Print VersionStay Informed
Minutes of Grand Forks City Council/Committee of the Whole
Monday, February 11, 2008 - 5:30 p.m.___________________

The City Council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, February 11, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members McNamara, Gershman, Kreun - 3; absent: Glassheim, Bakken - 2; Ward 1 vacant.

Mayor Brown commented on events during the past week and upcoming events:
Last evening had a meeting with the city council and UND Student Senate, meetings have been positive and productive as far as communicating, understanding and working together in the community, have seen great progress and thanked the Senate, particularly the Student Government Administrative officers like Amanda Taylor for their leadership in hosting us.

Council Member Christensen reported present.

The 6th Annual State of the City Address will be given this Wednesday at the Alerus Center at 11:30 a.m., the address will be rebroadcast on Channel 2 as well as posted on the City's website, that it is a good opportunity to lay out accomplishments and some challenges and get a sense of how we are doing as a city and a community.
The MPO will be hosting open houses on Wednesday to talk about traffic control at collector intersections; and will take place at Valley Middle School at 4:00 p.m. and Century Elementary at 6:30 p.m.
He thanked the First Church of God for asking Fire Chief O'Neill, Chief Packett and himself to judge their chili contest on Sunday.

2.1 Matter of appointment to fill unexpired term of Council Member Brooks
in Ward 1.______________________________________________________
The following individuals, candidates to fill the unexpired term of Council Member Brooks, addressed the city council: Bill Hutchison, 702 Boyd Drive; Richard Felton, 5125 9th Avenue North; Jerry Waletzko, 5041 West Elm Court; Ernest Gregoire, 615 North 39th Street. Jordan Schuetzle, 501 North 51st Street, was out of town. Each of the individuals stated he would not be running for election in the June election.

Council Member Kreun thanked those individuals who came forward, and that each and every one would make a good candidate in June to run for the position, and to consider that; and that he appreciates their putting their candidacy out front and standing up for their ward, Bob would have appreciated that. Council Member Christensen seconded Mr. Kreun's comments and that Ward 1 would be very lucky to have anyone of those individuals and would encourage them to think about running.

2.2 Application for exemption of remodeling improvements to residential/
commercial buildings at various locations. ________________________
There were no comments.

2.3 Ballot language: publication of minutes and checks.
There were no comments.

2.4 Transfer of Class 1 General On and Off Sale Liquor and Beer license from PR Waind Company to E.C. Grill, Inc. dba Eagles Crest Grill._________________
There were no comments.
2.5 Amendment to Cost Participation, Construction and Management Agreement UFA with the North Dakota Department of Transportation for streets in the downtown area.___________________________________________________________________
Council Member Christensen reported they have received approval for diagonal parking
in the downtown on North 3rd Street, that diagonal parking has actually slowed traffic and asked
if we could have diagonal parking continued on the south side of 3rd Street. Al Grasser, city
engineer, reported that the amendment to the agreement with the ND Dept. of Transportation
allows the City to consider diagonal parking anywhere in the downtown except for DeMers
Avenue and 5th Street; and is just a matter of identifying the streets that the council wants to
mark and waiting for conditions so can get the markings on the pavement. The matter was
referred to the Service/Safety Committee for review and it was asked that the traffic engineer
make a recommendation to the committee.

2.6 Amendment No. 1 to Engineering Services Agreement with Advanced Engineering for Project No. 6037, Residuals Storage Ponds Sludge Removal and Disposal._____
There were no comments.

2.7 Engineering Services Agreement for Project No. 6296, Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Long-Term Residuals Management Facility Plan.__________________
There were no comments.

2.8 Bids for Project No. 6190, Red Lake River Intake Demolition located in East Grand Forks, MN for the City of Grand Forks._____________________________________
There were no comments.

2.9 Amendment No. 1 to Engineering Services Agreement with Webster, Foster & Weston for Project No. 5955, Landfill Building Relocation._________________
There were no comments.

2.10 Confirmation of Mayor's appointments to various committees/
commissions:
a) Convention and Visitors Bureau
b) Emergency Management Board
c) Grand Forks Public Library Board
d) MPO Executive Policy Committee
e) Pension and Insurance Committee
f) Grand Forks City Planning & Zoning Commission
There were no comments.

2.11 Alternate EOC/PSAP at Safety Center; and budget amendment.
Council Member Kreun reported this was considered at Service/Safety Comm. meeting
and is a portion of a larger grant that will be utilized to have backup EOC in the new training center.

2.12 Engineering Services agreement for PCCP Forcemain Inspection Technology Selection Study______________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.13 Landfill Services Plan and recommendations.
Todd Feland, director of public service, made a brief presentation of the 8 recommendations:
The first recommendation is part of the interim transport and disposal services and that the
transport hauler is Gibson Transfer, Inc. who will haul solid waste if need to, either to Gwinner
or Fargo; that the City of Fargo has agreed to take the region's solid from our area with a total of
35,000 tons or 100 tons per day. He stated that 200 tons to Gwinner which would be our whole
amount of garbage which is approx. 70 to 75,000 tons (that the City has lost some of its
customers from the north of Grand Forks and in northwest Mn) and that costs for transport, fuel,
baling and overhead have $58.10 for whole amount but if do the Gwinner/Fargo combination,
100 tons each, comes out to $57.10; and suggested that we provide an agreement with Waste
Management Landfill for 200 tons and 100 tons; seek an agreement with Fargo to accept up to
35,000 tons or 100 tons per day; and that we proceed with all 3 agreements with Gibson Transfer
as the one commonanality upon the 3 options.

The second option is trying to extend our existing landfill permit, that the city council is on record
on October 1, 2008 that we shall close the landfill facility to municipal solid waste and that date
picked because of the construction of an E/W runway this summer that was to be fully operational
around October 1. He noted they have closed a large portion of the landfill, will bring bids at
next committee of the whole meeting to close another 28 acres; the remaining part of the landfill
and with current volumes have enough space to get us to approx. October 1, 2009 (that space had
been intended as special use landfill for ash and asbestos) but if could extend for another year
would not have to transfer and haul to another landfill. He wrote to FAA asking that if had a date
certain which would be the fall of 2009 which would correspond to opening of a new landfill, do
augmented bird control mitigation and look at bagging of the solid waste, that for large portions
of the year, from November to March there isn't much bird activity, could they stay open; the
verbal response he received from local FAA is that they don't have the ability to do that. The
second best option is to try to tie it with the opening of the E/W runway - that there is an
appropriation for opening of the E/W runway but currently no authorization to spend the money;
and there is month to month doubt on when that money will be opened up for construction
activities. He stated his intent is to go back to the intent of what tried to do October 1, 2008 is to
tie the opening and operation date of the E/W runway with the closure of this landfill, and if
runway project slips to 2009 that we would add more opportunity to stay where we are at.

The third recommendation is to retrofit one of the balers with EnviroBale system, similar to
system we currently use other than it bags the bales as opposed to wire tying the bales and is a
better and easier operation, quicker than current baling system. The primary reason is
bird mitigation, that USDA Wildlife Service has said that if these are effective and can bail
the garbage in that way wouldn't have to do any other bird mitigation at the north area site. He
stated if this would work and can demonstrate it at our existing landfill; downside is bags are
$3.50 per bale and bale is approx. a ton, however, if look at the tying of the bales with wire, cost
is about $1.00 ton and have misc. maintenance numbers that would add up to about $2.00; this
is productive way to bail the solid waste.

The fourth recommendation is relating to the new landfill portion, that they submitted pre-
applications on both the north and the south areas, for Rye 13, Falconer 18, 19 and 24, and
submitted 3 in Walle Twp. and one in Brenna 36; that the 8 aps. turned into 6 because the USDA
Wildlife Services study came back that they find that we can have a solid waste landfill in
Falconer 18, and the East Half of Rye 13 and reduced pre-application to those two sites and on all
4 sites on the south area, results that came back approving all 6 sites for a landfill operation.

William T. (Bill) Shefchik , associate geologist with Burns & McDonnell, reviewed geological
conditions in the north and south areas and results are based on an evaluation of published
geologic literature that went into the siting study in addition to borings that were drilled on each
area and the purpose was to evaluate the soil materials and ground water occurrence for
suitability for a landfill. The information was made a part of the pre-application to the
Department of Health even though regulations do not call for this kind of investigation at this
stage but it was done in order to make a reasonable comparison between the north area and south
area which was not possible to do based on published information, needed real samples and
monitoring wells in the ground. Conclusions of the testing has been reached on new data that has
been obtained, both areas are well suited to a landfill and could design an environmentally sound
landfill in both areas, there are some minor differences between the north and south areas that
favor the north area, investigation would have to be less complex in the north area, fewer issues
to evaluate, which way does groundwater flow in the north area, absence of beach and sand
deposits which would be of concern to people thinking if leachate is leaving the site. Water
quality in the north zone is poorer, not drinkable, and north area is similar in geology to the
existing landfill which has worked extremely well environmentally.

Mr. Feland stated that the East Half of Rye 13 is where they would put the solid waste landfill,
that they developed a 1,000 ft. buffer around the landfill as zone 1, and 2500 ft. buffer around the
property as zone 2. There are 3 occupied residences within 1,000 ft. of the landfill and 1 within
2500 ft. Both sites in Falconer 18 and Rye 13 have received approval from the USDA that we
could construct and operate a landfill appropriately, and our recommendation is to look at Rye 13
because it does provide more of a buffer from the I-29 corridor, the one negative for that site is
that the Airport Authority has a master plan and that plan has a zone of compatibility. He noted
that the FAA is now inquiring whether we can put a site here, have positive USDA opinion and
are volunteering to do all the mitigation efforts but the Airport Authority Board has asked to have
their opinion/permission to site a landfill in the north area, one issue is that we would have to get
over is they have a compatibility zone which Rye 13 is within. The Airport Authority Board's
next meeting is February 21and that Mr. Gershman is on that Board and Mr. Feland stated that he
has volunteered to go out with other staff to ask for permission for the north area, esp. East Half
of Rye 13, for a landfill facility, with all mitigation efforts they have, and to brief them on the
landfill extension issue. The FAA is sending it through their bureaucratic measures to get
approvals, has to go to Chicago office and Washington for final approval of the north area sites
and is why the measure is contingent on FAA approval, and that if need local airport approval on
the north area sites will provide one more check mark in our favor on the north area sites.

Mr. Feland stated he recommended a Good Neighbor Concept, one of the issues they have had is
that are we going to be a good neighbor and as have gone through the public hearing process,
before choosing the site, lot of issues have come up about how going to operate and tried to
develop a map on how to be a good neighbor. That if fire protection came up, thinks the council
would look at Manvel if needed to do something with rural fire department, whether training, etc.
and enter into good faith negotiations; items relating to operating appropriately; another issue is
where is the garbage going to come from and that we will primarily serve areas of northeast ND
and northwest MN; doing necessary road maintenance and improvements; that we include Twp.
chairman, etc. on discussions that are going on about how design and operate landfill; liability -
that City is owner of landfill and will be responsible; City will be paying property taxes and not
take property off township tax rolls; buy the entire section of Rye 13, east half for landfill and
west half for ancillary operations and to provide a buffer; that there are 3 occupied residences
within 1,000 ft and 1 within 2,500 ft. and those most concerned are the ones within 1,000 ft. and 2
of the 3 would like to pursue a buyout option from the City of Grand Forks as they don't want to
live near the landfill nor take a wait and see approach; and intention is to do things bigger and
better in the future and includes integrated waste management plan, including enhanced and
better recycling, and is commitment to continue to be better.

Mr. Feland stated we are in January/February timeframe and next big meeting hope to have with
city council is that we have selected a site, received pre-application approval and in February,
2009, would come back with permit authority and would proceed with design and construction
bids and start constructing in summer of 2009.

Mr. Feland showed areas of Fargo landfill and the Bismarck landfill, that Fargo relatively
landlocked and off major corridor; city of Bismarck landfill is near I-94 with subdivisions
developed in and around the landfill. He stated that this is probably our last and best opportunity
to site a landfill for the future, need a few signoff's from FAA and proceed with some success.

There were a number of questions by the city council relating to number of issues coming up
with individuals and recommendations for the actual physical part of the landfill, with the
council members looking at those for the meeting next week, and discussion at the Service/
Safety meeting was to use buyout format that was used for the dike buyout, is a federal program
and gives people the option if they find a comparable piece of property, and to visit with Mr.
Swanson to see if that is workable, that one or two of the members of the Service/Safety Comm.
visit with those individuals and with landowners for the purchase on an option to start that
program.

A question was raised if unsuccessful in siting a landfill, if they would have to take everything to
Gwinner and was $1650.00 day in fuel, and if that still pertains. Feland stated that the tipping fee
in going to Gwinner today is $60.00/ton vs. a new landfill looking at $40.00/ton and concern over
time is $60.00 is going to become greater and becomes difficult to operate for residential/
commercial and industrial customers, bad day for Grand Forks not to have this asset. It was also
noted that this is referred to as the Grand Forks landfill and going to be paying for it, but it really
is a regional landfill and everybody is going to be affected if unable to do this.

Council Member Christensen asked what they are asking to be approved at the next meeting. Mr.
Feland stated the interim solid waste agreements; asking FAA that this council requests that we
tie those two together; that we install EnviroBale system at baling facility; work with city
attorney's office in developing option and exercise option when site permitted; Good Neighbor
Policy and to work with the nearby property owners that want to have interface with the city
council on issues that concern them about the landfill and come up with resolution with the
Township about what going to do and how doing it, those things will be inside the permitting
document of how transporting, etc., township taxes, etc. and want to keep that positive
relationship; the seventh bullet is that we need to authorize an agreement with Burns &
McDonnell and subconsultants to proceed with permitting and design and when go through
permitting, the Dept. of Health requires you to come up with design of how you are going to
operate and that agreement would get us through the permitting studies to the design and to the
point where bidding it in the spring of '09; and final recommendation is with the Water Enterprise
Fund, that will either sell a revenue bond or finance it internally and would use our Water
Enterprise Fund as interim financing for this project, that haven't defined what the total cost of the
project is, and will use that cash fund in the interim while working through all of these study and
design efforts, and when bid the project and have a final dollar amount would expect that the city
auditor would go out with bond or other financing to debt service the project.

Council Member Christensen stated that based upon our current customers and amount of
garbage receiving today and looking at those we have lost, what is estimate as to how long this
landfill will last if don't add any new customers. Mr. Feland stated based on assumptions 50+
years and because 50 years long time and suspect over the next 20 years some will come back to
ask to contract with the city of Grand Forks for solid waste landfill services and haven't taken into
account that going to divert more from the landfill in future than currently and technology
continues to get better and continue to extend the life of this landfill

Feland stated a concern of the people is that they get a city council action to point to rather than rely upon what he tells them. It was noted council membership changes, time changes, reasons change but once we have sold the bonds and know what we are amortizing then know what charging our citizens and what are future potential fees that we will be charging our citizens. Feland stated our tipping fee is about $38.00/ton and could see tipping fee at minimum being $40.00 to $42.00 and goal has been is to try to keep that current landfill open as long as possible so could go from one landfill into the next and wouldn't have hauling expense in the interim, and has requested to do those things and that the Airport would get their E/W runway in time, terminal, etc. at the same time that we could transition from the old to the new, save lot of money and reduce the impact on residents, some answers unknown. Feland stated closest landfill is Marshall/Kittson landfill in Hallock, their tipping fee is $45.00/ton and most of the customers that have left us have 5 to 8 year term contracts and the $45.00 would stay static over at that time period. He stated the Hallock option is a potential option because they can weigh going to Grand Forks vs. Hallock and sometimes plus or minus 5 or 10 miles, but they know the tipping fee is $45.00/ton. Mr. Christensen commended Mr. Feland for his patience and efforts along with staff on what they have done.

Council Member Kreun stated they are going to utilize some of the funds from the Water Fund and at that time would assume that when we sell bonds, the city auditor would reimburse that Fund; the length of the life of the landfill, growth of the community of Grand Forks was taken into consideration along with recyclability but one of the things not discussed is the new technologies that will be coming in the future for garbage recycling, composting, etc. and that we don’t want to tie our hands when new technology comes in the future and we need more garbage to make that technology work, some out there right now and we want to protect our assets to the nth degree.

Council Member McNamara stated we are still waiting for the feasibility report from Inter-national Falls relative to their plasma/gasifications and had a citizen come to our Service/Safety Comm. meeting asking why aren't we making other attempts, we are but we do need a landfill; that we are still proceeding down those paths. He asked when prioritizing the north site and the south site, how do you prioritize those different factors vertically and what is the number 1 factor, is it permeability, what are the top 2 or 3 factors when looking at a site. Mr. Shefchik stated that because they looked at it was if there are any factors that make you lean toward one site or away from another site, had none that made them lean heavily toward the south site but all weighed towards the north site, not that they scored those factors but just considerations that they think are going to increase the cost, the complexity and public perception about the geology of the south area compared to the north area, and they are all carry equal weight, the presence of the sand seam in the south area that connected it as beach deposit, technically is not a huge obstacle but his opinion that to the public and people concerned about potential leachate migration, that could be a big concern, so not strictly a geological evaluation, now the investigation has to be more complex, more costly and require more borings and wells just because of public perception but are going to have to do it, but other factors all equally weighed about the same.

Council Member McNamara stated we talked in all the different landfills we have looked at about expandability and that this site looking between 40 and 60 years, and in that time is whoever is sitting here going to be able to expand this or will they be looking for a new landfill. Mr. Feland stated in his opinion is that would expand to Falconer 18 and probably would take the South Half of Falconer 18 and put a square down there, have a square now that is a little shy on the north vs. the south but create a box in that South Half of Falconer 18.
2.14 Request from Minnkota Power Cooperative for approval of resolution to annex all of Lot 2, Block 1, Prairie Power Addn. (loc. at S. 58th St. between 11th Ave.S. and 17th Ave.S.)____________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.15 Request from Pribula Engineering on behalf of Violet Theis and Pierce, Inc. for preliminary approval of plat of Korynta-Lemm 4th Resubdiv. (loc. at Gateway Drive and N. 48th St.)__________________________________________________
There were no comments,

2.16 Petition from Violet Theis for vacation of 20-foot utility easement within Lot B, Block A, Korynta-Lemm Subdiv.________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.17 Request from Violet Theis for approval of ordinance to annex all of Lot 5, Block 1, Korynta-Lemm 4th Resubdiv. (loc. at Gateway Dr. and N. 48th St.)_____________
There were no comments.

2.18 Request from Advanced Engineering on behalf of City of Grand Forks for preliminary approval of plat of Auditor's Resubdiv. No. 43 (loc. at N. 3rd St. between DeMers Ave. and Gateway Drive), including a variance to the Land Development Code to Sec. 18-0907 (1)(C) relating to an easily interpreted scale and Sec. 18-0907(1)(L) relating to elevation contours.______________________________
There were no comments.

2.19 Petition from Advanced Engineering on behalf of City of Grand Forks for approval to vacate utility easements, alleyways, street rights of way, a bike path and bikeway easements and flood control easements (loc. in Saint Anne's Resubdiv, Baltic First Resubdiv., Auditor's Resubdiv. No. 17 and Auditor's Resubdiv. No. 13)__________
There were no comments.

2.20 Request from Advanced Engineering on behalf of City of Grand Forks for preliminary approval of plat of Auditor's Resubdiv. No. 44 (loc. east of Olson Drive and Elmwood Drive from 25th Ave.S. to 32nd Ave.S.), incl. variance to the Land Development Code Section 18-0907(1)(L) with regard to elevation contours._______
There were no comments.

2.21 Petition from Advanced Engineering on behalf of City of Grand Forks for approval to vacate a 20-foot wide utility easement along the rear line of Lot E, Block 4 of Replat of Lots 2 and 3, Block 4, Flaat's Addn.________________________________
There were no comments.

2.22 Request from Advanced Engineering on behalf of City of Grand Forks for preliminary approval of the Replat of Sunbeam Sixth Resubdiv. (loc. at Northridge Hills Court to 47th Ave.S. along the Red River)._______________________________
There were no comments.

2.23 Petition from Advanced Engineering on behalf of City of Grand Forks for approval to vacate various bikeway, pedestrian, drainage, sidewalk and utility easements lying within Blocks H, 16, F and W, Sunbeam Addn.___________________________
There were no comments.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member McNamara complimented Mr. Feland, director of public works, upon the job that he has done throughout and the way he has conducted himself, he reflects well on his parents as well as the City of Grand Forks.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council McNamara that we adjourn. Carried 4 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,



John M. Schmisek
City Auditor