Vacant for five years, Grand Forks has no firm direction on future of old water treatment plant

GRAND FORKS — With the old water treatment plant sitting vacant downtown, there are no explicit steps forward for redeveloping the land.

The facility, which takes up more than a block in downtown Grand Forks directly off the Point Bridge, has been vacant since a new water treatment plant was commissioned on the far west side of Grand Forks. At its May 19 meeting, the Grand Forks City Council approved receiving and filing a study conducted by Development Strategies on redevelopment ideas for the site, but the council overall gave a lukewarm reception to the proposals presented.

Proposals included developing the site into apartments and condos. A third party hired by the city, Development Strategies, said the proposal could help spur revitalization and development in the southern part of downtown Grand Forks.

Development Strategies also envisions using the site to highlight the community’s connection to the Red River, providing views of the confluence of the Red River and Red Lake River, as well as creating easy access to the nearby Greenway.

Since no action on the proposal — beyond receiving and filing — was taken by the council, the site will remain vacant, with its utilities cut off. The site was previously a water treatment plant for over a century.

Regardless of what, if anything, gets developed on the site, the city is expecting to spend $5 million to $6 million to demolish the old facility. City Administrator Todd Feland said city staff have added inflationary increases, since the original estimates are around five years old. Any demolition will require the city to advertise bids for an engineering firm, given the complexity of the site. Some on the council said that they would like to see that bid advertised sooner rather than later.

“I think we’ve seen some of the bids that we’ve had come back very favorable to the city,” said City Council Vice President Danny Weigel. “I think that the longer we wait to at least demo it, the more expensive it’s going to become.”

Just one problem: Those proposals have not moved forward because the city doesn’t know how much of the site needs to be demolished. The facility is as deep as it is tall, and it’s also a “spiderweb” of utilities, said City Council member Ken Vein. The demolition process will likely be contingent upon the path forward chosen by the city.

“I like the idea of doing the demolition, but unfortunately, I think it’s probably going to be tied to the solution we have as we go forward,” Vein said.

Some on the council would like to see owner-occupied housing on the site, which is likely not in the best interest of the city financially, according to the mayor and city administration. The land is currently zoned for some of the densest development in the city.

“We as a body, are we going to require that we get our money back, or is the city covering that cost?” City Council President Dana Sande asked the council. “I don’t know how people feel about it, but ultimately, if we want to recoup those dollars … we can’t do that if we’re just doing straight-up single-family housing.”

The city estimated in 2021 that the land value of the roughly 3 acres was between $1.78 million and $2.12 million. Any development, especially one that means that the city no longer owns the land, would be a tax gain for the city since the land isn’t taxed currently.

The city will likely take action at some point, the question being when. Many compared the current state of discussion to the beginning stages of the Altru Sports Complex, which will break ground in June after years of discussions. The project really began to move forward two years ago following a 2023 sales tax vote, bid proposals and community engagement meetings. 

“I think, just like the (Altru Sports Complex), we wouldn’t even be talking about today if we stopped it,” said City Council member Mike Fridolfs. “I think there are still a lot of questions on this, but getting to the next step is very important.”

Voigt covers government in Grand Forks and East Grand Forks.