Print VersionStay Informed
Minutes of the Grand Forks City Council/Committee of the Whole
Monday, April 24, 2006 – 7:00 p.m.__________________________

The city council met at the Committee of the Whole on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun – 6; absent: Council Member Gershman – 1.

Mayor Brown announced that when addressing the committee to please come forward to us the microphone for the record, and advised that the meeting is being televised lie and taped for later broadcast.

Mayor Brown commented on various events held during the past week and upcoming events:
Our community was honored from a visit from royalty last week, Norwegian Princess Martha Louise visited last Wednesday, and thanks to the Sons of Norway Bruce Gjovig and the Nordic Initiative and all other partners who made it a special day for our community.
Last Wednesday we visited with the officials from the United Indoor Football League, sounds like an interesting opportunity for our community and are looking at it to see if it is a good fit, that with the Events Center Commission and representatives from other organizations looking at this opportunity.
Saturday he joined hundreds of family members at the fire department open house, fire fighters are proud of the work they do, demonstrations well done and informative.
Saturday was the Annual Hands on Learning Fair, combined with science fair, these events highlight April as the Month of the Child and focus on the value of actively working and playing with our children as they learn and grow.
Today the Public Health Department hosted a Family Immunization Festival from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m., turnout was good, and those who didn't get a chance to attend, encourage you to stop by the Health Department in the County Office Building on the 3rd floor.
This week we honor Administrative Professionals, good time to recognize the Administrative Professionals who keep things organized and running in all the businesses around town and thanked them for their hard work and dedication.

UND Big Event: Lisa Persuitti and Aaron Flynn. Mr. Flynn stated they co-directed the Big Event this year, event was a great success, had numerous sponsors and through their sponsors put together a budget of $12,000, sponsors listed within the Dakota Student, that they had service projects, over 600 students took part in the 40 to 50 different service projects, including cleaning parks to reorganize books at the Library. He stated they have decided on dates for next year, April 14 and unless conflicts will settle on that date and that he and Lisa will be co-directing it again next year. Lisa stated they went to 63 job sites, also went to individual houses as well to clean up front lawns, etc and were able to do all the jobs that were requested as well as provide all the supplies. It was noted that they also worked in East Grand Forks. T-shirts were given to the mayor and council members.

Council members thanked them for the work that was done and that it was appreciated.

It was noted that on Wednesday there is a mayor/council planning session meeting at 5:00 p.m. and Biotech Lab meeting at 5:00 p.m. and that there should be a polling of council as to whether planning session should be held or postponed until next week Council Member Hamerlik stated the neighborhood meeting has been continued for some time and wouldn't like to postpone it, and if could be assured that it would only be set back one week; and that it is an important meeting where they should have representatives at the UND for Biotech.Lab meeting. Mayor/council planning session was rescheduled for Thursday at 5:00 p.m. with only one issue on the agenda (neighborhood licensing).

2.1 Resolution regarding federal telecommunications legislation.
Council Member Kreun asked if this legislation were passed would the City have
the ability to charge those businesses that have equipment or lines in easements if we have to access our lines below them and caused us extra cost and to include that in an ordinance. Howard Swanson, city attorney, stated the general provisions of those bills would remove your ability to adopt local ordinances that are considered to be discriminatory or anti-competitive toward those entities; one of the versions maintains provisions for some franchise fees but didn't recall seeing in any of the drafts that he has reviewed, but not in detail, that would allow us to do something like he described; even under our current franchise agreement we don't have the ability to bill them for that but do have the ability to require them at their own expense to move it in advance of our work in the right of way.

Council Member Kreun stated under emergency circumstances and we have extra cost to repair it, would we have that ability. Mr. Swanson stated that the answer is the same, except if you have a legitimate emergency (flood, tornado - watermain break would have to be significant break with major imminent danger or disaster associated with it), nevertheless depending on which bill there are not a lot of provisions for the City to control the use of that right of way, bills actually transfer the control in a lot of way to the FCC and they do have rule making authority which they could in the future address some of those things but would not be a local issue. This is a serious issue and that is why he raised it, that it has been brought up in the past but was defeated but bills at this point seem to have a significant amount of momentum that would lead him to believe the likelihood of some version passing is relatively high.

Mr. Swanson stated costs are concern and other concerns under the language they don't have to have any approval with the City in advance before they go in and do the work, that can lead to disruption of local utilities as they are in there already depending upon the location of work being conducted. He stated his understanding of what he has seen most recently is what he has described. The bills appear to be on somewhat of a fast track.

Mr. Swanson stated that the most recent Nations Cities Weekly and that there is an article, Federal Telecommunications Bill Threatens City Revenues and Does Not Insure Service for All, that the second paragraph indicates that the National League of Cities opposes the legislation as currently drafted because it nationalizes franchise in video and cable services, preempts all local oversight of right of way, does not provide sufficient enforcement or audit authority, does not keep local government financially whole and does not insure service to all within a reasonable period of time. He stated one of the other things is that the bill prohibits local governments from providing telecommunication services; that this article does go on to indicate that there are a series of amendments being considered but the committee (House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications) did not consider or act on any of the proposed amendments.

2.2 Appointment to Special Assessment Commission
There were no comments.

2.3 BMX track proposal.
Tom Hagness, 1423 11th Avenue South, member of the County Fair Board, and BMX track (bicycle racing) people are here tonight (Doug Moore, president of Alternative Sports, Inc.; Steve Mullaly, Park District; Linus Mack, Red River Speedway; Chad Swendseid, parent). He noted that there are approx. 70 to 80 kids that race on Tuesday nights and for special events at the BMX track. He stated that the track has to be moved relatively fast so they can do their expanding at the speedway, that they have looked at lot of properties in the city (fastest growing sport in America because kids involved in it have to have something to do in the summer months), and are asking for a piece of land on N. 36th Street by Simplot, next to car/bicycle pound, that road paved to the bicycle pound, and track moved from the Fairgrounds by Zavoral (donated), lot of participation, and that they are asking for the City's support.

Mr. Hagness stated that this is bicycle racing, very organized event, property would be leased to BMX, brings people from other cities to Grand Forks. He stated there would have to be an access road/culvert put into that property because paved road stops at the impound lot which is another couple hundred feet to the property; and that there will be graveled parking

Doug Moore stated their plans are to put gravel in, and in the future pave parking area.
Council Member Christensen suggested and encouraged them to make application to various fund where give money away.

Council Member Kerian stated concern he would have is that is an emergency area for borrow pit and storage of materials and in a real crises situation that they would not be held liable if disturbed their area under situation like that and that could be written into the lease agreement. Mr. Swanson stated lease is with Red River Valley BMX; Mr. Moore stated that comes in under Alternative Sports and is a non-profit organization. Mr. Swanson stated it would be helpful if he could get some of the documents as well as a copy of any prior lease.

2.4 Establish polling hours and approve election officials for the June 13, 2006 Primary Election__________________________________________________
The city auditor reported that the polling hours had been established at the city
council meeting on April 17 as 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Will only need to approve election
officials.

2.5 Matter of authorization to bid flood cleanup.
Council Member Kreun asked how quickly that can be taken care of. Mr. Grasser stated their plan is to go ahead and put ad in newspaper this weekend even though council hasn't taken final action, and time if council chooses not to move forward to cancel the ad, but will gain a week or two on that process, looking at final council approval the first meeting in June.

2.6 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5703, Dist. 608A, paving 47th Ave.S.
(S. Washington Street to Belmont Road).______________________________
There were no comments.

2,7 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5945, Dist. 623, paving Southern Estates 5th Addn.________________________________________________
Council Member Hamerlik stated in staff report that request is from "the developer" rather than stating who the developer is, and questioned why. Cindy Voigt, asst. city engineer, stated they will include name of developer in the future.

2.8 Bids for Project No.. 5891, re-roof police building.
There were no comments.

2.9 Bids for Project No. 5948, 5949, 5950 and 5951, utilities and paving for
Promenade 3rd Resubdivision.___________________________________
There were no comments.

2.10 Bids for Project Nos. 5961, 5962, 5963 and 5964, utilities and paving for
Highland Point 1st Addn.________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.11 Consideration of bids for Project No. 5957, Dist. 158, street lighting in
Prairiewood 1st Addn.; Project No. 5958, Dist. 159, street lighting in Adams Drive; Project No. 5959, Dist. 160, street lighting in Countryview 3rd Resub.; Project No. 5960, Dist 161, street lighting on 44th Ave.S.; Project No. 5975, Bus Garage Parking Lot; Project No. 5980, N. 3rd Street (700 block) parking lot lighting; Project No. 5981, Dist. 162, Sertoma Park lights Phase 2.
There were no comments.

2.12 Bids for Project No. 5881, Dist. No. 621, paving and street lighting for Zavoral’s First Addition.______________________________________
There were no comments.

2.13 Bids for Project No. 5987, 47th Avenue S. and Washington Street forcemain
bypass interconnect._______________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.14 Create special assessment district for Project No. 6003, Dist 446, sanitary sewer for Meadowridge 1st Addn.__________________________________
There were no comments.

2.15 Create special assessment district for Project No. 6004, Dist. 292, watermain in Meadowridge 1st Addn.___________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.16 Create special assessment district for Project No. 6005, Dist. 447, storm sewer for Meadowridge 1st Addn.__________________________________
There were no comments.

2.17 Create special assessment district for Project No. 6006, Dist. 622, paving Meadowridge 1st Addn.__________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.18 Change Order No. 1 for Project No. 5890, watermain on 40th Ave.S., 2500 to 2700 Block_______________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.19 Location List No. 2 for Project No. 5902, 2006 Sidewalk Repairs.
Council Member Christensen asked how they determine which sidewalks for repair. Ms. Voigt reported that it is not a popular thing to go through neighborhoods and bring the list forward so what they usually do is do it on a complaint basis and do the whole neighborhood at one time and get it on the list; could be more aggressive with this but not popular, but if had direction could do several lists each year; that if receive complaint will go out and check neighborhood.

2.20 Budget amendment for fire department.
There were no comments.

2.21 Right-of-way agreement with Montana Dakota Utility (MDU).
There were no comments.

2.22 Interim Solid Waste Disposal Plan.
Todd Feland, director of public works, reviewed planning activities he is suggesting over the next two years for transition. He stated that current landfill proposed in Turtle River Township is in District Court and indications are that they won't have a decision until early 2007, and if appeal would take place probably sometime in early 2008 on City of Grand Forks vs. Turtle River Township; and evident that won't have new landfill sited before our existing landfill capacity runs out. He stated they have told FAA and Grand Forks Regional Airport that they will not accept solid waste at their solid waste facility after October of 2008, and close to or prior to that date will run out of solid waste capacity at the existing landfill. He stated that they are going to examine how much existing space they have left out there or how maximize their space to October, 2008 and better propose when going run out of landfill space, and when they would do a proposal.

He stated Turtle River Township is first stage and have to go back to Grand Forks County to get zoning approval at this site, were there in September, 2004 and Grand Forks County Planning and Zoning Commission deferred a decision until such time as Turtle River Twp. Board rendered a decision, that they turned down that petition and are in District Court. He stated after decision by County for permission and there is a requirement on environmental permit from the ND Department of Health which requires a public hearing. He stated that getting through zoning and environmental permitting can take up to one year. He stated the landfill has been operating under these 6 month continuing use from Dept. of Health and have a permit that goes to July 1, 2006, and have to go back to Dept. of Health and suggest what we are going to do in the interim, plan of action and if do that and continue doing a good job with FAA concurrence will probably be able to continue with our landfill until October, 2008. He stated that 2012 is a realistic date in which we could actually have a solid waste landfill site, optimistic time period 2010 to 2012, whether that be in Turtle River Twp. or a different site.

He stated as part of the interim solid waste disposal plan that we are part of Lakes Region Red River Valley Solid Waste Disposal Study and that study is looking at incineration or other options - composting and landfilling. He stated that any of those options requires a landfill, 20% volume whether ash, solid waste that is diverted from the waste energy facility. He stated this is a long term study. He also noted that we are going to have to haul our solid waste at least 3 years and attached to report is a draft of request for proposals for solid waste transportation and/or disposal and listed estimates of costs for tipping, trucking and baling. He stated over the summer will try to define this.

He stated with disposal part of fees and try to control and reduce some of our collection costs and impact to customers won't be as great. He stated the baling facility near the landfill and in proposal will ask for baled garbage or loose garbage per ton and should explore retrofitting our existing baling facility and look at having a transfer facility in the interim.

He stated term of proposal at a 3, 5, 7 or 10 year term contract, 3 years to enter into contract with transportation and/or disposal facility, but when know how much solid waste capacity in our existing landfill at least 6 months out from that time need to put out the RFP to get real numbers back from vendors.

He stated they should request volumes of 100, 200 or 300 tons and region is about 2/3rds of the volume and city 1/3 on daily basis going into landfill and would set up opportunities for people to come visit us in Grand Forks providing proposals, etc. and get some input from the region on their thinking and know what people's needs are, whether with us or go in alone, and know volume from the region; and also offer to attend their meetings to provide them information and give overview, and proposes that by June we could start having meetings, get input and solicit whether they want us to visit them. We need to inform ND Department of Health in May that we are developing an interim plan.

He reported that the "junk" roll off boxes at Public Works Facility and service has expanded to great level to $1900 day and weekends more than that, also getting people from outside of city of Grand Forks, commercial contractors dumping stuff, and complimentary service becoming expensive service; and would like to stop that service; popular service, people taking stuff and is a bit out of hand. They can go to the landfill and collecting some revenue on something giving away for free.

He stated they have to look at staffing levels as they look in the future, services equal staff people and if have to start reducing services and have to look if fill positions and long term outlook.

He stated we have an inert landfill and will start working with commercial businesses and recycling in apartments and in residential units to try to divert as much to the solid waste stream as possible, we have baling facility and will try to do more sorting of incoming waste that comes in - construction demolition materials, cardboard.

He stated he thinks the City has very good case at the Turtle River Twp. site and thinks we have a good project, but may lose and in the interim have to continue to look at other options, other sites, other disposal options. He stated he would like to continue to look at other reasonable options. This will affect our entire economy in northeast North Dakota, northwest Minnesota.

There were a number of questions by council members. Mr. Feland stated budgetary concerns okay for 2006 and possibly 2007 if keep landfill going and working through efficiency things; change in 2008.

Recycling is going to impact the pocketbook of our citizens and those in the surrounding communities; cost is going to go up for city residents and those in the region who use our landfill, cost of transportation difficult for cities in region.

Council Member Glassheim asked if Fargo has the capacity to take our waste. Mr. Feland stated Fargo has largest in the state, around 500 tons per day, while we are 300 tons per day, and that they have an ordinance that they can't accept any more than 30% of their solid waste going into the landfill from outside of the city, and they are at about 24%, and would have to revise their ordinance to accept our solid waste, they are also concerned about filling up their landfill; they would like to help the City of Grand Forks but are concerned about their existing capacity.

Council Member Glassheim made several comments: asked if there is any possibility of the City working with non-profits to have a restore for building materials where divert significant amount of building materials and resell them with Habitat or Easter Seals; 2) on recycling, think through mechanism to encourage people to recycle; 3) popularity of "junk" boxes and if put up sign saying not accepting then what will happen - how to deal with that maybe a problem - or what if keep it there and charge; 4) it appears that for 3 or 4 years in the near future will see an increase in the rates and if sooner have a small increase to try to make smoother transition cost.

Council Member Christensen stated we collect about 90,000 tons per year of which 58,000 tons are from the region and 1/3 or 32,000 from the city of Grand Forks, that the smallest contract we will get will be for 3 years, and for the citizens in this community will be between $5 and $7 million and that gets garbage out of town and don't interrupt service but still have issue of a landfill - but if were to have opened this landfill yesterday it would cost $7 million to open it up and have $3 million in it, so $10 million, and if don't win that lawsuit this issue is going to cost us over a community over $15 million; this is a regional "we" issue and something is going to be in somebody's back yard, that it is the County of Grand Forks landfill; that we are left with no choice but to do what Todd is suggesting; and we have to know how much of the group we are going to keep because that will make a difference for this council or future councils to make decision points as to size and location of another landfill or landfills in general vs. going out of business and haul it someplace else.

Mr. Feland stated that at the end of this, in 2012 Grand Forks will have a new landfill somewhere near us, and whatever the solution is, better recycling program than have today and recycling more than putting in a landfill. He also noted that most of the people in surrounding communities either work in Grand Forks, shop in Grand Forks, play in Grand Forks and important to remain competitive.


3. INFORMATION ITEMS


4. CITIZEN REQUEST


5. CITY ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS

Rick Duquette, city administrator, stated he thinks we are lucky to have talent in house, very proud of Todd Feland, lot of work to do and very fortunate as he is thinking about our neighborhoods, communities and our regions and thanked Todd for his fine work.


6. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Brooks stated the fire department had their open house on Saturday, they are 24-7 operation, that a call came in and on-duty crew left, and 2/3rds of people were still there, were there because wanted to be there and volunteering their time.

2) Council Member Kreun thanked UND students for Big Event, they did a great job.

3) Council Member Hamerlik brought up matter of mayor/council planning session - meeting was rescheduled for Wednesday, May 3 at 5:00 p.m. with both items on the agenda.

This Wednesday the UND Biotech Lab at 5:00 p.m. at River Valley Room at Memorial Union.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Brooks that we adjourn. Carried 6 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,



John M. Schmisek
City Auditor