Committee Minutes

Grand Forks City Council Service/Safety Standby Committee
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 - 5:30 p.m.____________________

The Service/Safety Standby Committee met on Tuesday, September 14, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Council Member Kreun presiding. Present at roll call were Kreun, Bjerke, Grandstrand, Gershman (ex-officio).

Others present included: Al Grasser, Todd Feland, Brad Gengler, Dean Rau, Chief O'Neill, Emily Fossen, Tim Haak, Chief Packett, Jane Williams..

Kreun called the meeting to order at 5:37 p.m. and stated there was a change to the agenda, that Item 6 would be considered after Item 2 on the agenda.

1. Public Works Department - Sale of Residential Real Estate Property at 5702 70th Avenue North._________________________________________________________
Todd Feland, director of public works, presented the matter of sale of the property that
was purchased as part of the landfill siting in Rye Twp., that they received 2 bids with high bid of $107,920.00 from Don Hecht; appraisal of the property in 2008 was $190,000. He stated that they probably could only get up to $100,000 and $120,000 for the property, and asked that they proceed with the sale of the property and work with the city attorney's office, with proceeds of the sale to be returned to the Sanitation Enterprise Fund. Kreun asked why value of the property was lower than the appraisal, and Feland stated that the housing market has changed and that trying to sell the home because of its location near the landfill. - also some updating of the house.

Gershman stated that we made statements and have documentation that the landfill was not going
to be detrimental, and not sure should sell the property at $80,000 less than appraised value but reject the bids, hold the property over the winter and then put the property up for sale. He also asked if could have additional information re. the value of the property by Monday. Feland also noted that if price not acceptable could possibly extend to a realtor and doing marketing in that fashion - notice of sale was done in legal notices of the newspaper, that there was no urgency in the sale of the property. He stated that the city attorney's office is working with two other properties, Mr. Scott and Mr. Jose. Gershman noted that he could not agree to buy the property at premium price and then turn around and sell for half the appraised value.

Kreun asked if they could have Mr. Swanson's office bring in some comparable sales to see what the market has been in the last couple years to help council make decision. He also stated that re. on-going negotiations there should be deadline relatively soon so can get this behind us, that one of the things that we indicated to the potential sellers that would have liked to have that involved in the bond issue for the landfill and that is already passed.

Motion by Bjerke and Grandstrand to move to council with no recommendation on the bid. Motion carried.

2. 55th Street North Rehabilitation and Rye Township Annexation (Informational Update)______________________________________________________________
Feland reported that earlier this year they had talked about the rebuilding of North 55th
Street, and the Township asked for assistance from the City of Grand Forks, that in the interim
FEMA did provide them grant funding of $23,000 to help rebuild the road (approx. 1/4 mile from
Gateway Drive to 21st Ave.N. which is the entry road into Waste Management) back to its original condition, which wasn't in very good condition. The Townships of Rye and Falconer were able to put together $5,000 as part of the rehab., that they met with Waste Management and they agreed to put in $14,000, which leave us with $14,000 increment to make the project whole - that he met with both the Townships, with the County and with Waste Management, that he talked with County Highway Department and they did not feel that they would have any money to put to the project, and not sure if Waste Management will pay more than the $14,000. He showed location of the roadway on map, that the City's diversion ditch is about a mile and half north, this road was rebuilt and is very good road, and road that goes to Garrison Diversion that goes to the Red River. The mile and a half stretch is very good road that was reconstructed as far as the flood protection project, English Coulee diversion project, and on 69th the City has rebuilt the road (mile and a half) to our landfill in a similar fashion to this roadway that was built as part of the flood protection project, this quarter mile was rebuilt in spring of 2009 and fell to pieces and at this point the Townships have started the project and have to have the roadway completed by September 24 in order not to lose their money, have Gowan Construction doing rehab. and that City would consider participation with all the other affected parties, that roadway is not in the city of Grand Forks, just outside the city limits, and have infrastructure along 55th Street that we do use and is a benefit to the City and benefit to our public works operations as we have to access infrastructure - have $30,000 spending limit for department head approval, but this is more sensitive issue and wanted to go through council and have consensus before moving forward - the most related project would be the Stormwater Utility Fund because of the storm station and flood diversion ditch and also the landfill development and if went up to $14,000, $7,000 from Sanitation Enterprise Fund and $7,000 from Stormwater Enterprise Fund and would be within the $30,000 spending limit.

Bjerke stated he would support that but that it is a one-time deal and that because of the deal with landfill, but in the future the County is going to have take responsibility.

Kreun stated that the extension past this particular mile was built with federal funds, City funds
and State funds because of the flood protection project, and that we have taken the responsibility to rebuild all the roads around the new landfill and update the roads around the lagoon, etc. with no responsibility to the County. He stated in the breakdown has consideration for the Township and have done due diligence but is disappointed with the County as not being a part of this group, but thinks that it would be up to us as elected officials to ask their elected officials to be a part of this - that this is not a city road and city has no responsibility other than we do have invested interest because of infrastructure along there and does feel some responsibility but also the County has responsibility in this road, and will move to visit with the County if willing to do that and will move it forward.

Gershman stated that Waste Management is taking our recyclables out there and most of the
recyclables are from the city and that we are part of the County, and that seems to be forgotten.

Kreun stated he would agree to move this forward as Mr. Bjerke indicated because we have
invested interest in this and do not want them to lose the $23,000 of FEMA money and want to get that road done before frost sets in - but that he and Mr. Bjerke will visit with the County Commissioners and ask them to participate with their fair share; and that Mr. Feland has the authorization to go ahead and work with the Township to get that done.

Mr. Stromsodt of Rye Township thanked the committee for consideration on this, that this is joint venture - Falconer and Rye Townships, and appreciates any help.

Brad Gengler, city planner, gave brief summary of the overall annexation of all city-owned land,
the formal process hasn't started yet and this is to make you aware of what is going on. He presented map showing the location of the various streets and city owned property, that part of earlier negotiations and discussions had with landfill search contemplated the need or ability for the city to annex everything that we own, have had number of talks with the Townships, and main goal is to take the no harm no foul approach, not going out there to annex existing businesses and was not a part of the original intent - at staff level think there is no need to take that step to annex businesses, etc. - in the process will be meeting with some of the area owners to make sure that everybody understands what is going on, then will go to Planning and Zoning Commission as typical annexation, and then onto city council so there will be public hearings, etc.

Kreun stated they had talked about payment in lieu of taxes but the annexation of that property
gives us the responsibility in a more permanent manner and eases the burden on the Township. Bjerke stated that we said we'd take care of our land and our roads, keeping our word and that is important and will maintain those roads in good manner because our vehicles are using the road the most - good job.

6. Pass through request from Grand Forks Township requesting the City of Grand Forks become a subgrantee and sign a Homeland Security Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan grant application for funds to replace the 62nd Avenue Bridge. _____________
Al Grasser, city engineer, reported that he has been in contact with the Township
supervisor and residents in that area that are trying to get a grant application through FEMA for
raising and installing a bridge on 62nd Avenue, and asked that they present the information and request to the City.

Kevin Pierce, resident, and Greg Hughes, Grand Forks Township supervisor, were present and
Mr. Pierce stated that they had found mitigation grant that they could apply to, and in March went to the Township and they agreed that they take this grant application to the County and ask them to submit the grant because they believed a government agency should sponsor the application - they went to the County on July 6 and County put in the notice of their interest for hazard mitigation program, and then received more packets as needed more information, and since that point have been trying to find somebody that would sign as a subgrantee because Township isn't qualified as participant in the Grand Forks County Hazard Mitigation Program, and timeline for application is November 19, 2010, grant is for between $6 and $800,000, and that would be substantially helpful in the project they are looking at doing on 62nd Avenue South by Lake Drive - (during flood areas have to go in boats for 2 to 6 weeks) and would like to put a bridge in there at elevation that wouldn't hold water back so residents could drive back and forth. They have been committed not to put any project that is going to back water up. he stated in 2005 the Township was offering to put in couple box culverts and raise the road a couple feet, they turned it down because they couldn't build something that would block water and that is why waited until get to a point where trying to get a 200 ft. spanned bridge put in that can handle the water flow. There is engineering that has to be done but at this point trying to get the grant applied for, the grant is hard to achieve and after that would help fund the project to finish out the planning, etc. and at this point they have been to the County three time and been denied and they sent us here because of the two-mile jurisdiction, and has been told by Homeland Security that a township, a county, a city or even a 501C could submit the application if they would qualify in time - but haven't been able to find anybody that is qualified in time and haven't found anybody that is willing to do it - and are asking the City to submit the application for them, for the Township and hopefully the answer will be okay.

It was noted that the Township is already authorized and will pick up the tab for the application, about $2600 for engineering and $1200 grant at this point and cost around $3700 to $3800, might be some miscellaneous expenses but the Township has a budget set up to pay little more than that to get the application in - that if an get any of this money before they go to the special assessments, neighborhoods that are affected are already talked in great length about that they could assume that 15% co-pay that would come along with the grant, and would be more affordable for 50-60 residents then to have some $20,000 to $25,000 apiece paid out to put on the bridge for the high water season- and another issue is if Fargo gets their project and we don't know what that will do to us and if raises the water 2 more feet, that means we might have another week or 2 more weeks and potential for somebody getting hurt in boat accident when crossing in ice, etc.

Gershman questioned what is the liability for sponsoring entity. Mr. Pierce stated the liability as far as he understands is nothing - biggest thing is that everybody is concerned with is who is going to pay the extra 15%, the final co-pay, they do not have special assessment district set up but if that is what it takes to get it going, they would do that but don't have the two-months time to do it - deadline November 19, and after that not eligible to submit the application, already missed one deadline but they let them in because it was a holiday and then they sent the extra paperwork and weeks and months going by trying to get somebody to use their rubber stamp and give us a signature - that they have contracted with Red River Consulting to do the application and Widseth Nolting is actually working on the engineering at this time to give us some preliminary info, that is needed for the application.

There was a petition signed by everybody west of the water petitioning that they do not want the bridge and their reasoning was social issues and financial impact, and that property values will be decreased in value, and on potential increase of water. It was noted that the County indicated that they should come to the City because of the two-mile extraterritorial zoning limit, and at the meeting that the legal matter and is a procedural matter of the County and they don't want to do it
because of your two-mile limit. Kreun stated that our responsibility within the two-mile
jurisdiction is for planning and zoning, that this is basically a road project and that either the Township or the County is responsible for that road, and you indicated that they (Twp) are not identified as a participating jurisdiction and multi hazard mitigation plan and cannot be the subgrantee, and why is the Township not in that position. It was noted that there is something that they have to apply for and very few townships have it, that the two mile the Twp. does but outside the two-mile jurisdiction the County does.

Lane Magnuson, county planner, stated that all of Grand Forks Township is now either within the city limits of Grand Forks or in the two-mile area of the extraterritorial area, and that actually extends into Walle Township which is the township south of Grand Forks Twp. and also extends west of Grand Forks Township which is either Allendale or Brenna Twp. and doesn't believe they have any zoning jurisdiction in Grand Forks Township. The Township has responsibility has responsibility for township roads and County has responsibility for the maintenance of County roads; that all the townships in Grand Forks County have a yearly contract but have not given up any of their rights in terms of Century Code, etc. but have a contract to maintain their roads.

Kreun stated that all townships should have that in place because this has happened in a couple other townships that they have asked us and/or the County to take on some of those responsibility that are actually the responsibility of the township, but yet the townships want their own identify and want to be separate but don't meet their criteria to meet the needs of the residents of the township - this should have been done and completed a long time ago, several years ago after the flood and when the County was going through its mitigation process to set this up so the residents have the ability to take on special assessments for the projects - this is another dilemma that we are in and doesn't disagree with what applying for but there is some responsibility for applying for this - you become the sponsor of this grant and there is responsibility for it and before recommending that we take on the responsibility, would like to go back again top the County and have be a part of this process - or if you can't be because of the two-mile jurisdiction, didn't know they were all within our two-mile jurisdiction. Magnuson stated that the Commission asked him to have a meeting to let you know what action was taken by the Commission and why they don't have any vested interest and if the City says yes or no to the request, they wanted you to understand why the - the City of Grand Forks does do flood plain administration within that two-mile area and they have to be consistent with the precedent they have set in the past because they do have a few townships and have set a policy where they don't participate. Kreun stated he was at a loss of where to go with this. because he doesn’t want them to miss out on the application of the grant.

Bjerke stated that if County won't help, this isn’t building a bridge but a study on the bridge, and if we can't draw up some kind of joint powers agreement where its clear re. liability, etc. that it will bother him if they don't get a chance to apply for the grant - doesn't want City to pay for it or administer but for them to apply for it Pierce stated to put the burden on the Twp. to do negotiating, etc. because it is for the Twp. and the Twp. is trying to fulfill an obligation so the residents on the other side of the water, etc. and not get to be a 3-way circus.

Grasser stated that this is all outside the city limits, not a city road, not concerning city residents and doesn't believe the City is the proper place for the city to be in that area, and that we are aware of a number of petitions from the neighbors across the way who are also County residents and that for the City to get itself in a position where we are going to get between a "family feud" between County residents and that is not the appropriate place for us to be. That on the liability side he will disagree and when we sign on the grant recipient, thinks there are a number of liability issues and financial issues that Mr. Swanson is going to need to address - can't see this moving forward without first having a joint powers agreement, complications that he sees in this agreement are numerous, just speculating of what he has seen in the past - has seen how long it has taken us to do joint powers agreements with entity - not sure how we can get this through the city council by November 19 and for that to accomplish would end up having to be a priority project for the engineering department and anticipate 8 - 12 hours week staff time to push this through. The attorney is a contract attorney and doesn't believe that the attorney will do this under our normal contract - maybe costs there. As far as mitigation, the typical program the way this is set up to address, best example is if have a twp road that gets washed out 6 times in the last 10 floods and because you keep replacing it with an 18" culvert but an engineering study says that a 24" culvert would probably keep that thing from washing out - FEMA pays for the road repairs or good chunk in a disaster declaration, but under mitigation grant they will have paid for the upsizing of that culvert so that you are preventing the damage, very definite cause and effect relationship between costs and benefits - have had these discussions and now aware - and suggesting that this is a very low probability grant and is going to take a substantial amount of time - that our name is going to be on it and go through city council a number of times - and not sure if we can get this done by November 19 - but take a real concerted effort to make that happen. That he is cautious and doesn't want the city council to have 30 resident show up every time this issue comes up on the city council agenda and objecting and we are in the middle of this family feud - and that is best political reason why it should be back at the County level because none of these are city residents - would like to help where we can on a project that has a high likely hood of success and would be happy to donate staff time and his own time in order to make that happen but sees as a very low probability event of success - been through these grants before and City doesn't even apply for them because you spend more time working the paperwork through staff time and consulting time then the benefits you get.
Kreun stated the County authorized the Twp to go ahead with the project but they can't.
Magnuson stated the reason the Commission said no and refer it to the City was based on the past policy as far as not getting involved where we don't have permitting or flood plain jurisdiction and has mitigation grants because we can't control what goes on, and Commission would probably agree with everything that Mr. Grasser said, everything that he says is going to be an issue with the City would be the same issue with the County - and when they made that decision
that played into it somewhat but the reason they gave the jurisdiction is from professional courtesy, not jurisdiction number two, and would be setting a precedent where we have told many other townships and not getting involved because we don't have control of what goes on in the project.

Kreun stated that we’re in this predicament is because the Township doesn’t have the authority because they haven't gone through the process to get to that point, that several years ago Lane had meetings township supervisors to explain what the responsibilities of township for flood mitigation, etc. and would have made the applications and had their ability as political entity - and is Township's responsibility but they don't have the ability right now because they haven't gone through the hazardous mitigation process to make them qualified and that is why they are looking for a sponsor, and problem is that both the County and City do accept responsibilities if we go ahead and make that application, and that is why Al indicated that if we do this, that we get Mr. Swanson involved to look at how far we are in to this and that there is a lot of work to be done re. engineering, and application grows to make it work and that is where we are at and is at a loss.

Grasser stated wants us to be very cautious about committing to a project that he thinks has got the likelihood of success is very small, getting everything in line for us to get an application by November 19 and no way would suggest that is an easy task to accomplish and they will struggle with what he thinks will be a neighborhood conflict in the County, and his suggestion when he analyzes everything is not the answer they want to hear is that 1) the staff reports would like to have the County reconsider that understanding that we wouldn't be offended if they take the project; our job as administrator will end up having to be involved in the permitting process and not sure probably the Water Commission will be involved and possibly even FEMA and The Corps of Engineers and be brought in. that now we are in the process of FEMA developing a new flood plain for us with new flow rates so the information you are relying on and all that information is having to be updated and is big project - and his suggestion is to ask the County to reconsider it and second suggestion and means that the application is not going to make it in this year, we could help the Twp get together the documents and little technical help for them to create their own the multi hazard plan put together for the next event. - quite frankly, next year's spring flood fight would be something that would have disaster declaration attached to it also.
The second option doesn't get them in the queue this year but would set them up for the future.

Kreun stated he has two items he would like to visit with the County Commission to see if we can get them to reconsider both issues- and maybe set up a meeting and asked Lane if possible to set up a meeting with couple County Commissioners to see what can work out and that maybe between the 3 government bodies can come up with a solution to get to a point where they can and either Mr. Grasser' plan the next time through or complete this one - but before we take it on definitely wants to visit with Mr. Swanson because there are responsibilities that go with it.

Mr. Pierce stated they would work with whatever they have to work with, the biggest issue is that if they wait and go back to the County, that costs them one more week, and if turn them down again, and may lose by default if loose couple weeks as already been dragged on for multi reasons to get to this point and delays, and hate to lose the opportunity because they didn't file it and a rep. from Homeland Security stated that it is a difficult grant to get but can guarantee that if can't get anybody to sign it for you and put it in, will guarantee will never get it.

Kreun stated he would like Mr. Grasser and get with Mr. Swanson and meet with County Commission this week, Thursday and Friday. - Mr. Pierce stated he is on the agenda for next week. He asked Mr. Grasser if he could try, as he would be available Thursday and Friday, and get Mr. Magnuson from Planning and have discussion to find out where they are at.

3. Application by Grand Forks Restaurants, LLC dba Jake's, 4401 South Washington Street for Class 4 (Food and Beverage Establishment) alcoholic beverage license
Jake Smude gave a brief background, that he will be part owner and manager of the
establishment, originally from Fertile, MN, married with 3 yr. old son, has 12 years experience in the restaurant business, 8 years in management end and will take serving and monitoring of alcohol very seriously and takes responsibility that comes with that. Chief Packett reported they have completed their portion of the background review and their department recommended approval with their review. Tim Haak, health department reported they have reviewed and approved plans for the building, but the building is still under construction and final approval will be conducted after the building is finished. Bjerke stated he disagrees with the city policy about unlimited liquor licensee and no density policy. Motion by Grandstrand and Kreun to move to council with approval of the application. Motion carried 2 to 1.

4. Traffic control of 1st Avenue North and North 4th Street. (Information Only)
Jane Williams, traffic engineer, stated it has not been operating as a traffic signal but
a four-way stop for some time, when reviewed were not able to put the traffic pole back up, and
looked at an MPO study that was done in 2002 and only thing that warranted it as traffic signal was a pedestrian warrant, that they did a quick count in the morning and afternoon, and that actually didn't warrant a traffic signal with pedestrians at that time, In the next couple years will do a study of the downtown signals that includes rewiring, new controller cabinets, etc. and include was an evaluation of the signals to see if actually still warranted, and if warranted would going to require that signal be rebuilt - looked at traffic and how moving as a four-way stop and determined it wasn't cost effective to put anymore money into that signal at this time, four-way stop working fine, will be monitoring it and run as four-way stop until the study is completed and then go from there. (will continue to have the stop sign in the middle of the street until problem with the plows and then move them out - electricians are going to look at the remaining traffic signals and maybe pulling those down also.) Info. only.

5. Receive and file long term traffic control zone/street closure for 1st Avenue North and North 6th Street, south for 270+ feet.___________________________________
It was noted that this is due to the de-construction of the civic center. Williams stated
they are bringing this to you as a receive and file as this is part of the demolition of the civic center and full road closure and will be for approx. 8 months, will completely close off the roads in that area so trucks will be able to get in and out and maneuver their vehicles around without any traffic through there, will have signs up at DeMers that entrance to the mote is still open and closure won't include their driveway (closed to through traffic but not local). Move to council with recommendation to receive and file.

7. Change Order #2 for Project No.6521, Bike Path Maintenance.
Dean Rau, asst. city engineer, reported when they did the evaluation last winter weren't aware of all the damage that was on section of bikepath from DeMers Ave. to Columbia Road (asphalt bikepath) and saw that lot more was entailed to correct it and change order will be final portion for that path, will be under budget, total budget $100,000 for bikepath maint., and are doing 6 project with this money, and that with change order still under budget by approx. $1200.
Motion by Bjerke and Grandstrand to move to council with recommendation for approval. Motion carried.

8. Declare fire engine 519 (1974 Seagrave engine) surplus property and donate to Niagara, ND fire department._________________________________________
Chief O'Neill asked that they declare it as surplus property to see if any department
would want this, and that he has a letter from the chief and asst. chief and they are interested in that vehicle. He stated they have given vehicles to 3 other departments in the past. Motion by Bjerke and Grandstrand to move to council with recommendation as surplus equipment and donate to the Niagara fire department which will be replacing their 1963 engine. Motion carried.

9. Plans and specifications for Central Fire Station energy efficiency retrofit.
Chief O'Neill presented information that they have $125,000 of grant monies from the
Energy grant monies, specs. have been put together, huge file, and if want to monitor to you, will e-mail it to you. Motion by Bjerke/Grandstrand to move to council with recommendation to approve. Motion carried.

10. Matter of approval of report from MPO on Quiet Zone Assessment Study and Mill Spur Railroad Crossing Improvements Feasibility Study.______________________
Earl Haugen reported they have 2 reports and that there is a third report that will bring to
you re. request from BNSF and State Mill on closure of Bacon Road as still working on that project and will have a report before the end of the year - tonight will present the report on the quiet zone assessment, and also the Mill spur feasibility. Rick Lane, SRF Consulting Group, was principal manager of the study and that he will highlight the quiet zones and Mr. Lane will highlight the Mill spur study. He stated that the City has already gone forward with the notice of intent to quiet 9 of the 10 crossings, the 10th crossing is at N. 55th Street and do need some information from BNSF as to the cost of installing equipment and whether that will necessitate them to upgrade some of the existing equipment; other than that the quiet zone will be sending notice of intent to 9 of the 10 crossings and the other part of the quiet zone assessment identifies some future improvements you can make to lower your risk index. They have identified what those additional improvements could be and identified the cost.

Bjerke stated on page 27 the report stated the City of Grand Forks subtotal of $226,700, and
questioned what is State match. Haugen stated that the State Program on page 27 of the quiet zone assessment is 90-10, and each crossing is a max. of $75,000. Bjerke asked if the next step what the report is recommending that we go ahead and apply for that money and do those things to get those things to get the score lower or wait to see what happens? Haugen stated the report doesn't identify what the improvements could be, identify some of the crossings that would be good candidates for the medians but beyond that its back to the City as to what we want to do. Bjerke asked if we don't apply for that money, could it go away or limit on how much we are going to spend state-wide. Haugen stated it is potential 2 year biennium allocation of funds and not meant to last forever and not meant to be re-upped unless the Legislature takes action again. Bjerke stated if it is 90-10 we could do everything we need to do and lower everything for all of them. Haugen stated what we don't know yet is what BNSF is going to require at 55th Street.

Haugen stated what they identify in the report is that you get the quiet zone established, you have up to 3 years to maintain your quiet zones for that period but have up to 3 years to install something to become compliant with the new information you receive, and not automatic.
Grasser stated have to be careful as there are two different steps, have study that talks about the particulars about what needs to be done, criteria and have implantation phase - MPO does the study phase, the City (engineering department) does the implementation stage , that about 2 months ago they talked about implementation process based on what the study was telling us, since that time have made 4 quiet zone applications (part of implementation ) but not ready to give a recommendation on the next piece of the implementation because as Mr. Haugen said, one of the key components they are waiting for is to see what costs they get back from BNSF, and when get those costs, then will do an analysis and figure out how they max. the grant opportunities that we have with the State, and will then look at the different intersections and try to evaluate risk because if train traffic or other traffic does increase, want to build in some of that redundancy. The question had come up as to why quiet zone showing up in the CIP and that is because they are suggesting that we have a grant opportunity now and want to maximize that - and understand that grant is not going to give us redundancy on all the lines and as part of the budgeting process are suggesting in CIP that we plan for $50,000/year so can build that redundancy in logical manner so is available if and when traffic changes and don't want to lose that quiet zone because of that. - that is outlining the long range plan but we are still evaluating information before we can give you details. - grant is good until June 1, 1011.

Jane Williams stated they cannot apply for the grant until they have a total - and have all the pieces except 55th and need that information back from BNSF, were supposed to have that information 6 weeks ago and have sent numerous e-mail to them and a rep. in Mn. stated she is still waiting for Kansas City - know what it was the last time they sent it to us but not sure now but don't know after review with the General Railway Agency what it was - still waiting for them.

Grasser stated first one is dealing with this report and second is waiting for BNSF and as soon as get that will come in with implementation schedule and hopes that happens before the first of the year - but no guarantees.

Haugen stated that the Legislative session will be starting and will contact them and perhaps they can continue it and also up the maximum per crossing since everybody said $75,000 per individual crossing does not accomplish a whole lot.

Mr. Lane reported that one of the studies they ware working on with MPO was the Mill Spur
Feasibility Study that has 10 crossing and a pedestrian crossing involved from University to Gateway and Mill Spur serves the State Mill and now they have move 2 trains per day, very slow speeds through that area but have 10 crossing that don't have any gates, one has active warning lights at Gateway, but rest are unprotected crossing. They were tasked with was whether to look at the possibilities of improvement along that line, what could be done, and one of the things was the costs involved with providing gates and lights (active warning devices), and another reason to encourage the State Program to continue to see if could help with some of these future passings.
Going through there had some meetings, look at possibilities and did a walk of all of the crossings with both city officials and FRA and BNSF and talked about possibilities at each crossing for providing protection or even closing. They did identify some closing and identified improvements that could be done in order to improve safety at these crossing and look towards future eligibility to quiet the horns along this stretch.

He also reviewed summary of costs and that ends up being a total project cost of a little over $3 million and they have suggested 3 closures, one being an alley closure, and providing active warning devices at the other 7, and the medians they suggested that as you work towards this, when these improvements are made, then this could also become an area that would qualify for quiet zone. There were other general improvements that were included - rails and trails and see development of a N/S biketrail that parallels the RR tracks - neighborhood enhancement and a way to provide continuity north and south along that RR tracks so don' have people crossing the tracks in odd areas. Other improvements were landscaping - beautification of rail corridor, shrubbery and fencing, etc. and worked with BN to see height of shrubbery, but didn't want too much green and tree growth near intersections. Cost around $55,000 - could be low cost way to start the project. They have been working with the State as State does have some money available but long list of locations that people are looking for crossing devices but this sets the framework for you to work towards and work with the neighborhood - re. fencing, vegetative barrier and maybe closures are areas where start where there are lower costs and maybe some other ways to fund those. It was noted

After further review and comments by the committee, they requested approval of the report.

Motion by Grandstrand and Bjerke to move to council with approval of the report. Motion carried.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Grandstrand and seconded by Bjerke to adjourn. Motion carried. (Meeting adjourned at 7:26 p.m.)

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk