Committee Minutes

Grand Forks City Council Service/Safety Standby Committee
June 5, 2007 - 4:00 p.m.__________________________________

The city council of the city of Grand Forks sitting as the Service/Safety Standby Committee met in the council chambers in City Hall on Tuesday, February 6, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. Present at roll call were Council Members Kreun, chair; Bakken, McNamara; and Gershman.

Others present were Al Grasser, Mark Walker, Chief O'Neill, Dick Newman, Don Shields, Chief Packett, Todd Feland.

Chair Kreun called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m., there were 3 items on the agenda with an additional item from Mr. Grasser re. 2007 haul road repair and looking for input from committee, and agenda amended with item 4.

Todd Feland asked to continue items 2 and 3 for 2 weeks.

1. Sanitation Division service update.
Todd Feland, public works department, reported that the Mayor sent a letter to Mayor Walker of Fargo officially asking if could work together, both short and long term, have had discussions with the City of Fargo and they have asked our mayor to send them a letter, will have more discussions and go to their commission meeting for final approval.

Landfill: He stated that he plans for the June 19 meeting to bring a more defined plan on areas within the ET that would possibly be appropriate for landfills for pre-application; that 2 weeks ago re. the south or southwest area and has received feedback that they don't want it in that area, that most people along the Merrifield Road corridor don't want it (heard from 5 people, heard from Township commissioners and from Mr. Bateman who was rep. township), and advised the Twps. that when they have a further plan he would involve them and provide same info. as providing the city council; informed them that looking at all our options and haven't settled on one parcel and that the council is reviewing possibilities, tell people upfront so that they should know and long process and doesn't happen overnight - too early and too preliminary. People were also concerned re. odor (but what smelling is lagoon). Kreun stated that we are going to explore all the options.

He also reported that Mr. Paul Sproule and Mr. John Scott who were the developers of the Gilby site, that was thrown out because it was within the GFAFB buffer, have submitted an application for conditional use permit for another site in Strabane Twp, north of Larimore, 37 mi. from existing landfill site, that are going to the July County Planning & Zoning Commission meeting (that particular township does not have zoning regs. and defers to the County); they have sent letters to the Township supervisors and initial contact was that people were not opposed to it. He noted that before they had Mr. Sproule make presentation, and was planning to follow the same process as previously. He also noted that to Fargo is 80 miles and transport cost was between $9 and $10 and this would be $4 and $5 ton, not a lot of activity out there and is a possibility, and is outside AFB buffer and even if outside that they still want a bird mitigation plan. Mr. Sproule has an option on that piece of land and they intend to go forward, the City is the group that makes it economically liable, and what makes this turn is the central processing point for garbage and that we want certain conditions as part of an agreement, there are issues with ownership and operation, long term economics, liabilities, etc. and thing they would have to work out; however, it is hope. He stated that they have said that a new landfill should cost the City between $40 and $50 and hopefully between $40 and $45 and that is new economics of a landfill, right now at $33.50. He noted that if the committee would like Mr. Sproule to come and make presentation - same story but different location. Committee agreed with that but don't know if and how it is going to work and if viable economically, and would like to know what they would want (return on their investment). Kreun stated that we will operate and be in control of the landfill so that they don't have misunderstanding that they are going to be in the landfill business, will be in the leasing of the land and to get an idea of what they want. Feland stated that it is going to cost them $300,000 to $400,000 to get a permit after borings, design work, etc. and concept was to partner with them on that investment but once they get the zoning and want to go to pre-application ($40,000) and then in the Department of Health's hands, and meet with them before they go to the County (do development plan). Committee stated if go to the County okay but before going to the next step and would suggest they come with some kind of plan on what they feel is workable with us, bring it here and then to council.

Budget & Collection Fees: Feland presented matter of fees they are looking at - 2008 sanitation proposed budget and collection fee is anticipated to go up 6.7% because for one-quarter of year going to Fargo or Gwinner; that our tipping fee will go from $33.50 to $45.00/ton and our share of that is 6.7%, our fee is $11.50 now and will be $12.00+ per month, and that a full year at Fargo or Gwinner sites was $57/ton and a large step from $45 and see what impact will be in 2008. He stated they propose to use existing landfill until the end of September, and from October 1 forward have to start hauling garbage and have to finalize with either Fargo or Gwinner, and if find out this summer within our ET area or with proposed landfill developer within our region, we have to decide the length of term that we would want to get, and if a viable option within our area, that might be a good reason to go with the City of Fargo on an annual basis.

Special Collection Fees: Feland stated that the collection disposal service by customers request, that they have current rate and proposed rate, these rates are not in ordinance form and can change administratively if want, and were proposing to have these fees increased. Rate is $10 min. for Residential/Commercial Inert Materials (misc. furniture, etc.) and proposing an increase to $15 min.; Rate for Metal/ Appliance Collection is $15 for everything; Brush chipping from $10 to $15; Tire pickup to cover their cost, usually pickup from commercial vendors; and was thinking of doing this mid-year (July 1, 2007) and thinks start tire pickup as soon as possible and that is looking at cost of service to try to impact revenue side as best as can. He noted that they lose money doing this service other than on tires, that they haven't raised these fees for at least 3 or 4 years. He noted that people can still bring things to the landfill at cost of $10 min. and still have that option.

Yard Waste Site Planning.
Feland stated the southern of the city has more lawn to mow and less sites and have been impacting Schroeder site because of issues re. quantity impact southend neighborhoods, did have site at 47th east of Cherry but closed because of dumping problems and now area has grown up around there, and that their strategy in the past has been to have highest customer service level possible, and were looking at site on Ruemmele Road at a pump station and at another pump station on 47th; and relocate at 8th Avenue N. and N. 3rd Street (beside Simonson's Lumber). He noted the sites on Ruemmele Rd. and 47th are between $35,000 to $40,000 investment each, and the site on 8th Ave.N. is approx. $10,000 for installation (concrete and site ground work, fencing) He stated his question is that they have a lot of people going to the Schroeder site because they are dumping everything from east of Washington going south to city limits (and probably outside) and overwhelming. He stated their yard waste composting is at the landfill which is in the northwest corner of the city, and because of fuel costs wanted to know if put the 2 new sites in or try to centralize some of this - at public works facility and make a larger site, however, that means that people on the south end have to bring a farther distance. It would be cheaper if had less sites that were bigger and had people do more of the traveling than for us to have more sites that are more convenient for people. He stated before bidding these out, because large investment, wanted to have committee sense of where wanted to go on service level.

Kreun asked if there were any complaints not having those other southend sites; Mr. Feland stated the only complaint is from the School and have modified the schedule, shut off during school hours - only on weekends and evenings but during summer is in operation all the time. There was question from School District if we couldn't find some other sites on the southend that would help put off the pressure on this site (Schroeder); that the city is growing south and under normal times when had a landfill within our jurisdiction and revenue nor rates were not issues and we would put these in because of landfill and fees, trying to look at all the things we are currently doing and finding ways to save. Kreun asked whether we want to continue this level of service and Feland stated we should put the on in on 8th Avenue which is affordable, and whether put one in on Ruemmele or 47th, more expensive. Committee stated 47th more important than Ruemmele as more in the center in the south end and should alleviate some of the problem at Schroeder. Committee suggested leaving off Adams and 40th - and do 8th Avenue N. and 47th Ave.S. and to monitor. Bakken stated that we are going to add these two but may not continue that level of service but something in between Feland noted that the site at Lewis & Clark where they have 2 roll offs and sites stays pretty clean. Bakken stated to review 5th and 12th and perhaps combine them into one and probably downsize 5th - Feland stated that 5th and DeMers is good by the water tower and can put quite a bit of stuff there without disturbing lot of people and site at 12th has 2 rolloffs. McNamara stated should get them away from the schools and if can make bigger at sites away from schools - and perhaps making site at 47th a bigger site because at a park and maybe finding smaller site. Feland stated people want grass site near them but not in their backyard, always have challenge. Feland stated they would proceed with those 2 sites (8th Avenue North and at 47th Avenue South) and go to bid. Committee noted that the next time he reviews this to draw circles (like fire department) and get radius in and maybe do something different. Committee stated to monitor 47th and see what pressure it takes off 32nd (Schroeder) and if it takes enough off and not a concern with the closing times, continue to keep it closed during school hours and if takes pressure off and not problem maybe can leave it, but if it doesn't take enough pressure off then better try to find another location. EGF has one site and have to pay for it and probably why having people from EGF bring grass over here because of cost.

Mr. Feland also noted that he would talk with Mr. Sproule and inform him that the committee is interested in what kind of financial arrangement he is looking at and what kind of operational arrangement and come in with details before July.

2. Public Transportation update.
Item held for 2 weeks. (Public Trans. is running additional routes.).

3. RDO Foods, Inc. wastewater billing request update.
Item held for 2 weeks.

4. 2007 haul road repair.
Mr. Grasser stated they were looking for direction from the committee and reviewed memo regarding road restoration project, that originally they had established a budget of about $2.4 million on the road rehab. project, that they couldn't reconstruct all the streets and were trying to take the more obvious types of damages and repair those, that they had a seal coat project and a concrete panel replacement project, and for a little more money could expand, and question is that based on the bids received plus 10% allowance for contingencies, the project now would be $2.17 million, received good competitive bids and direction is possible expansion of the original scope. Question is whether stay with the scope of the project which was panel replacement or go back and stay to the original budget, if stay to the scope we will be below budget but in the field may find panel that is a problem, but when in there should they pick up the next panel. Bakken stated it is more cost effective to pick them up as you go, from construction standpoint cheaper for continuous deal than pick and choose as go and if have the money, and all agree that the streets in Grand Forks need attention and if budgeted, fix as much as can. Question raised If not used for street repair, what would the money be used for - and it was noted that it would stay in the Betterment account and would be available for whatever other projects the council might be contemplating using Betterment money. Mr. Grasser stated at last council meeting brought in the matter of International Water for $50,000; and that there is a never-ending list but in looking at items they would spend that on, still have $100,000 that the committee authorized a year or so ago to take care of loose end seeding, etc. One item that might come up is with the problems they hare having in some of the diversion about farming operations, should they maybe put a fence up there and might save time and hassle in the long run, because when a project is done, those types of improvements will have to come out of the maintenance budget.

After spending $2.4 million, have approx. $400,000 or $500,000 left. Kreun stated they are winding down but still have some contingencies that could come back for some of the other areas that aren't complete, and if we don't spend this it goes towards our reducing or not having that last special assessment, not opposed to any of this but that if streets need repair, now is the time to do it. Mr. Grasser stated that we can fix panels with fewer cracks and makes sense for us to go in there and repair, and in the future that would end up being a street reconstruction project, special assessed, and the City will still end up paying 70-80% per our policy in reconstruction.

Kreun stated they have been working very hard to keep that last special assessment very small or not all, and Mr. Grasser stated that this won't eliminate every problem but a value added issue and will pick up more than otherwise could do if that is the direction you want to go. Kreun stated to use common sense and not to redo panels with one and two cracks, use good judgment and go as far as can. Grasser stated that if that is the desire he will work up a change order to Project No. 6131, and that he would still like to retain the authority to approve the other 10%, a change order would normally eliminate the 10% but he wants the flexibility to change from hand replacement to a mill and overlay. It was moved by Bakken and Kreun to approve the motion. McNamara abstained. Motion carried.

The meeting adjourned at approx. 5:00 p.m.

Alice Fontaine, City Clerk