintenance – to include drainage, ditch mowing, etc. The City has stated that they will take over maintenance of the haul roads.
2) Potential for assessments in the future light, street, water, sewer improvements. The City has stated that they do not have any intent to special assess residents of the township for improvements done for the landfill. Feland added that if there were to be industrial development, for example an ethanol plant that decided to locate near the landfill that necessitated installation of improved infrastructure that there could be assessments to that industrial development, but not pass that on to the current residential landowners of the township.
3) That the City would pick up trash that accumulates in ditches. Feland stated that the City has said that they will strive to keep the ditches on haul routes clear of refuse, however, is reluctant to say that the City will take responsibility for everything as that could lead to an open dumping of items just because it is known that the City maintains those roads and that is not the intent.
4) Replacement funds – The City has stated that they are willing to work with the township to come to an agreement on a payment in lieu of taxes that would replace the income that the township looses from the land owned by the City and Airport. He explained that in research it appears that for the proposed landfill site if the land were taxed as ag land would be about $500-600 in lost revenue and at commercial rate would be about $3,000 in lost revenue. The total township mill levy revenue is approximately $12,000-15,000 annually. Discussions with the township have ranged from $15,000 to $40,000 for an annual payment and discussions are continuing. Feland added that they have also discussed paying a host fee to the township to compensate for the fact that there are so many public works sites within the township. This would be a lump sum fee paid to the township, who would then decide how to use it which could include improvements to the township or some type of formulaic breakdown to divide the host fee between residents of the township. Feland stated that the City does not intend to have deal individually with parties in the township on this and will only consider the lump sum approach.
5) That all discussions are conducted in good faith and that good communication occurs with the township as the process goes forward. Feland stated that they have continued to contact through mailings and public meetings with residents and the township board.
Feland stated that the proposed landfill will be a much improved facility even from the City’s current landfill and will serve the region very well. He added that the proposed landfill site could be an opportunity not only for the City, but also for the township to get more than they have today and whole project would be a net gain for all.
Feland stated that he believes the next step is to form a group to work out the final agreement and that the group should include some Council Members and some township representatives and that perhaps work on it and come back with another meeting in a month with an update.
Feland explained that in response to the earlier question about 70
th
Ave, three roads are already planned for maintenance to be taken over by the City and it is possible that the City may take over that road maintenance as well so they would maintain the full perimeter of the landfill, but that would be discussed in formation of the agreement that is signed.
Feland called for questions from the audience.
Q: What are the positive effects for individual landowners from the siting of the landfill in Rye Township?
A: Feland responded that everyone’s garbage goes to the City of Grand Forks landfill and being able to site a new landfill offers economic stability and decreased costs for garbage collection for the region for the next 60 years or more. The City of Grand Forks will also be improving and maintaining several roads that the township now maintains, thereby decreasing the costs to residents of the township and increasing the quality of the roads that they have. The Township will also receive revenue for public works hosting that they are not currently receiving which could benefit individual landowners wither through direct payments from the township or through reduced township taxes.
Q: An audience member stated that they are retired and had been planning to sell their property, what effect will new site have on property values?
A: Feland responded that the research they have done shows it should not effect property values and noted that there is already a landfill within two miles of the proposed new site so no new effect. He continued that this new landfill will be a balefill only with bales wrapped in plastic so should be better than current one. He continued that the City strives to be the best neighbor that we can be and plans to make sure that even when the site is eventually closed will be landscaped and often see developments over closed sites like golf courses, etc. that make them very desirable areas to live by. Feland gave examples of Phoenix and Florida developments and sited that the Fargo landfill is within the City limits and has development around it.
Q: An audience member sited several concerns, with communication, no one has personally contacted them, they believe there will be effect due to increased truck traffic and road is already too narrow, dislike the publicity given to four homes nearest the landfill and the buyout that was given to the Klein’s who were already planning to sell and move from their home now got a bonus and won’t even be affected and live on the same road but no one offering them anything.
A: Bjerke asked where resident lived and located on map, explaining that the road which the resident lives on is not part of the haul route and would not anticipate traffic on that road and already said we were going to make wider. He noted that he and thousands of other residents in the Congressional Subdivisions live within 2 miles from the current landfill and have no effect on them at all.
Q: An audience member asked why the City would pay so much for so few properties.
A: Feland stated that the City is trying to be fair to the directly affected property owners and so did an independent appraisal and then added some benefit to compensate them for their loss of property and feels somewhat frustrated as if the City were paying less than people thought property worth would also be getting complaints. He stated that the goal of the City through this property is to treat people with respect and to be fair and reasonable in all their dealings with property owners.
Glassheim inquired how the City arrived at the area from proposed site seen to be most affected by the siting. Feland stated that a ½ mile buffer area is distance being used in the process and that there is no set rule as to what area to use for occupied residences, but are trying to be the most reasonable and fair and those that immediately border the site are the ones that the City has been working with closely. He continued that as previously stated, the City plans to start at the SE corner of the site and move north and then west and that will take 40-50 years to get to the area of the site that is 2 miles from the residents that have been expressing concern.
Feland added that before choosing this site had looked at the parcel just north of the existing landfill, but that was still too close for the airport’s east west runway and so had to skip that parcel and this parcel was as geologically fit and still very near existing public works facilities.
Q: An audience member commented that they had lived in Grand Forks and had to relocate after the flood, bought land, put trailer on it, have been working on improving it and hauling in dirt to get trees to grow and now will have to put up with smell and blowing trash and lose value.
A: Christensen reiterated that the research has shown property values are not affected and that with new technology should not have to worry about smell or loose trash. Audience member responded that they would like to be convinced that the property values will not drop. Christensen repeated that have studied and also asked County and see no drop and that will have trees and landscaping around the perimeter and this is not typical Maddock, ND landfill, but a higher technology facility. He commented that in other communities golf courses and similar amenities are often developed over closed landfills and become one of the most desirable places to live, but recognized that won’t happen for number of years and probably not in life span of any current property owners or Council persons. He added that the will be many years before development at the site is even anywhere near the resident and even then still over 2 miles away. He stated that Feland is treating the property owners with respect and does not understand the distrust.
Audience member responded that has always been a problem with the road and too narrow and not maintained and now with more traffic will be even worse and has not been addressed in the past by either the County or Township and have gotten disrespectful treatment of any concerns from County. Towship rep Goulet commented that if this is such an amenity why not put it on the southend of Grand Forks where considered once instead of always on the northend. Bjerke responded the everyone uses the landfill and without one everyone should be ready to open up their wallet, as garbage rates will rise, and that gardbage from the region must go somewhere.
Q: Audience member inquired why paying thousands of dollars to some people but not offering anything to some residents of the downship? Feland expressed that they have tried to work fairly and reasonably with residents that are directly affected, those within the ½ mile, and still being faulted and that is very frustrating. He continued that the landfill will not impact property values or properties that are further distances.
Q: Audience member stated that there was a straw vote taken and of 79 that voted, 72 were against and 7 were for it, but still getting landfill and shows that people aren’t listened to and still no agreements discussed with many residents in the township.
A: Christensen stated that the City is trying to address reasonable concerns of the township residents and asked whether they could put together a list of 10-15 items that the City could look at that would address concerns.
The group discussed that at the public meeting on July 8 had agreed to get items to Board Members. Terry Stromsodt, Rye Township, stated that at the meeting asked residents for input and also motion made to form a committee including residents to work on this and 3 people were elected : Ray Wilkins, Jim Goulet, Wallace Pung; and 3 alternates Dave Meagher, Lunda Romuld, and Don Campbell and that there will be resident input when get to the agreement forming stage. Stromsodt continued that to get the public input the Board of Supervisors will call a special meeting, which takes 2 weeks for publication requirements, keep communication open. He continued that the City is still in the permitting process and don’t know outcome also of the lawsuit filed by one group, or whether legislature will take extraterritorial rules back from the 4 mile limit, and possible some other factors, so need to keep dialogue going. He added that the township has been hosting public facilities for many years and not gotten anything and that would be benefit to now be compensated for that and the township board is just trying to work both sides of the fence so that no matter what the outcome of all the variables is no opportunity that could benefit the township is lost. He added that he uses the landfill just like everyone else and does not want to see increased charges that would be passed on to all the residents if a new landfill is not sited somewhere. Stromsodt stated that he appreciates the continued updates that the City is providing as the process moves on and that the City is continuing to work on making the design of the landfill the best for the township it can be and appreciates that they have changed the design from the original “C” shape to the inverted “L”.
Kreun stated that need to get the committee together and start working on the main areas for negotiation including payment in lieu of taxes and formula for the hosting fee. Stromsodt stated that once have the public township meeting and get input from residents may come up with other areas too, but want to stress that the purpose of the meeting is to address what is best for the township, not any personal agendas that individual’s have. Other Township reps expressed concern that want to have ability to accomplish something at any meeting that is held and if not going to be productive then no point in holding it. Wilkins asked if there was a need to keep discussing until the lawsuit was settled and see if the landfill is even permitted there and then if it is start meeting. Glassheim stated that everyone is moving forward on a couple of tracks and that the City is confident they will prevail and want to continue the dialogue so once set can move forward and get the new landfill open as soon as possible while protecting township residents needs as much as can. He added that would like resident participation so those needs can be addressed.
Wilkins expressed frustration that the straw vote taken that went against the landfill was not considered and that it shows that no one listens to the residents. He explained that before the flood had a business and had to move it and some City taxed property looked at and told that he couldn’t put it there unless the people approved and they voted it down because already had Simplot smell and didn’t want bakery smell and City said can’t put there, now we vote against and still going there. He got 176 signatures that don’t want. He continued that he had a real estate agent out to his property and they told him probably 10-20% decrease in value if new landfill sited and even if not decrease will take twice as long to sell with landfil, County says no effect on property, asked whether she would buy it and she said probably not. Now back of my property will be about ½ mile from dump when done. Goulet added that he also doesn’t want landfill and is not in favor of proceeding with any other discussions at this point.
Glassheim replied that even if some residents don’t want it, it may be sited there and the City is trying to give the residents an opportunity to have input in the process in case it happens, but if they do not want input then can’t force it.
An audience member asked what right the City has to put the landfill there if some residents don’t want it. Kreun responded that state law allows it. Glassheim responded that there is a need for a new landfill and that it has to go somewhere to take in the garbage of the approximately 100,000 residents in the region, including those in Rye Township. He added that Fargo’s dump is in middle of town and no one has problem with it. Bjerke stated that if residents do not want a meeting then don’t schedule one. Wilkins replied that there should still be meetings.
Bakken stated that he feels bad about the situation and understands that everyone is frustrated and in particular because the committee is trying to do the best they can for the township and get the best deal to benefit the township that they can and that the landfill may end up there whether some residents like it or not and too bad to see some not willing to support the committee and if want to go ahead and hinder the board from working with the City and the City wins will go ahead with it and then no deal and no money or input for township and still have landfill there.
Christensen added that the State Legislature has given the City the right to site a landfill here when they put in place the 4 mile extraterritorial ability for City’s years ago and allows the City to decide what happens on land that is within that jurisdiction and you live in Grand Forks County and it happens to have a landfill problem. He continued that we have 2 mile and 4 mile jurisdiction to regulate the landfill and we are siting this landfill within the 4 miles and this gentleman is saying why didn’t we get to vote on that and that is because 30 years ago people said that City’s of a certain size can control the area beyond the City limits proper for the health and welfare of the area for the region and that is what this group is trying to do. He continued that he agrees with Bakken that the representatives of the township board are working hard to get the best deal possible for the township going forward should the landfill be sited here. He continued that if you take away the desire that it not happen and look at o.k. it may happen then should empower the people sitting in those chairs to work on the best agreement they can along with the additional three resident reps put on to neuter the actions of the reps because you don’t trust them and get the deal done. Christensen explained that after the flood had a similar experience when dike line was to go through the middle of my property, but understood that needed to be done for the common good of the community and know that he can’t convince any resident opposed to the landfill of that, but if were to trust anyone would trust Todd Feland, as his career is working to get the best facility for our community and he will try to be fair and reasonable with everyone and his career is on the line to deliver and make it good for all. Christensen stated that if you choose not to believe we can’t change your mind and no more to discuss.
(Christensen departed the meeting.)
Kreun stated that in the early 1990’s the federal government changed the rules on landfills and made new requirements and the State decided they did not want to handle it any more and passed all the federal regulations down to the local landfills. Kreun continued that there were four landfills in this region and made it so expensive to operate because of the regulations that most shut down and we are the only one left and we are forced to replace the landfill because of air service in this community. He added that we are put in this position and we don’t like doing this any more than you like us doing it to you, but have over 100,000 people that we have to service and it is an economic condition for all of us and will affect what our costs are and how much it costs to live in this area and all put on our shoulders and charged with responsibility of finding a landfill. Kreun explained that as you saw with the drainage issues and airport restrictions and Air Base has a 12 mile restriction, that the option to site to east is taken away due to river and flood plain restriction, west taken away due to Air Base, and have very few places compatible with hosting a landfill. Turtle River Township was the overall best site, but they beat us on a legal technicality and we had to look for another area. Between the north and the south, which are the only two areas left to look, and this site geologically and technically is as good a fit as Turtle River and is close to existing public works facilities. Kreun continued that we want to work as best we can with the township board to do as best as we can to be best host of the facilities that we can be and added that in the past facilities were put in with no compensation at a time when things were done that way, but not how we want to do them fairly as Feland explained. He continued that we also have the law behind us and we are not obligated to pay anything for the 22% of the land that we own in the township but to be fair to you to pay back the taxes that are lost. Kreun stated that as Christensen said we understand that you may not want it, but it has to go somewhere and out of all research that has been done it all indicates this is the second best place for a landfill after the Turtle River township site. Kreun continued that Wilkins had stated that real estate agent told him value would go down and asked whether they had done research and looked at other similar areas and he did not know, is betting that if they did it would show would have minimal or no effect on value. We have done research and using that in making our decisions as we go forward and have no reason to not be honest with you.
Glassheim adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. thanked people for coming and will have more update meetings in the future.
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sherie Lundmark
Administrative Specialist Senior