Committee Minutes

Grand Forks City Council Service/Safety Standby Committee
Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - 5:30 p.m.____________________

The Service/Safety Standby Committee met on Tuesday, September 28, 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, Chief Packett, Dean Rau, Roxanne Fiala, Saroj Jerath, Don Shields, Hazel Sletten, Dale Bergman, Lt. Pohlman.

Kreun called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. and stated there was a change to the agenda, that Chief Packett brought another item for the agenda (2.a).

1. Temporary encroachment by driveway approach onto Cherry Street.
Dean Rau . asst. city engineer, reported they had received request from property owner at
721 Cherry Street to allow them to install a driveway approach within the 10 ft. wide curb cut on the property to allow access for disabled person; and are recommending a temporary five-year encroachment agreement. The agreement would be looked at in 5 years and readdressed at that point. It was also noted that there is no parking on either side of the street

Bjerke stated that no parking is allowed on the berms, but people do have concrete areas and do park on the berms so what is the purpose of the law. Rau stated some of these parking areas were already there prior to the law being enacted and were grandfathered in. Al Grasser, city engineer,
stated the ordinance states that you cannot have an access unless you have someplace on your property to park your vehicle, most places in town berms are not wide enough to park a vehicle without making other obstructions, in this case the street is narrow but the berm is fairly wide and can put access in without causing obstruction to sidewalk traffic or street. Motion by Kreun and Grandstrand to approve and move to council the recommendation to grant 5-year temporary encroachment to allow this installation of a driveway for the purpose of short time loading and unloading with the condition that if the need is no longer there, and/or if the property is sold, that it be returned to the existing condition. Motion carried

2. Specifications and sole source emergency purchase of telephone system.
Chief Packett reported their system in 1998, in 2003 had lightening strike that took the
system out, system was rebuilt and in September of this year, had a series of events occur with power surges, etc. where the whole system was brought down, and are requesting specs. and sole source emergency purchase to redo the system. Lt. Pohlman reviewed background information relating to loss of the system, that it was possible to repair it but then no warranty on the system and is outdated technology; recommendation was that they look at possible alternatives and Information Technology contacted CD Communications (current telephone provider) and made recommendation of bringing us on line with the City system at a cost of approx. $34,000.

Bjerke questioned what is the Public Safety Remodeling Fund, and whether the Sheriff's Dept. pays rent for space. Saroj Jerath, city auditor, reported that in 2006 we had a public safety remodeling project and at that time sold a bond for $1.4 million with some money remaining in that fund which was put back in Debt Service Fund, and this is use of the remaining money. Chief Packett reported current agreement is the Sheriff's Office does not pay rent because there is equivalent space given to the Health Dept. and trade-off. Motion by Bjerke/Grandstrand to move to council with recommendation of approval. Motion carried.

2.a Matter of speed enforcement radars.
Chief Packett presented information and that it doesn't require official council action due to the amounts involved but because they are sole sourcing and going with someone other than with the low bid, wanted to bring to committee's attention. Lt. Pohlman reported they received a ND Dept. of Transportation grant in the amount of $1,500 to assist in purchasing a speed enforcement radar, that is matching grant and had to contribute a min. of $500. Because of the dollar amount of their LIDAR system is about $2500, did put item out for bid (grant expires at the end of this month), 4 bids received, however the 3 lowest bids did not meet equivalent requirements; and were recommending approval of the 4th proposal, that the ProLaser III LIDAR unit from Kustom Signals be purchased at a cost of $2,929.00 ($1,500 from DOT/NHTSA grant and balance of $1,429.00 from the Police Department 2010 budget, line 1100.070.700.0030). Motion by Kreun and Grandstrand to move to city council with recommendation of the department. Motion carried.

3. Transit advertising services Proposal #2010-58.
Todd Feland, director of public works, reported they did a new proposal for transit advertising on their buses, and are asking to accept the proposal from Trans Ad, Inc., Fargo, (current contract) for total annual revenue of $34,800.00, currently receive about $22,000, with increase in amount of revenue. Bjerke asked if on the interior ads and ability to place the ads, and if there is potential for that and whatever you have to do to the bus versus the revenue and if they would look into that. Feland asked for approval on their proposal and if any other ideas in the future that they can continue to advertise within Code and restrictions, and as do more innovative things, will keep the committee updated.

Gershman asked if they have inventoried the city to see some of the facilities we have where they could put advertising, talked with Mr. Swanson to see at skyways at DeMers and 4th St. and not sure if can legally do that; Feland stated they are currently looking at the city and they are in town and looking for other opportunities that they would have to review and if find some, would bring back to the committee. Bjerke stated he would like to hear back on those 3 items, bus shelters, benches and transit center. Motion by Bjerke and Grandstrand to approve and move recommendation to council; motion carried.

4. Dial-A-Ride (DAR)/Senior Rider Request for Proposal (RFP).
Feland reported they are reaching end of their existing 5-year term agreement they have with Grand Forks Taxi (new owner) and are at point of renewing agreement and looking at service options and are recommending two specific changes, held public hearing last week - to change the eligibility of a senior rider from age 55 to 62 (most cities have eligibility of between 60 and 65, mostly between 62 and 65); and to narrow down registration or dispatching times available, currently from 6:00 to 10:00 and are asking to start at 6:30 a.m. and end at 5:00 p.m. and would require more time for people to call in - that we are required to meet on the ADA side next day eligibility. He stated they held the public meeting with approx. 10 people at the meeting including a rep. from the Grand Forks Senior Citizens Center and her comments were that they enjoyed the service and didn't feel it would be an issue with the age change and keep as affordable as possible (year ago changed rates from $2.50 to $2.75), and try to get new service provider going and starting in January 1 next year raise the fee and will be part of the next budget.
He stated they are planning to grandfather people who are already eligible to stay eligible. He stated they do same day service provided time is available. Ridership has increased over the last 4-5 years, esp. senior rider has increased and DAR stayed constant at 38 to 40,000 rides.

Feland stated that when they do the RFP's have set up a menu of options and each option is to provide a different cost per ride: Option A (current), Option B if the City were to take over their reservations and dispatching of the service, and Option C would be for the City to do the reservations, dispatching and maintenance and are asking service provider to provide and whether it would be worth City's time to take over some of the maintenance duties of the vehicles or the dispatching to maintain better control of the system. They would like to have service providers that are interested to provide numbers for the different options and bring back to committee. The City of Grand Forks has a very affordable service of about $8.00+ per ride - that Fargo around $19-20 per ride - and that is why have projected an increase on fact that ridership has increased and next RFP is going to provide a higher per ride rate and have included in budget forecast for FY2011. That if changes are approved by city council, plan to advertise the proposal and bring that back end of October and in November make final determination of new service provider by January 1.

There was some discussion relating to disabled persons and senior ridership - Dale Bergman explained the difference between Dial-A-Ride and senior rider - a DAR person has to meet qualifications and if don't meet qualifications set by the federal guidelines, you will be denied, qualifications cannot be changed.

Feland stated that once get proposals in and council decides we should look at raising the fees, can do that, requires public meetings, review cost and bring that back and at the same time if want to raise the fees, would ask at that time to start the process and make effective at whatever date can. That option would be available and Bjerke stated that he would wait until that time.

Kreun stated that is two separate issues, want to get the proposal and bids out now and when get costs analyzed, look to see if want to change the rates - and with that change and add that and make that recommendation for the RFP to go forward to city council. Motion by Grandstrand
and Bjerke to approve and move forward to city council. Motion carried.

5. Landfill Gas Feasibility Study Report and presentation.
Feland reported that the City had received grant from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant ($76,325) and from the Recovery Act State Energy Program ($15,000) and spent some money on planning and determined that they didn't want to proceed in some degree. He introduced Scott Martin and Chris Snider from Burns & McConnell to do the actual presentation.

Mr. Martin and Mr. Snider reviewed draft report with project scope to closed landfill and active landfill, estimating landfill gas recovery potential, various options at the baling facility and at wastewater treatment plant and determining the economic performances of the options. That at the closed landfill beneficial LFG project is not financially viable; beneficial LFG project with UND is possible but would require additional consultation; and at the Active Landfill beneficial LFG project possible in 2015 (small boiler application that provides heating in that building which would require some additional planning and recommending some planning now for gas collection). That if interested in further consideration the bioreactor, they are recommending some inclusion of a bioreactor feed water system in the future wastewater plant enterprise fund master plan - with some additional planning and effort to work together with both utilities to achieve a greater result.

Kreun reported this was a grant that we asked for several years ago to look at the existing (old) landfill and to find out if it was feasible to recapture any of the product and at this point in time it appears that is not recommended or realistically feasible, but looking a little further into the new landfill which is now our existing landfill have some options coming up and when timing is right, recommending roughly around 2015 would be timing to be able to recapture some of the gases and utilize some of the other products for cover and for instigating the reactor - have some product that we can use for that and is part of our biosolids and gives us a place to put that so we don't have to put that into our existing lagoons or the river. This is good information for us to have and utilize.

Bjerke asked some questions if any remaining funds from the grant monies. Feland noted that the agreement with Burns & McDonnell was for $74,000+ plus $15,000, and not going to expend anything beyond the $74,000+ and might even be under that.

Kreun stated we have a lot of infrastructure in place to do these things but not yet at that point and this is information for us to utilize to keep as in the future will be able to use this information to help direct ourselves into more of a recapturing process. Feland stated the draft feasibility study is a large document and if anyone on the committee is interested he can make sure you get copies; and not asking for any other action than have concluded the study and to receive and file - when time to come back, will do so with further information. Kreun stated at the present time not feasible but potentially may be in the future. Motion by Bjerke and Grandstrand to move recommendation to receive and file forward to city council. Motion carried.

Kreun stated he has another appointment he has to attend and was excused. Grandstrand chaired the meeting.

6. Wastewater/Water Enterprise Funds overview and update.
Feland stated this is an informational item and do have a power point presentation, also in attendance at the meeting were Steve Burian of A & E, Shawn Gaddie, Hazel Sletten and Don Tucker from wastewater; and reviewed the presentation. He stated they are doing a lot of water and wastewater master planning but three issues that are the drivers on this: upcoming changes to Simplot wastewater operations, potential GF/EGF wastewater interconnect and new water treatment facility. He reviewed background information from 2008 and 2009 on the projects and where we are at at the present time.

Wastewater: Simplot has refined final design of new anaerobic facility, proposed discharge strengths to city vary from preliminary 2008 assumptions; that recently EGF has reinitiated discussions with the City on interconnect; and emphasis on reducing interconnect costs to make more feasible. Work to be completed: evaluation, COSA update, rate design ands revenue adequacy.

Water: Pilot study is underway; and in the midst of State/Federal funding requests. Where headed: State funding agency meetings in prep. for legislative session, update COSA analysis considering new WTP, and Revenue Adequacy analysis considering funding alternatives.

Feland noted that today are inputting information; detailed project scope and fee development over the coming weeks; and will be back to both Finance Committee and Service/Safety Committee to present scope, fee and desired financial study outcomes.

He stated that if looking at the 2004 rate analysis est. and if look at the cost of service analysis (COSA), the 2004 est. the rate should be and actual of what the city of Grand Forks did year to year, and can see whether water, refuse or sanitation, wastewater, stormwater and flood protection greenway maintenance fee, the City has not raised the fees as significantly as what was proposed as part of the analysis - that if go to the end they did the rate model and COSA for water through 2012 and the remaining sanitation and wastewater, stormwater enterprise fund was done through 2008, many things happened and were able to delay the water treatment plant, invested $2 million into the interim improvements and pushed off part of the water treatment from the original was about 10 years by making some decisions. On the wastewater side were able to defer a larger biosolids project but will come due at some point in the next 10 years; on stormwater incorporated in 2006 the flood protection greenway maintenance as part of that stormwater fee, were at $2.90 in 2005 and in 2006 split the $1.75 to stormwater and $1.15 to flood protection greenway maintenance on a cost of service balanced way. On the landfill side in the interim were able to site the landfill and haven't captured as much rate revenue as we anticipated as part of the revenue. In 2005, 2006 and 2007 homes were inflated significantly and concern about inflation of cost and to try to keep rates and property taxes down as much as possible, and haven't extracted as much revenue from residents and businesses as we could have but the city council decided to wait until have better information. He stated when they come back would like to renew the cost of service rate making analysis for the next 10 year period so better idea of what the future holds. There is nothing today, just information, but wanted input so if missing something or if going in the wrong direction, wanted to know now.

Bjerke stated re. water treatment plant we have already started the project, and why wait - ready to go with the user fee, but would appreciate a ballpark number of how want or need to make the old plant go away because he hears that we have remodeled that before, so why not do it again - and cost. He stated that he is not going to vote to increase sales tax, already talking about a new library sales tax, road sales tax and other sales tax - and as long as we continue to fund all of our amenities and economic development - and then raise taxes for basic services.

Feland stated to renovate the existing site or to build new, was relatively the same amount of money - not that we shouldn't look at it and can drive by the building, looks good from the outside but the inside technologies but will renew that discussion as move forward about why we made decisions along the way. Bjerke stated he would like to have info., 1 or 2 page document, and run through that. Feland stated they need to look at all the options out there and when something is not going to work, kick it out and run the model so we know what the plan is so constantly not redoing things. Information only but will see something coming in the near future to represent what was discussed here.

The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk