Committee Minutes

Grand Forks City Council Service/Safety Standby Committee
Monday, May 20, 2008 - 5:00 p.m.__________________________________

The city council of the city of Grand Forks sitting as the Service/Safety Standby Committee met in City Hall, Room A101 on Monday, May 20, 2008 at 5:00 p.m. Present at roll call was Council Members Kreun, McNamara. (Others present: LeahRae Amundson, Todd Feland, Rick Duquette, Pete Haga, Brad Gengler, John Warcup, Muriel Stadstad, treasurer for Rye Twp.; Terry Stadstad, Twp. supervisor; Terry Stromsodt, Twp supervisor; Brad Stromsodt, Rye Twp. road supervisor; Jeff Clemetson, Rye Twp supervisor; Roxanne Fiala; Scott Reinstad, Rye Twp.; David Homstad, Rye Twp.; Steve Jose, Rye Twp; Richard Klein; Ryan Scott, etc.

Chair Kreun called the meeting to order with discussion re. this item, that there will not be any recommendations.

1. Rye Township landfill development briefing and intergovernmental interface with Rye
Township Board of Supervisors.______________________________________________
Todd Feland, director of public works, reported that one of the existing issues at our landfill is that we are moving because of the airport, our timeline is this fall as airport is planning to build a new $4+ million E/W runway to serve UND/Aerospace School pilots and aircraft and that flights over existing landfill, construction will start this summer and when the runway is complete that will be the ending date of our operation permit. They have a letter from FAA with an original date of October 1, 2008 but they have said no later than October, 2009, however, that date is fixed when that runway is complete and operational. He stated that we could have a new landfill at our proposed site in Rye Twp. 13 in the fall of 2009, which means that if everything goes well in the construction of that runway we will have approx. a year in which we will have to haul solid waste, and our plan of action is to haul it to Gwinner in the interim while constructing the new landfill. He noted that they have looked at Gwinner and a Fargo option, with the Fargo option they are willing to take half our solid waste volume and the other half to Gwinner, and that if take all 200 tons to Gwinner it is about $58/ton and the Gwinner/Fargo option is $57/ton; currently the tipping fee is $38/ton and that is our interim plan if we have to move from where we are at for several months.

He showed views of the landfill, areas that will be closed this year, the wastewater treatment plant and the inert landfill for construction demolition type material will stay where it is at as it is not a bird attractant; only the solid waste portion will go to a new site. They will try to keep as much as can around their baling facility; that they will try to re-permit a part of it as an asbestos/ash disposal area and ask for a special use permit that will be non-solid waste portion; they get ash from UND, ethanol plant in Walhalla and also from plant in Grafton when it is operating. He stated they have a baling facility and are planning an improvement this summer, that now bales are tied with wire tire and are looking at extra step of when bales come off the back have them bagged in woven bags and this will assist in the bird attracting issue they have because site they are looking at is little over 3 miles from the existing airport and bird issues is handled and trying to eliminate as much wind blown debris as possible; and this is the system they are planning to implement this summer and transfer to the new facility.

He reported re. new landfill issues is that they received letter from FAA in April 28 stating that as long as they provide the mitigating steps that USDA has prescribed that keep all operations outside of the 1500 feet of the airport runway area, and have their concurrence.

He showed view of Rye Twp. Section 13, and this plan re. geotechnical they are planning on doing this summer, consists of borings and taking samples of soil, has pezometers that will be placed in the site which will monitor the groundwater, have conducted shallow borings at a borrow site, have completed 9 on the left side of the site, and will come back with owner's permission and complete the remaining pezometers and borings the end of May - 3 or 4 week process.

Rye Twp. 13. - They looked at property owners, Scott, Kline, Homstad (has facility on Kline's property) and Mr. Jose and have been in contact with the property owners and are working on getting appraisals either via Joan Johnson Appraisals or Les Ruse's appraisal Co. and have not heard from Mr. Wixo. Should have appraisals done over the next couple months - some want to be bought out, some want to wait and see approach.

He showed the proposed site in Rye Twp. 13 for the landfill; and part of their action planning is working with nearby property owners on getting appraisals and are working with Ms. Litchy and Miss Molenaar on Rye 13 South in getting access to that property to finish the geotechnical work and get site option for that land so that if get through permitting that they are able to put a landfill and are ready to go; and are working with Mr. Warcup.

He stated this week their goal is as they have final permission on the final subsurface on the plan, and starting on the 27th and try to coincide with the owner of 13, Miss Litchy and Miss Molenaar concerned about the renter and trying to minimize the disruption to planting crop - and working on a plan so they can come up with a percentage with drilling rig for damage to the crop.

He stated they hope to have that complete and a report to the Department of Health on the 27th and have that submitted. He stated they started this in August, 2007 and at this time are pretty much on schedule and have the work plan approved; and from May through September going to perform soil survey, geotechnical work, wetland work and get the report in by September. During the summer have to come up with a landfill design criteria and start the permitting process. He stated at that time will have some comments, then will respond to the comment and eventually our goal is to issue a draft permit on which people can comment on - then have a public hearing in the jurisdiction in which the landfill will be held - in Grand Forks and allow testimony, provide a briefing on what the landfill is and how the permit is proposed so people have an ability to come and provide comment and after comment have a final permit that would be inclusive of all the comments that were provided and would be to go to design and construction. He said that starting in April they would have award and from April to October would be designing, constructing in 2009 and that is the timeline we are under; and want to keep everybody informed about what we are doing. He stated that by October, 2009 we are beginning operation at the new site in Rye 13.

He reported that when the Grand Forks city council approved proceeding with Rye 13 and at the time were looking at two north end sites which were Falconer 18 and Rye 13, and that the City would have looked at the two southern sites, section south of 13 and south of Falconer, however the USDA Wildlife Service came back to say that it was too close to the E/W runway and felt it was more prudent that we stay out of that area and that is why they moved. When they submitted the re-application, those were submitted but were disqualified because should go farther north and get away from the E/W flight way path and that is why they moved farther north and closer to the occupied residences.

As part of the plan the city council came up with and approved the Good Neighbor Policy Guide, lot of things relate to concerns of people in the township; the City will be responsible to cover the garbage that has gone there but haven't defined a determined route to get to the landfill but will be part of the permitting process when they work on the documents this summer and will keep them informed re. drainage and what do to maintain and construct roads - haven't determined final path to the site. The City will accept primary fire protection and if there is something they need to do with the Manvel volunteer fire department, the City is willing to enter into cooperative agreements, whether training with our fire department or assisting with the training facility the City is completing, etc. He stated there has been concern about having a large interstate landfill and have agreed that this is a regional landfill which would serve northeast ND and northwest MN and that is a City commitment that this is our regional area that we want to serve into the future - landfills are permitted up to 500 tons per day and that is a ceiling they permit and highest Grand Forks has every been at is 300 tons per day; and today between 200 and 250 tons per day as we have lost some customers that have gone to other landfills. The City will always retain people that are on site assisting the City and its construction and ongoing operation maintenance with other facility as do with our existing. The City will maintain any necessary Township roadways that are currently being maintained by the Twp. and would take off the Township's responsibility. He stated they want to continue communicating with the Twp. and to make it more formal where they would have a committed person that would be the contact. Issues with the Twp. concern about liability and the City has committed with as did with Turtle River Twp. that would hold you harmless re. the operation and that the City would accept responsibility regarding that. The City would make payment in lieu of taxes on that property and continue to pay appropriate township taxes on that site. They are working with owners of Rye 13 to fairly compensate them for their property. He stated they have identified property owners, Ryan Scott, Richard and Linda Klein and that Mr. Homstad does have a building that is on the Klein's property and Steven and Susan Jose, and Mr. Wixo. People are concerned that we are continuing to look at ways that we can divert stuff from solid waste landfills and are continuing to do that, divert yard waste, wood and construction demolition material, and will continue in the future to divert more and more through recycling and landfill technology will continue to improve. There is a request that we keep you involved as part of this meeting and did call Falconer Twp. reps. and let them know that we are meeting and let the County know that we are meeting today and did contact the owners or attorney and try to keep you informed.

He stated that one of the biggest concerns that has come up is that you host many of our facilities, proposed landfill site which is Rye 13, city's water lagoons, wastewater treatment plant and wastewater treatment facility, airport and existing solid waste landfill, existing inert landfill, English Coulee Diversion that comes up and is on the Rye Twp's side of the road and then goes to the river, and the biggest concern is having another section of land that is not paying taxes for the township; that you are hosting most of the public works facilities, and do recognize that and would bet that none of them are paying taxes, and thinks the City has committed on this section of land that we pay township taxes on that, and thinks that would be a discussion point that they would have with our city council because he has heard this come up several times..

He stated they are planning to address Grand Forks County Commission on the 17th of June for a similar briefing to let them know what we are working on and to continue the communication.

Chairman Kreun stated that one of the questions that comes up frequently and why is Grand Forks City involved in a landfill, that in 1991 or 1992 is when the federal government actually turned this over to the State and the State gave it to the existing landfills and there were several regions with 4 in each region and we were one in Nelson, Pembina, Walsh and Grand Forks Counties and all the others have basically gone out of business because the criteria is so strict on Title D landfills that they can't afford to operate them and have to have one larger one so the economy's scale comes into play and we have that particular one and were operating that and given that responsibility by the region and now when we have to move it, and we are regional landfill, and we are doing best we can with what we have to place the landfill near us - that if start transporting all of this you have wasted the things that you are trying to accomplish and that is save fuel, put less articulates in the air, etc. and if have to start trucking that to Minot, and if don't have a landfill you don't have the opportunity to if there is enough methane gas to recoup that, have to be relatively close to an existing facility that would use it - could use it to help with the bale facility - heat, electricity, etc. and have to reclaim all the juice, claim all the runoff water and process that and the closer to our wastewater treatment plant was one of the advantages of our existing landfill is that we run that through our wastewater treatment plant, and think this is close enough that eventually we can get that done as well, so proximity is also an issue, and those are some of the things that went into the decision making process and also with all the limitations of the Air Force which is 12 miles with the Airport 3 to 5 miles, aquifers that are taking place with the Geological portions that take place, that limits you to very few locations.

Mr. Stromsodt stated one of the questions has to do with roads, and is assuming they would go into a written statement that designates the routes, maintenance, etc. so that everybody realizes that basically to go to the current landfill off of Hwy. 2 that is the City's road, the City hard-surfaced that road to get to the baling site, none of that cost was passed on to the Twp. landowners or homeowners in the Twp. and they would like to continue doing it that way. That in Section 13 is owned by the regional airport authority and the items for wildlife and State school land don't receive any revenue and when looking at the total township large amount that they receive no revenue and the main job as a township is to gravel the rest of the existing roads, put up signs, culverts, and is their responsibility when it comes to township expenses and that their graveling costs have increased dramatically (last year $8 range and now $12/range put in place per yard), and that is why concerned about roads that would be used for the landfill. That is where their main concern is at as a township, and also that the landowners that are affected and residents directly affected are treated fairly and upfront.

Kreun stated that until the pre-application permit from the Health Department won't know exact, and when that comes, they will let Twp. Board know and at that time could draw up an agreement on which roads the City would maintain, etc. but at this point in time not sure not sure which way going to go in or out but until the permit comes in how it is located and how positioned on that section will determine which way to go and at that time would take that responsibility and make that a formal written agreement. He stated they basically have that in the agreement already but would define that and bring back and would be agreeable to both sides.

Grasser stated that the road that was put in for the existing landfill was 100% city cost but had a tapping area so that if new industry came in and needed that road would have the ability to recoup some of those costs, and if a major industry came in would have a tapping fee. It was noted that road was built in 2000 and council decided that the City bear the cost of that road through the sanitation utility fund and wasn't set up in the end for tapping fee.

The question was asked for explanation on how they get started with the landfill. Mr. Feland stated the fenced area will be 5 acres and last with volume 4 years, lost some volume, and the groundwater in this area is relatively high and when did the pre-application it was between 8 and 10 ft. at depth and at these sites, strip the black dirt and maybe some subsurface and then start building up, goal would be almost at grade and start stacking the bales - have proposed in the Turtle River Twp. site is similar to this site and the existing landfills re. clay and geology, groundwater saline and brackish and difficult to deal with and goal would be nearly at ground level, strip black dirt and use for future closure activities, start building the cells up and fence would go around existing landfill, the western half would be more of a green space - and are investigating to see what the clay is like and proposing to have a 500 ft. buffer from the property line to where the permitted landfill site would be - do plantings - would probably be at 40 ft. high at closure for aesthetics; and if look at the existing solid waste landfill is approx. 35 ft. high.
One of the issues is blowing debris and so trying to go to a baling system which will keep garbage together better - and that is issue they have to stay on top of. Kreun stated that when the looked at the baling system (system designed because of bird problems, blowing debris) and with this system bale is pulled into bag and reduces blowing capability, bird population almost to zero and keeps juices from flowing, holds until deteriorates and reduces smell; and that will be big plus and make great deal of difference along with other mitigation responsibilities; that was one of the things that FAA looked at. Trying to design it so minimal impact. It was also noted that not a lot of traffic so everything will be brought to the balefill and only get 10 to 12 load a day on the roads to the actual landfill - landfill won't be open to the public. Closure takes place as you go - will close one cell after 4 or 5 years - seeded and covered.

A question was asked as to timeline for buyout. Kreun stated they would discuss with the property owners what is a reasonable amount of time for property owner to make decision, but at some point in time there is a sunset - but reasonable amount of time after opened and operating and is only his opinion. One of the property owners stated that the problem with relocating within the 4 mile ET isn’t that easy - cannot move to town as has horses, etc. and has 10 acres. Brad Gengler, city planner, stated zoning rules were developed. Kreun asked that they list their concerns and then see what can do to mitigate or come up with agreement to make it fair.

Mr. Stromsodt reported they will be having an advisory vote on the landfill which will take place on May 27 at Generous Jerry's where they will have a special meeting for the residents of Rye Twp., going by rules set forth in the Century Code, one item meeting and will need moderator and 3 judges, need somebody to watch the doors so nobody smokes close to the building. The meeting will start at 6:00 p.m., will set forth the question to all that are at the meeting, those eligible to vote will be able to do so, the polls will be open approx. 1 hour, will be simple question with a yes or no and when results counted that information will be turned over to the County Commission and also the city council.

Mr. Duquette reported that Mr. Warcup from the city attorney's office and himself worked on acquisition of property relating to the dike project and what he learned from that is that each one of those situations is an individual circumstance, case by case, and learned that it takes time to work with you individually in each situation. He stated they would work with the city attorney's office and have them make initial contact. Kreun stated they start with the appraisal and if not an agreement would put forth an appeals committee and sometimes a mediator. Mr. Warcup stated they have would contacted each of the property owners and appraisals are in process, and as soon as they get the appraisals back and we have more information and the property owner has more information as to the estimated value of the property and from point property owner can decide how they want to proceed, if want to go at that point or take wait and see approach, but we would be responding to what the property owner's desire is in that situation. Would hope to have the appraisals within the next 4 to 6 weeks and is dependent upon appraiser's work load and the complexity of each individual property, do an in-depth appraisal.

Mr. Stromsodt stated that when do appraisal and tell property owner a figure, and if he has a problem with that, would mediate it and come to an agreement, and City is the owner of the property if property owner decides to accept offer; and then the City would put it back on the market; or if property owner compensated if he chose to live there or if chose to buy it back at a reduced rate. Mr. Warcup stated the City would be the owner of the property; but not sure if City has made decision as to what to do with the property - that is one option - that they can't make a deal to sell a piece of property to an individual at a pre-arranged price, that if property is sold, it has to be sold on an open market. Kreun stated he assumes that the City would like to sell the property, could pay taxes until it is sold - that this is just a committee and have to bring this back to the city council to make final decision - that we get information as to needs of this group and bring that information back as concerns. Mr. Warcup stated the property would be resold and we would not be excluding the previous owner from the purchase of that property, but on the other hand wouldn't be able to guarantee to the previous owner that they could purchase that property.

Mr. Stromsodt stated because in effect if they sell their home to the City, that is a tax free exchange for income tax purposes but different for Mr. Homstad where if he has a regular sale and that is taxable, same with Molenaars - unless go through condemnation so that they can use that money to replace the property and not have any income tax - doesn't know the legal ramifications if have voluntary condemnation. Mr. Warcup stated as far as the property owner in Section 13 would probably be considered what is called an involuntary conversion of that property and there are in the tax code provisions to avoid or delay the imposition of a capital gain - similar to a 1031 exchange process and for the property owners that are near by and not required to sell but decide to voluntarily sell, that might be a different situation and not be the residential situation because homes are normally a tax free exchange as long as you replace it with another home. - Stromstad stated you do not have to replace it, as they have changed the law, but in effect if over a $500,000 gain just a non-taxable transaction, and was thinking along line of Mr. Homstad who runs a business building there - Mr. Warcup stated there are ways in which he could do a 1031 exchange that would work as long as long as he reinvests in replacement property. Each situation would be different and he would have to look at his own tax situation, and is not something that he would for his office would be able to advise him on. Kreun stated one of the things they could do is if there is an exchange, could delay the sale or our purchase of the land until they find another one because there is a time limit.

The question was asked what the purpose of the vote. Mr. Stromsodt stated that Mr. Kreun was in Bismarck at a meeting of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and he gave testimony as far as the landfill and siting, and it was brought up about a vote if the people of Rye Twp. would have a chance to vote on this - that it is an advisory vote and in effect you are sending a message to the council and the County of Grand Forks what the feelings of the residents of Rye Twp. are - wouldn't hold any weight but more information for them but more information for them - generates them to focus more information about the concerns of the people and it was requested by several of the homeowners there, did advertise to have this special meeting which will be a vote, and that residents of Rye Twp. can come and vote, and results of that will be turned over to the city council and the Grand Forks County commissioners - and they have an idea what the feelings are of the residents - have to have lived in the Twp. for 30 days under the rules of the Century Code. He stated there will be no discussion, only pose the question and there will be a paper ballot - one item meeting.

Mr. Feland stated that no matter how the advisory vote goes, and that the City would see that as another input into the process and either way the vote goes, there will be continued discussion and continued feedback as they work towards this project.

Mr. Stromsodt stated he has had several conversations with Todd, talked to Mr. Kreun, to Mayor Brown and not as if left out and not knowing what is going on - have been consulted and appraised of information, received e-mails, etc.

Mr. Stromsodt stated it is an advisory vote, another way for residents of Rye Twp. to put out the way they feel about this and that impresses upon the city council to look at this and need to focus more - but gives residents a voice.

A question was raised as to whether there would be utilities on the landfill site, and if cross other property owners with those utilities, electric, water, etc. Mr. Feland stated that when they talked about the road, there is also a watermain that goes up 69th Street from Hwy 2 to where the baling facility is and also a watermain that goes from Hwy. 2 and that is another utility that they needed for the baling facility and the wastewater treatment plant and that was another situation where the City put that in and paid the cost, and would be the same scenario.

Kreun asked if there were any other questions to contact committee members, Feland or Grasser and Gengler (zoning issues) - write down and find out what concerns are and to see how City can mediate those concerns. He stated that the next time when they get more information, make some progress would deal with Twp. Board and residents if they want to be there.

Adjourn

The meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk