Print VersionStay Informed
Grand Forks City Council Service/Safety Standby Committee
Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 4:00 p.m.__________________________________

The city council of the city of Grand Forks sitting as the Service/Safety Standby Committee met in the council chambers in City Hall on Thursday, August 23, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. Present at roll call were Council Members Kreun, chair; McNamara; and Gershman.

Others present were Council Member Glassheim, Todd Feland, Rick Duquette, Brad Gengler, Daryl Hovland, RaeAnn Burger, Don Shields, Tom Hanson, Chief Packett, Mark Walker, Roxanne Fiala, Al Grasser, Dick Newman and reps. of property in areas zones north and south sections of Grand Forks.

Chair Kreun called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m., there were 2 items on the agenda and if have time will add an additional item from Mr. Grasser re. update on Lift Station 182 where had greater problems than anticipated. He noted they will try to have meeting over by 5:30 p.m. because several of them have other appointments.

1, Landfill Activities update.
Todd Feland, public works, reported that when calling this meeting and Monday's meeting tried to notify people who had contacted him expressing concern and that some of those people were in the audience. He reported he sent memorandum to council members including interim plan, not sure if the City has received a letter from the City of Fargo regarding their proposal to us for $27/ton of baled waste; that Waste Management's bid is $56.12/ton but doesn't have all the details of the Fargo proposal but for a period over 3 years that it seems more logical to go to Fargo because of distance. He stated that Waste Management does pick up a lot of nearby cities and rural communities, they could choose to take that other regional waste to the Gwinner landfill, could lose some tonnage and could see as unintended consequence. He stated when get firm confirmation from City of Fargo with their proposal; would like to bring this to the committee of the whole to advise them that it appears that Fargo is the best option. Chairman Kreun stated they would take that under advisement but won't be able to move on it until they get the exact costs.

Mr. Feland stated that they could pass on the Strabane Twp site because all the conditions were met on the County Planning and Zoning but was turned down 3 to 2, and having heard the opposition in that area would have advised that they should be very careful in getting involved because of large opposition, not sure what the developer is going to do, if they are going to appeal, but would advise that we move forward with our ET and take that one off the board.

He presented maps showing proposed sites in the northend, sections 14, 13, 18, 19 and 24, and are within 3.5 miles from the airport and within the 5-mile FAA Advisory; and will follow up with draft to USDA Wildlife Services, had conversations with the FAA Office in Bismarck and the USDA Wildlife Service is Bismarck. He noted that the proposed northend sites are near the landfill and do not have any exclusions, that the areas south have glacial sand and gravel, and beach strandline deposits.

Council Member McNamara asked for review of geometric shapes on the map. Feland stated that the Grand Forks aquifer is underneath Grand Forks and another aquifer near Larimore which is used for irrigation, drinking water; all of these sites - showed ET lines, the 5-mile FAA advisory line and if want to put in a landfill have to ask FAA's opinion, another area shown is the 2006 Grand Forks International Airport Land Use Plan and within that area they advised that nothing that would attract wildlife should be placed within that area and is 3.5 miles from the airport, another area shown the FAA 10,000 ft. rule which is also the Dept. of Health rule and cannot put a landfill within the 10,000 ft. or the 2 mile rule; and is looking at sites outside the 10,000 ft. and our own airport's Land Use Compatibility Zone, and all the sites on the northend were within the FAA advisory and have to be reviewed.

McNamara asked what kind of basis does FAA grant waivers to site inside the FAA advisory line. Mr. Feland stated they do grant waivers, but they say that Grand Forks is unique for several reasons - we have the busiest airport in ND, about 150,000 take offs and arrivals, mostly by UND aircraft, have open lands, lagoons and airport and these sites are within the departure and arrival and if put those factors together is going to have more scrutiny than average FAA.

He stated when he suggested that they look at 4 particular sites on the northend that they look at 5 sections because they are all out of the departure/arrival airspace, these come from the airport's land compatibility land use plan - anything that is a hazard to flight, land use development that may cause the attraction of birds and suggested that on the northend sites to send letter to USDA Wildlife and ask for review again and that would like it done this fall to work in parallel with the pre-application process to the Department of Health on these sites. He stated that time is of the essence and is suggesting to move forward

Chair Kreun stated they are asking for a review of the review, that they have a letter from the USDA Wildlife indicating that is not acceptable but asking them to look at it again, and would like copy of prior letter so they can make comparison and if anything different because they gave us a fairly definite answer that could go ahead and do it but would have to take the responsibility for accidents, etc. that would take place, and when FAA got involved they also said could do it if wanted to but look at funding and see what happens to your funding over a long period of time, that consequences to actions. Mr. Feland stated that Cir. 34 which goes out 6 miles for the review, between 33 and 34 - still have 5 mile advisory of all sites - that USDA Wildlife did a wildlife study around the airport in 2000 and recommended that dumping of the waste should be eliminated in the current landfill and efforts to relocate the landfill should be continued and relocation should take place as soon as possible; they say we have done a good job and doing all the right things but said it should be relocated.

Feland stated for discussion there are 8 sites, and that he has an agreement with Burns & McDonnell for pre-application agreement and contract is for $49,000 to do a pre-application on these sites, and in parallel with those he has a draft letter that he wrote this afternoon to ask the USDA - that he talked to the FAA and they say we have to be concerned about their putting a lot of investments to the airport, build an E/W runway, internal projects and Border Patrol and adding all these things, and that if something comes out negative on a site and that they use the USDA Wildlife Service as experts and once short-circuit the process and send them a letter can get to the end quicker, but if we were to select a site that comes back in a negative way and if we went ahead with the site, they would probably stop our E/W runway and other major projects. He stated what he is asking for is that they start this process on pre-application at the same time as we ask the USDA Wildlife Service to update the report to include these specific sites so that when we hit the end of December we have got pre-application approval on some or all of these sites. At the same time we have a USDA Wildlife Service hazard survey or review assessment and when get that back and probably around January he will come back and make a determination on a specific site that we want to go to permitting. He stated when he says permitting that means probably a $300-400,000 effort with detailed engineering, detailed studies but in January what he is proposing is that when have all that information will come back here and going to pick a section or parts of sections to go forward to the landfill site in our extra-territorial area. He stated they have imperfect information right now but need to get going so that by the end of the year we have better information for which to make a decision on; some of these sites they may do borings on if we have some doubts about, but now for $50,000 we can do all of these and Dept. of Health has said they have to send them on to the State Water Commission and the State Geologist for their recommendations. He stated he has talked to the USDA and stated that we would really appreciate if they could do that hazard assessment this late summer or fall and described the process they were going and that should send this letter as soon as possible so that we would have everything drawing to the end of the year as part of this process. He asked Brad to talk about some of the zoning regulations.

Brad Gengler, city planner, reviewed zoning regulations in the areas of proposed landfill locations. He stated that when they adopted the new Ag and Subdivision Regulations they did call out Municipal Solid Waste Disposal facility as a permitted use, they did so knowing that in addition to it being a permitted use there was going to be countless other regulations and studies and other issues that would need to be dealt with. In addition to that that everything that they have identified is either shown to be in the A-1 or the A-2 and of the significance of that they have limited future residential developments. He reviewed the adopted future land use plan, and have identified the various sections, every section that they are showing is shown to be in AG areas vs. other anticipated future areas such as residential. Everything that is shown in Tier 1 is the area that just immediately adjacent to the city, and that is the area that they have anticipated that would provide us with the land we need up to the year 2035 and everything outside of Tier 1 is essentially up to future updates of this plan.

Mr. Feland stated that he was planning to put this on the agenda for committee of the whole and would like some guidance so that he can complete the staff report and gather some of this information and perhaps prepare a presentation for Monday's committee of the whole, and proceed. Kreun stated one thing is to bring concrete numbers from Fargo and Waste Management so that they can act on those, and to go forward with pre-application process on these eight sites so they can gather the proper information and to send a letter to FAA and USDA Wildlife.

Feland stated that in the letter from Fargo there is one problem, that they only want Grand Forks' in the study and we are currently about 70,000 ton of MSW and not sure how this will work and that in lieu of bringing this issue to the COW on Monday, better off that we hold it for now and get better review so won't bring that issue.

It was moved by Council Member McNamara and seconded by Council Member Kreun to approve motion, with exception of Fargo proposal. Motion carried.

2. Public Works Department Environmental Compliance/Greenway Organizational
Modifications - Informational Update._______________________________________
Mr. Feland reported that he had included greenway changes for their information; that Melanie Biby has been provided the management responsibility under public works.

Council Member Christensen stated he wanted to know the amount of money we have, that in the budget this year have 2.5 positions in greenway or storm water and wanted clarification on that because when they put in $1.15 greenway fee for maintenance, mowing, doing trails, etc. but sees that they are using greenway funds for positions; and that he would like to meet with Mr. Feland to get a better understanding as to the money they have collected, what it has been spent for and who they are going to fund for positions and how much of the money will be available for amenities, and assumes Melanie would come out of that fund. Mr. Feland stated Melanie's salary is paid 50% out of wastewater, 25% out of stormwater and 25% out of greenway portion of the stormwater fund; that she is the only one coming out of the greenway fund, there are some stormwater operators for pump maintenance, etc. and a majority of the greenway fund is generally mowing and maintenance activities. Mr. Christensen stated he would like detail because he doesn't want to see that money being used to fund salaries for people that are starting pumps (operations); and wants to make sure that he knows how that $630,000 is going to be spent, what plans are for 2008 and how being spent in 2006 and 2007, because hard to take it away if paying salaries; why using this fund to pay for employees that were paid before out of stormwater, and if free up the stormwater what going to do with that money. Feland stated they would review that at the next meeting, will describe what the wastewater fund is, the stormwater fund and the greenway fund is.

3. Chair Kreun asked if people in the audience had any comments to make.

Richard Kline stated he lives in Section 12 of Rye Twp., that Air Force planes fly over his house, UND also flies over his property, and not in the pathways they say they are; that Section 13 in the spring and fall have tens of thousands of geese; and re. ground water, his sump pump goes sometimes until January; and asked if committee members had viewed the sites, and if they would do that and talk to residents - would appreciate that. Chair Kreun stated they would do that when they get to that point and narrow it down. Mr. Kline also stated that he is planning improvements to his home, if put landfill there, his home is junk - needs to know. Kreun stated they need to do their homework and show what conditions are in those particular spots, so far has been somewhat general; that they have to get Burns & McDonnell in there to actually do the soil borings and USDA Wildlife will also indicate some of the things which it already has done but have to go back and do again, and that they indicated that we shouldn't build there.

Christensen stated that we don't have a lot of choices left and whatever site this council selects there will be some people impacted; that property owner has rights as an affected individual - rights afforded you under our rules; that Mr. Feland is sensitive to that and if have communi-cations and conversations and understand that there will be some ancillary issues with this and do the best we possibly can to do the greatest good and take care of those that get hurt. Mr. Kline again asked that they come out.

Council Member Gershman suggested that they were shown picture of farmstead next to landfill in Hallock, MN and that they should get the names of people who live near landfills and give to Mr. Kline and others that they might want to call that person to see what it is like.

Marilyn Gregoire stated that the volume in Marshall and Kittson Counties is not anywhere close to volume of what they are talking about; that she lives in a house in the southern section of area; and has UND and NW airlines and FedEx going over her house all the time. She also stated that they need a new furnace and why buy a new furnace if not going to live there. Chair Kreun stated that the mitigation process with the dike and relocation of homes dealing with that and stated that they go ahead and do improvements to their homes and that value will be taken into consideration if it becomes a buy-out situation and if show there is a diminished value or that it has to be taken care of, that will be compensated - did that in the flood protection project and people in same positions and gave same advice - to live your life as it is going on and will be compensated for IF impacted. Christensen stated the legal principal is called inverse condemnation and not a direct taking but adversely affected and that is legal principal they would stand on. Mr. Gregoire stated the biggest difference between what they are talking about what they are doing in the next few years and what happened here 10 years ago with the flood, that those people that were affected by the flood were voters within your city, that they are not voters and forced into this zoning situation without having and unable to vote for or against any of these - no voice whatsoever, and asked if council members can say they know how they feel when don't have a voice. Several members stated they have properties in other states where they don't have any choices, and this happens in many different areas. Ms. Gregoire stated that was their choice to have a second home, but this is their primary home.

The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk