Grand Forks committee backs moving redevelopment plan for former water treatment plant to council

The Grand Forks Committee of the Whole voted to receive and file a phase‑1 redevelopment report for the city’s former water treatment plant site and directed staff to bring the concept to the full City Council next week.

The consultant team from Development Strategies presented the phase‑1 study and a set of options the city could use to turn the 100‑year water‑plant property into a mixed public‑space and housing district. The committee’s action to “receive and file” moves the concept forward for council consideration but does not authorize construction or final developer agreements.

Why it matters: the city owns a constrained, centrally located parcel at the forks of the Red and Red Lake rivers that currently produces no property tax. The consultant’s preferred scenarios estimate multi‑phase development with public amenities that could generate new tax increment financing (TIF) revenue over 25 years for public improvements such as a pedestrian amenity deck, plaza and riverside connections.

Development Strategies principal Matt Wetley, identified in the meeting as the project consultant, told the committee the study examines how to align private investment and public benefit: “Every development has the opportunity to contribute something to the community,” he said. The consultant presented three preferred development alternatives that would require public‑private partnerships and could produce a “TIF remainder” to fund public amenities; in one modeled scenario the consultant said the 25‑year increment from a larger project could produce about $36 million in new property tax over 25 years.

City staff explained funding and next steps. Todd Phelan (city staff) said the city would use funds from the waterworks enterprise fund (account 5,300) for initial work and recommended issuing a request for qualifications (RFQ) to shortlist development teams, followed by a request for proposals (RFP) from finalists. The staff recommendation also includes authorization to pursue acquisition of two adjacent lots and to issue an RFQ for engineering services for abatement and demolition.

Committee members pressed the team for financial detail and timeline. A city finance official reported Development Strategies’ phase‑1 contract invoicing is “just under $250,000” to date and that an anticipated invoice would bring the total close to the $260,000 cap in the current contract; staff proposed a phase‑2 authorization capped at $100,000 to carry the city through the next, longer phase of consultant work. The committee also heard that the city has approximately $6 million set aside in a drinking water State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan line for demolition and mitigation work on the site.

Concerns and conditions: several council members urged caution. Some members said they prefer owner‑occupied housing rather than predominantly rental apartments; others raised questions about maintenance costs for large new public spaces, impacts on downtown traffic near an elementary school, parking and how the Army Corps of Engineers would treat proposed changes to flood protection (walls or berms). City staff said the team is working on three structural approaches the Corps would evaluate and that additional engineering and cost estimating will be required.

Next steps: staff said the RFQ/RFP process, potential property acquisitions and mitigation/demolition work will likely stretch into 2026–27 before vertical construction would begin. Receiving and filing the report sends the study to full council consideration next week; it does not obligate the city to any purchase or construction.

Ending: City staff and the consultant team said they will provide additional answers to the committee’s technical and fiscal questions before the council meeting next week. The committee’s vote to receive and file was unanimous.