Committee Minutes

Grand Forks City Council Service/Safety Standby Committee
Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 5:30 p.m.____________________

The Service/Safety Standby Committee met on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Member Bjerke presiding. Present at roll call were Bjerke, Grandstrand, Gershman.

Others present included: Brad Gengler, Jane Williams, Al Grasser, Dean Rau, Don Shields, Todd Feland, Hazel Sletten, Chief O'Neill, Chief Packett, Emily Fossen, Mark Aubol, Tom Hanson, Saroj Jerath.

Bjerke called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. and stated that they would be adding the matter of texting to the agenda.

.05 Matter of ordinance re. texting.
Grandstrand stated re. texting ordinance that there are 3 ways to look at it, one is how hard is it going to be not only to enforce but to hold up in court; another is the fairness issue, why should they make it illegal to text when it is not illegal to read a newspaper; and there is an advocacy issue, if it is a Christmas tree ordinance, harder for people to get exactly what is and what's not illegal and more difficult to deal with. He suggested to take the language from Maine where its just distracted driving, doesn't lay out anything specifically so that if an officer sees somebody doing something that's clearly distracted driving and causing issues, those people are in violation but specifically point out that texting is not legal to do while driving and that texting is the focus; easy from advocate perspective to show that texting is a problem; still fair because it is everybody and from legal perspective it is easy for the texting portion of it . He stated that the National Transportation & Safety Administration in their policy statement that texting and cell phone usage is partly overall distracted driving problem and a lot of research that says that other things that are also a problem but here is a compromise.

Bjerke stated he would refer this and asked Grandstrand to contact Mr. Swanson, city attorney, and ask him to draft an ordinance for committee to look at, and have that come back to committee in 2 weeks.

Gershman stated that the council tabled the ordinance, and that he personally will support an ordinance specifically for texting - that if the council decides and able to pass that and that if the council wants to take the next step and address distracted driving, then could look at that - that he will look at what Mr. Swanson comes up with, and thinks much better off being very specific on it, more educational and people do know that you shouldn't read a newspaper and drive a car, but do seem to have to tell people not to text.

1. Repair of Menard's Water Tower.
Bjerke stated his question was that funding coming out of Water Fund. Bjerke moved this forward to council, Grandstrand seconded. Carried.

2. Bids for Project No. 6604, Traffic Signal Fiber Optic Interconnect on Columbia Road (17th - 24th Aves.S.) and 32nd Ave.S. (31st - 38th Aves.S.)
Jane Williams, traffic engineer, reported this is part of the signal coordination project and
will complete fiber optic interconnect, the part that is on 32nd Ave.S. and signals are inter-connected but having a little lag in the timing and this will alleviate that problem. The communi-cation devices that are in there now are radios and they will be salvaged and be used on Washington, the Washington timing will be in radios, that if you use all of the same equipment, don't have the timing problems. Grandstrand and Bjerke moved this forward to council; carried.

3. CIP Cost Sharing Policies.
Al Grasser, city engineer, reported over past several months have had budget discussions and consensus of the council was to look at some of the special assessment options with the Capital Improvements Plan, and to review without bringing in some additional special assessments to the process, our infrastructure fund runs out of money about 2014 and with special assessment options as we bring in a little additional income and can stretch that Fund to about 2016 with current portrayal of anticipated projects. He stated they will go through that process of adopting and anticipating additional special assessment revenue, would need to update our CIP cost sharing. He stated that some of the attachments they brought the CIP a couple months ago because the existing policy was put together quite a while back and some of the terminology and references of the federal aid system have changed and by practice have done some things different than actually what is on paper and bring those in project by project and bring that document up to date as to what our actual practice is and trying to capture that in this CIP cost level - the changes on most basis are going to be minimal
He noted examples of reconstruction of several projects that didn't have any special assessments because it was a multi-lane federal aid funded project, compared to another street going halfway back to major street and capture those property owners within an assessment district - they are trying to level some of the playing field out and one of the keys is if look at the policy, on the street and highway with federal funding , that on projects with street widths greater than 3 lanes the special assessments would be limited to that of an equivalent 3-lane special assessment that is calculated by the engineering department and this would be required of all new construction and reconstruction projects - idea is to make sure we are not creating an imbalance of special assessments and calculate back what the typical assessment has been for a collector type 3 lane street and can limit that exposure on a larger street - trying to keep the specials as balanced as we can. He stated he would prefer not to have special assessments because it would make their projects a lot easier.

There was discussion relative to elimination of special assessments. Gershman stated many years ago brought up the idea of finding a way to do away with specials throughout the city, some cities do that and asked if not at the stage in our growth that we should consider a consultant that would give us a 10-year plan, can't unwind immediately, but there must be a plan to unwind special assessments where it is fair to those that have assessments as they roll off and come up with some methodology for us to do away with specials so when doing a project, just do the project - doesn't know that we have the expertise to figure that out and might want to look at that and put in a plan. Grasser stated the key to that process is generating the income stream, once they can identify a potential income stream can start maxing that and might use a consultant to fine-tune some of that but that the consultant can't help us with is where that additional income comes from - have talked about sales tax and that is most likely candidate - have talked about monthly charge on homes/businesses that would generate but real key is do we have a will to try to pick up additional income - we have made progress in reducing level of special assessments that we have on projects because of greater level of city cost sharing on number of levels that there were 15 years ago - there are some pieces that we try to pick up without charging and don't show up - have made progress and is mainly an income thing how to generate the additional levy.

Gershman stated that perhaps staff could give it some thought to see if could come up with some idea of how we could look at, either through consultant, that if took the average specials that everybody has, that a single special assessment, not property tax but special assessment so that fund is dedicated and have stream of income and everybody says that is his special assessment.
Grasser stated that he would like to explore some things of those different paths and can bring up some of the pros and cons, etc. of different options - that even with income there are limits as to how to set expectations. In the meantime the more immediate issue of this is to try to match our policies with what we are projecting on our budget, doesn't mean we can't change it, but for today and looking at two different issues - one is how do we match this today and how do we take the next step. Gershman stated that this issue could take year to discuss and that there is time to consider this and need to get budget process done and could do this over the winter.

Grandstrand stated there is only one that there is good argument for is new development and agrees that if could move out of that as long as taxes are equal and not changed overall, then fine to switch the source. He raised question about special assessing bikepaths. Grasser stated depends on whether getting federal aid, if get federal aid not special assessing, but main application is if locally funded project, property owners responsible for portion of the bikepath, 5 ft. of 8 ft., and City picks up balance of 3 ft.

Grasser stated one of the reasons they haven't done specials on some of these major streets is that have 80% federal money and 10% state money and don't want to put project at risk of being protested out after investing several hundred thousand dollars because going to special assess small piece of the project..

Bjerke stated he doesn't like special assessments and not sure what waiting for, that if raised 5 mills and if there are no more specials and not tax increase just a change of policy and not sure of process but would recommend that Mr. Gershman and chairs of the committees form a task force and go with the plan. Gershman stated he would be willing to do that; but stated that put extra mills on and were going to do away with special assessments, would have to take that money and pay off all the specials that everybody has - but have to figure out if pay for one property owner and other property owner just paid his specials - need to figure that out.

Bjerke stated that if no special assessments, wouldn't be having public hearings, mailings, etc. and savings to the taxpayers - save the City money by doing away with this, and hope they would form a task force. Grasser stated that previous councils have done, that City does watermain replacement and no cost to the residents, do sanitary sewer rehabs and storm sewer repairs with no cost to residents - and have upped the City's participation and in reconstruction projects City is paying 80% of cost of that and that we have been able to bring those costs down so it becomes more affordable and moving towards if not eliminating special assessments burden. He also noted that they need not to be thinking in terms of hundreds of thousands of dollars but talking millions of dollars annually to accomplish this - Gershman stated they will work on this.

Motion by Bjerke/Grandstrand to move recommendation to council. carried.

4. Resolution to submit a Notice of Intent to create The Downtown Quiet Zone and
The Glasston Quiet Zone.______________________________________________
Jane Williams reported they are one step closer and thanked MPO for working on this report, that they are at process where they have enough information and enough findings that they can go ahead and submit notice of intent to create these two quiet zones; this will include the 3 crossings downtown and 42nd and DeMers, and the Glasston Quiet Zone runs parallel with 42nd including University, 6th and Gateway. They received letter last week from RR Administration and still waiting for some information back on cost to work on one of the crossings - have previous estimate that was good for 90 days but is past. The federal government has outlined specific procedures that they must follow and notice of intent is first one, while the resolution that the mayor will have to sign and couple different documents that they will have to send public notice, including federal government, Railroad agency, chief of police, MPO. There will be a 60-day period to receive comments. They are asking for approval of the resolution. Bjerke/Grandstrand moved to forward to council, carried.

5. 36-inch Outfall Repair Project bid and associated budget amendment for Project No. 6459._____________________________________________________________
Todd Feland, director of public works, reported they are wrapping up the landfill and part
of that was the stormwater plant which includes the 36" outfall line, have done some televising and cleaning of the outfall line, and would like to accept this bid to line a portion of it so make sure it lasts, and this is one of the last parts of the new landfill. Total cost with contingency $369,000 will come from the Stormwater Construction cash which is reflected in the attached budget amendment. Grandstrand and Bjerke moved recommendation to council, carried.

6. Preliminary Engineering Services Agreement for Project No. 6621, engineering evaluation of the Columbia Road Overpass._______________________________
Dean Rau, asst. city engineer, reported this project will do analysis of the bridge deck,
there is some deterioration of the deck and DOT did a bridge survey this past spring , none of the
areas are cause for immediate concern and no safety issue, have contacted one consultant for an estimate of cost for the project but his bid came in higher than anticipated, and will go out and try
to get a cost from another consultant to do the work and are going to carry this over to next
meeting of the committee; work would be done next year. Held for 2 weeks.

7. Budget amendment of $40,000, sole source letter and purchase of traffic signal controllers, TSP transit keys and auxiliary equipment for Citywide Traffic Signal Coordination Program._________________________________________________
Williams stated there are 3 different items in this and is part of our traffic signal
coordination system, budget amendment and approval of sole source and purchase of our traffic signal controllers using the City's sole source policy that was given to them by Finance - they came to Service/Safety this spring and requested permission to pursue a sole source letter from the Dept. of Transportation, received that with approval, and have asked for a budget amendment. The Dept. of Transportation had pledged a $40,000 fund and when asked to have the fund transferred, found out that they actually could not participate in the way we had anticipated and that they will be providing an in-kind addition of $40,000 to our Urban Aid Account, so need budget amendment to cover that $40,000 amount; need permission to go ahead and purchase using the sole source letter. Bjerke/Grandstrand moved this forward to the council, carried.

12. Community Garden. (Info. only.)
Caylan Larson, employee of Amazing Grains, 405 South 4th Street, garden coordinator for the corporate garden, stated they are happy with the progress of the garden on this plot. He showed slide presentation and reviewed work that was done from start of the cooperative gardening pilot project. He stated donations will be made to food pantries, in touch with caseworkers at the Mission and they are interested in getting people out there, etc. They did a farmers market last week, sold 22 bags of lettuce. Any complaints have gone either to him or to Melanie Parvey and have taken care of them; no instances of vandalism. He stated the garden has been success and that they want to continue next year.

He stated that the Near North Neighborhood Assoc. is hosting an open garden and tours this Thursday - and they are looking at ways to get the neighborhood revitalized and an opportunity for them to understand what a garden looks like and could expect in terms of work, etc.

Gershman stated he went by the garden last night and looks great, this is interesting and exciting initiatives for a city, garden is small and impact huge; and would hope to find some additional sites in town and generate more of these community gardens.

8. Update on implementation of Safety No Parking on one-side of street. (Info only)
Williams reported that this is follow-up on the program, staff has worked on this since
last winter, and is an on-going problem but last winter came to a head when they had several different streets in the near northend area where had vehicles parked on both sides of the street and snowplows could not get down the street - then came to Service/Safety and informed them that they had used emergency powers and had posted the street for no parking so crews could go in and remove snow, etc. Service/Safety approved that and staff requested permission to go ahead and pursue permanent solution to that problem, and again returned to committee with an update and reported that most of the near northend had been posted with no parking on one side of the street, that they had worked with the residents as concerns came up, staff continued to install the no parking. She reported that after receiving several comments/concerns they brought it back to Service/Safety and re-examined the process that they were using to install this. During that time they worked in the area north of 13th Ave.S. and on the east side of Washington, and those areas were also posted with no parking. Staff from engineering and public works, police and fire met on this and as a result determined several things, when vehicles are parked on one side of the street, it is much easier for the crews to get in and remove snow, mixture of reaction from residents when this was done and worked with them to resolve issues, still several issues unresolved.

Criteria that identifies when an emergency vehicles might be impacted are streets less than 36 ft. when vehicles parked on both sides of the street, that streets between 36 and 32 ft. can operate with parking on both of the street in the summer and may need to be signed with no parking on one side in the winter and may operate okay year round. This is based on parking on the street if the vehicles can be removed for plowing, etc.; they also reviewed several other concerns, had several constituents who called requesting to have their streets signed for no parking, but have not been signed yet (8th Ave.N. and 7th Ave.N. from Washington to N. 20th St.)(Plum Drive West and Elm West) and also streets that are scattered throughout the area that are 26 ft. or less and have specific concerns that they would like to pursue, but still continuing to look at those for the no parking - there is an area off of 10th Ave.N. and east of Columbia Road that has an over abundance of parking in that area and public works is going to work with the neighborhood to resolve the issue - these streets are less than 30 ft. and looking at possibly of one hour parking during specific times that could relieve the parking problems they are having in that area. S. 9th Street from 10th Ave.S. and 13th Ave.S. continue to have complaints from residents on both sides of the street about the no parking on one side, and this is one of the streets they have been talking about possibly removing the no parking and continuing to monitor that street, and may have to put restriction back on one side of the street. She stated they also reviewed streets that were 32 ft. or wider for possibility of removing the parking restrictions on those and monitoring those streets to see if problems arise.

Gershman stated he only gets calls about removal, but has serious issues with people where there
are multiple people living in homes in older area or where have older homes with 2 or 3 apartments, number of cars serious issue for many areas where no garages or driveways - in the winter people have to plug their cars in - sometimes on the other side of the street as can't run cord across the street -forced to be on the street and sometimes several blocks away from residence because of parking. Have had issue with churches and have addressed that to some degree for Sunday, but elderly people who cannot find place to park in front of their home. Another concern is when you place parking on one side of the street, create a speedway. He stated he understand safety issue for ambulances, fire trucks but would be more interested if they would address only the "hot spots" but not entire areas with parking only on one side. Mark Aubol suggested leaving everything as is and if issue, go out and address that issue; however, Gershman stated some people don't know who to call and they put up with it, but doesn't think they need to put up with not being able to plug their cars in, etc. and can be hardship for many people.

Fire Chief O'Neill suggested putting this off and to bring this back one more time. Bjerke stated
to send this back to staff for further consideration, and this is an issue.

Williams noted that some of these streets were signed prior to this, and can revisit and look at,
and will have to come up with a date when they can bring this back to committee - will identify those that were previously signed, and if committee has specific areas to let them know and will also look at single family areas, etc.

9. Declare fire training tower surplus property and allow sale for salvage.
Chief O'Neill reported the old drill tower on State Mill Road, built in 1975 with federal
revenue sharing funds, tower unsafe, tower is located on property that has been transferred to the Growth Fund and has to be removed. The tower is made out of heavy redwood and might have some salvageable value. Bjerke/Grandstrand moved this item forward to council; carried.

10. Fire Department budget amendments:
a) complete purchase of haz-mat response vehicle.
Chief O'Neill reported this is response vehicle to be purchased with Homeland Security funds, have made down payment of $150,000, cost is $252,556.00; and should be getting vehicle the end of August. Vehicles and equipment are kept at Station 2, Columbia Road fire station; they still have sufficient space for equipment. Bjerke and Grandstrand moved this forward to council; carried.

b) purchase hazardous material response equipment
Chief O'Neill reported this will bring $157,000 into General Equipment Fund from Homeland Security fund and will complete purchase of equipment, and also money to help pay for the next item which is a quick response SUV, no cost to the City. Bjerke and Grandstrand moved it item forward to council; carried.

11. Award bid for quick response assessment team SUV for Fire Dept.
Chief O'Neill stated that they received 1 bid that meets their needs, quick response SUV, cost $36,758.00 and with options $51,800. This is quick response vehicle to go out into region to check out situation to carry troops and bring out the heavier equipment later if necessary and can also use as a back-up command vehicle; vehicle meets same criteria as others across the state. Bjerke stated these items are regional equipment and part of our responsibility as regional hub for the State of North Dakota. as we have resources and personnel; and also protect our own citizens. Bjerke and Grandstrand moved this item forward to council; carried.

13. Greenway update. (Info. only.)
Melanie Parvey, Environmental Compliance/Greenway Manager, stated that earlier this year had talked about placing boat docks at both of our ramps, received funding from the ND Game & Fish to be reimbursable for the T-shaped dock, and then received a gift of a T-shaped dock from the Game & Fish Dept., however, when they went to place it, had a different idea of what the intention of the dock was for and weren't able to place it on the ramp. After talking with the mfg. and how it had to be tied back to the bank, decided to hold on that and look at placing the floating dock next year if we have to do some work to the riverbank which complicates the issue in working with the Army Corps of Engineers, and will be asking engineering department for some assistance. She stated they asked Game & Fish to reallocate that funding and would talk to them about the possibility of doing something next year.

Relating to Trail Users Sign Plan did get information back from the ND Parks & Recreation that we were denied a request to a uniform signing plan both in Grand Forks and East Grand Forks to replace some of the signs that are currently out there as well as added signage. i.e., 911 marking, mile marker signs for people to know where distances in their training for activities or events, etc. When they realized they wouldn't get the funding from ND Parks & Rec., do have funding within our existing budget and were able to go ahead and utilize some staffing within our street department to move that project forward for this year, benefit to community and users.

Re. Dog Park: Mayor's Office had asked them to look at possibility of adding a small dog park near the larger dog park, was part of the original plan although when the project was bid out, there wasn't enough funding to do both. They talked to the Park District and the Roaming Paws group about the possibility of doing that, have est. for what it could cost after they had some work done to redesign, now want to go back and meet with that group and talk about the possibility of coming up with $12-13,000 funding next year in that same area. Park would be an area of about one-half acre in size, smaller fence 4 ft. high

Re: Special Requests for Enhancements. They have a request form from the Greenway Technical Comm., and encourage citizens that come forward with different ideas, whether part of an organization or an individual's request, to talk with staff, form is online, committee meets on a monthly basis and visit requests as soon as possible and then bring those requests back to committee. One of the items that has come up is electric motor request - to let bicycles with electric motors be used on greenway trails, currently prohibited in our ordinance, but been some discussion with the attorney's office and police department and that something will be brought forward in the near future to the committee for review. Bjerke stated that this committee's meeting coincides with the County Planning & Zoning meetings of which he is a member and unable to attend those meetings. Info. only.

Adjourn

It was moved by Bjerke and Grandstrand to adjourn, meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.

Alice Fontaine, City Clerk
City Clerk