Committee Minutes

Grand Forks City Council Service/Safety Standby Committee
Tuesday, February 6, 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 Chief Packett, Chief Duane Czapiewski, John Warcup, Pete Haga. There were a number of University students and homeowners present.

1 Loud party ordinance.
Kreun asked that because of the large number of people present that each side of the issue (UND student representatives and/or homeowners) each pick 3 people to speak and present information - that the two police chiefs would also give information, Chief Czapiewski, University Police, and Chief Packett, Grand Forks Police; and that committee would have discussion and make recommendation that will go to the committee of the whole for discussion and then to the city council agenda for action. Kreun also noted that he wanted them to understand that this ordinance is not just for UND students, that this ordinance was put into place after approx. two years of work on several issues, involving zoning changes, enforcement in health and safety area, occupancy agreements throughout the city, setbacks in buildings, parking changes and part of that was the noise ordinance. He stated that part of the reason for that was that in several areas of town, mainly the University area, lot of homes were being turned into rental units, and since the flood have a problem maintaining entry level homes, and in order to protect that inventory this was one of the ways they looked at it, and these things put into place came up with an ordinance that we have now.

He stated what they have on the table is a $250.00 mandatory fine for noise ordinance violation, and judge has no discretion; what has been proposed, and what they feel is acceptable, is to remove "mandatory" and allow the judge to make that decision and he will have the ability to do the deferred imposition which was brought to their attention; that in this discussion the second violation that was in place was also a mandatory $250.00 fine. He noted that discussion was to make this a deferred imposition possibility, take the mandatory off the first offense and raise the fine on the second offense to $750.00, that was negotiated trade-off, but maybe $750.00 isn't the number. He stated this is a particular situation on its own and need to control it, and high fine will help control problems within the city, willing to listen to comments and will take it under advisement but have to realize that during the two-year process of changing these ordinances, had representation by the Student Body, by Student Council from UND, there wasn't always agreement; homeowners were also there and they didn't always agree, and committee tried to make a compromise between rental groups and the homeowner groups. He stated they have a lot of information, have looked at information from other communities (Fargo, Moorhead, Duluth, out East, looked at both big and small college towns, etc.) and is suggesting 3 people from each group present their comments; and also to hear from the two police chiefs.

Alex Reichert, 218 South 3rd Street is office address, and home address is 625 Reeves Drive. stated his chief concern as an attorney who represents people who are accused of this crime is that it is difficult, to know when violating that law, that Section 1 of the ordinance has so many vague terms, and also have the difficulty of trying to prove your innocence because you have the testimony of an officer and the testimony of somebody who may or may not have been drinking. He stated they should make it either an infraction so don't saddle somebody with a criminal record for engaging in conduct that they did not know was breaking the law or have warning system where police officers have to give a warning and tell people that they believe that they are in violation of the law. He stated that he was in favor of proposed recommendation of taking away the $250.00 mandatory penalty and that will be helpful because that gives judges the discretion to at least make the first offense deferred. The punishment does not fit the crime, and committee is proposing a $750.00 min. mandatory fine for a second offense plus 40 hours of community service, and also that there is $225.00 in mandatory fines and fees which the Court must impose plus a community service fee of approx. $30.00 which would be imposed. He stated he is concerned where there are min. mandatory fines would implore this committee to look at that; and is afraid that these penalties and this statute go too far and would ask that they change that.

McNamara stated that their recommendation to the city council is going to be that the minimum mandatory be eliminated and the judge have discretion in the first offense. Mr. Reichert stated they are still labeling these people as criminals, there are implications, Class B misdemeanor is a very minor offense, but as get in more and more background checks for different kinds of jobs, it is precluding more people from getting jobs, from traveling into Canada or Mexico, traveling internationally.

Several individuals spoke in favor of noisy ordinance requirements, and that the ordinance is working.

Greg Krause, 718 North 25th Street, an employee of UND, stated his position is they had residential neighborhood but when pricing and economic changed, number of students and rental units picked up, and number of parties and noises increased, and now having gone through the process, change is remarkable; and asked that they not go to decibels, but stay with current regulations.

Kreun stated that in Moorhead, regulations of Apartment Assn., and if police are called for any reason to your apartment, you are automatically evicted and blackballed from any other apartment in the Apartment Assn.

Kim Novak 2103 9th Avenue North, spoke in support of the ordinance and that she felt the ordinance was working.

Tom Hanson, 1916 University Avenue, homeowner and advisor for Delta Tau Delta Fraternity, stated they had some problem re. noise ordinances because house next door to him became rental this year and have had several instances but most solved by talking to the people. He stated they had an incident where the Chapter president was not involved in the party but that in a fraternity house they charge the president no matter what. The concern he has is the misdemeanor portion of the ordinance, there are problems and need to be consequences so the problem is addressed; that there are people who need security clearances and background checks, not opposed to the consequences but need to be careful that not putting a big x on these people for the rest of their lives - big concern he has is to get the misdemeanor changed, if becomes infraction so doesn't put that mark on their record, need to make sure consequences are appropriate.

Nathan Martindale, 116 South 3rd Street, handed out remarks to committee and read for the record, that students perception of the goodwill of the city show a disconnect in the relationship, that students have found that the provisions of the loud party ordinance are inconsistent with repercussions of similar policies, that overly severe punishments typically committed by youth send wrong message to students. He stated that there are incidents in which such a policy must be in place, but the current ordinance does not adhere to such peace disturbing occurrences, most students are unaware that they are making too much noise until receiving tickets, and urged committee to consider making provisions that address these common incidents, making noise should not produce criminals.

Kreun stated committee is trying to make this balance between everybody in the community, students make up 20% of the population, and because it doesn't come out the way you want it doesn't mean there is ill will towards the students, committee's responsibility to the whole community to make it best for everybody.

McNamara stated we have to acknowledge that we have a problem in this community and hope it doesn't take a fatality, like there was in Fargo and had another one last week to get us to say lets really take a look at this, and that there is legislation before the State so trend is to make this more difficult. Mr. Martindale stated they are addressing the loud party ordinance comparable to a second DUI.

Michael Rocks-Macqueen, UND Student Senate Greek liaison, stated that a minimum mandatory requirement is placed on something that students feel they are being targeted and has seen an attitude building towards the City, that he doesn’t agree with the criminal action and many students have formed a negative attitude from that. Kreun noted what happens to City employees if they get into an accident and they are taken by supervisor and have a drug test for alcohol and/or drugs and if show positive, you automatically lose your job; in Housing Authority if one of the people who use Housing Authority assistance and if alcohol related offense you are automatically moved out of your apartment and this is not something that is extremely out of line, esp. when dealing with a lot of younger people, and to be as harsh as you think we are, when get out into the work place it is a lot tougher. Mr. Macqueen stated there are other ways, failure to disburse, and people shouldn't be criminals for making noise, and a negative attitude that has formed and best way to resolve this is to fix that negative attitude.

Jamie Anderson, 805 North 43rd Street, stated they need to make sure they understand that this is not just alcohol related because when get people together even if aren't' drinking can have a lot of people in one house at the same time.

Chief Duane Czapiewski, chief of police for the University of North Dakota, stated that in 2006 UND police department documented 43 loud party complaints and of that 17 citations issued in 11 residences. He stated numbers compared to the previous year are down about 25% and from 2005 to 2006 with the new ordinance numbers are down. He stated in their process their staff before semester starts they go through the residences, talk to as many people as can to inform them of the noise ordinance, about minor in possession, consumption laws, and attend various functions, meetings, organizations and are invited to different facilities and make those announcements. Seldom do they ever cite anyone on first time, generally a verbal warning, but do run into issues where people do not respond and have to deal with that as well. He also stated there are a few instances without complaint where officers have determined that the volume of the noise level was extreme and responded and requested that they turn the noise down, and issued a verbal warning. He stated he didn't believe they were responding to anything in excess of any other law enforcement agency and have not been citing the whole groups, only citing the residents. He stated they have a number of calls that are not registered, not formal complaint, and have a lot of incidents where there is not documentation of loud party calls. He stated he doesn't feel they are responding in a negative manner and not selecting students and passing judgment or that they are enforcing in a heavier hand than anyone else would in their situation.

Mr. Macqueen asked how would someone defend themselves if not meter, how do you know that you are being too noisy. Chief Czapiewski stated normally they are responding to complaints from the residents of the area, second process is by the officers making a decision as to the amount of noise they are hearing, a lot of discretion comes in as well as to the attitude of the people confronted and sometimes don't have opportunity to use much discretion, they may hinder them from doing that, and those probably two citations rather than one issue.

Chief Packett reviewed information for 2005 and 2006 re. number of loud party calls that they responded to, and the data shows that there is good discretion being used, and difficult for council and legislative bodies to legislate discretion, and community expects the police to come out on a call, use good discretion. Kreun stated that in the statistics that everybody received a verbal warning first.

Chief Packett stated that the misdemeanor allows the police department to respond, make contact with the parties involved in the call and request that the situation be taken care of, should their request not be taken seriously or complied with, they have the ability to get a warrant, come back and search the residence, take action and/or cite people, where with an infraction would not have those tools, and there is a clear delineation on their ability to take action with a misdemeanor vs. an infraction.

Doug Christensen, council member for 5th Ward, stated after the ordinance went into place in 2006, there were 76 reports and 32 arrests, this ordinance wasn't there to pick on the students, when look at this data find that most of the reports, they tried to resolve problem by changing the zoning, number of people in a house, etc., that we need the misdemeanor rather than the infraction for enforcement purposes. He suggested that the only thing he sees that will come of this is changing or deleting the mandatory minimum, and would hope that recognize that they are concerned because of the relationship, and that the best they can do is get rid of the mandatory minimum but if a second offense, more than $200. He also stated that he is not in favor or $750.00 for second offense.

McNamara stated he has security clearance and would not even be asked for explanation for loud party, security clearances deal with violent assault, financial irresponsibility, and not having parties, if have a number of them, might be an issue but not in terms of somebody who has a misdemeanor offense for a loud party - that in the Marine Corps, waive tattoos, waive assaults (give explanation), and don't have to be Pollyanna to get security clearances for top security work and above - that 75% of the calls that the police go on in this community result in nothing;; but wanted to address the Pollyanna issue relative to security clearances, and a loud party is not going to stop you from doing anything in the Dept. of Defense.

Kreun closed the hearing and asked committee for their comments and/or recommendation.

McNamara moved a motion to request the council to remove the minimum mandatory penalty language from the ordinance. Bakken seconded the motion. Motion carried.

McNamara moved a second motion to further review, with testimony and data provided by community members and groups including The Answer, Altru, UND Student Government, UND Administration, the Grand Forks Police Department, University Police Department, the levels of fines and penalties associated with this ordinance and alcohol-related ordinance at a future committee meeting. Bakken seconded the motion. Motion carried.

(Motion on staff report: McNamara moved to amend noisy party ordinance penalty, 9-0503(7), to remove the minimum mandatory sentence from penalty, and further study the level of penalties/fines for noisy party and alcohol-related offenses. Bakken seconded the motion Motion carried.)

Mr. Hamerlik noted that isn't final action, that final action would not occur until after this item had been on the committee of the whole agenda and then placed on the city council agenda.

The committee took a brief recess at 6:05 p.m.

Following the break, the committee reconvened.

2. Public Works Department updates:
a. Landfill/Sanitation Division update
b. Wastewater Cooperation Concept overview
c. Waster/Wastewater Master Planning update
d. Public Transportation overview.

a) Landfill/Sanitation Division Update: Todd Feland, director of public works, reported they will be in District Court on March 1, backup date March 13, based upon Township attorney who may have conflict on the 1st; briefs have been submitted to District Court by the City and the Township, with City submitting a rebuttal brief next week, and then to court in March.

He stated they will be getting the Red River Valley Lakes Region study back in February, and will report when he receives that, and they will be working at the landfill regarding the non-solid waste but the most pressing issue is the Red River Valley Regional landfill and that group will be at the Grand Forks County Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in March (that is the group with Paul Sproule and Scotts and other investors) and what they are going to present to the Grand Forks County, hoping to get zoning approval in third week in March, and to the County Commission meeting - they want to be the regional landfill in our region and want to operate that facility as a bale fill facility which would mean they would want to use our baling facility as the transfer/baling facility for the region From there they would go to the environmental permitting stage which would take up to a year - environmental permitting with the Department of Health have to get pre-application approval which would take a couple months, the permitting stage would require a public hearing and more detailed engineering, planning, etc. and take several more months - would take approx. a year after get zoning, and could be about this time next year. He said would then have to get it constructed for the Fall of 2008, and concern is that wouldn't know if this is a viable solution until they actually get the environmental permit from the Dept. of Health which may not occur until next year at this time. He stated by this time next year we will have a decision from District Court in our case with Turtle River Township. He stated that when they go to the County and understands they have a positive reaction from the people in Gilby Township, that Gilby Twp. does not have zoning so they defer to the County, and getting a positive review that they don't see any problems and would approve contingent upon a Dept. of Health permit, but concern is when they go there in March is that they don't have City of Grand Forks giving them approval to talk about what we would agree to - and how do we interface with a group where we have all these other alternatives working on and this is another alternative, not sure if work out and won't know until early next year, but they will want some sort of acknowledgement from the City and region that we would work with them, because they will spend a couple hundred thousand dollars to get the permitting for the landfill, and the landfill won't be viable solution without the city of Grand Forks, we have volume, major customer and make the thing go, and because of that we carry weight on how we want it operated, how run, pricing should be - all the particulars because the major customer - his concern is that this is out in front of us and they haven't had a formal interaction with the policymakers, this group, and wanted to inform committee and get feedback on how they would like him to proceed, know that this is going to come up in March. and that is why he suggested that perhaps some sort of interface with this group so when they appear at the County Commission they have some sense of what the policymakers in Grand Forks are thinking about this. He stated that the Dept. of Health knowing that we are under a crunch will do everything they can to review the documents as quickly as can - will expedite the review but there are some statutory things, hearing dates or public comment dates. There will be no cost to the City but to the people who are developing the landfill. Mr. Feland stated there are myriad of ways that we could partner with them but then we would get certain pricings, and not sure how far we want to go with the group.

Gershman stated that process will be running concurrently with our court case, and if we go to these people, they will have to understand that if they want to invest $200,000 that they could get their approvals in a year and we could win the court case in a year, and we decide where we are going to go and do they want to take that risk or if the County could give them preliminary approval but hold off until the court case but up to them if they want to risk the money, but doesn't know if we want to get involved to make commitments to an independent group knowing that we own land and have a tremendous amount of money invested in that, and how do we handle that.

Mr. Feland stated we want sort of counter weight that we are not stuck with one option, but he thinks they will say they want some sort of commitment from the City that the City will be with them, and also that they want to use the baling facility as part of the operation, and we still have debt service on that; hard part will be the details if we would get involved, if they are going to own it, lease it to the City to operate, lease, etc. Gershman stated those things can be answered in negotiations, but his concern is that if go with an independent and they are going to have to do an EIS - Mr. Feland stated they will have to do a Dept. of Health review which is a functional of an EIS. Gershman stated that if they have all the permits within one year if everything works, and that if everything works for us on the land that we own, how long will that take. Mr. Feland stated that if we win the case, they will appeal to the Supreme Court and that if we got a decision within 6 months and at the end of 2007, another 6 months in the Supreme Court so probably mid-2008; and then we have to go through the Dept. of Health and timeline full of roadblocks, etc.; that we have about $2.5 million invested and own about 760 acres and est. $800.00 per acre or $600,000 and we would have $2 million at risk if walked from that land and that is our cost to do anything else. Mr. Feland stated that we have money to spend on legal, permitting in the Dept. of Health.

Bakken stated the most important thing is what is going to be the best for us long term, the law suit is one issue and so is $2 million but if just throwing good money after bad, not sure on partnering with private entity, would have to be unique arrangement to make him feel comfortable long term and other issue is $2 million we have spent and not sure what spend in legal fees and best case scenario is if win we have $3 million in it and from there start doing a landfill; and that if we do own it, might be good investment long term; and if have one that you could open and use anytime might not be a bad thing but if can get the other one done in a year, might want to look at what the terms might be to know if it is a feasible long term solution and a quicker one; not sure quit one but look at both of them..

Kreun stated he thinks we are going to continue down 3 paths, maybe 4, and know the best option for us is to have our own landfill, and that is why invested so much money and so much time, and that is best option, long term, short term, because of the controlling factor and the ability that we have; are going to have to look at these individuals and will have to tell them upfront that is our best option to have our own landfill, and if landfill appears that it is not going to happen for us and they can make it happen, would be glad to partner up but we are going to have control of that landfill, whether it is theirs or ours, not going to jeopardize our whole city as we are responsible for that garbage and so we would control that landfill because we are going to be the biggest users and make that kind of arrangement and tell them that upfront but if we go down that route they want our baling facility, they want us to be the biggest users and so we are going to control it, and then we also keep looking at that regional situation, and also at dirty composting, but if upfront with those individuals that is our best options.

Gershman excused.

Mr. Feland stated that they are going to be there in March and that the City hasn't agreed to anything, always look at alternatives and if they do get zoning, they may want to visit with the City but looking at that with all the other alternatives.

Kreun stated that if they want this committee to meet with them and have that discussion, can do that. Mr. Feland stated that he would put them on the next agenda in 2 weeks to put a presentation together. Bakken asked how long the landfill would be if we win the lawsuit - 50 years; and Gilby Twp. also 50 years and that they own quite a bit of land around there so could always expand. Bakken stated that if we ended up with both of them, would that be a bad thing, long term and perhaps get more surrounding areas that we might be able to utilize two instead of one, if economically feasible. Mr. Feland stated that it is a one regional landfill - and who knows what 50 years will look like but would be able to move laterally but initial site would be 50 year site with expansion ability, not permit for 50 years but have ability to. Kreun stated that the land composition and soil sampling is same in Gilby Twp as in Turtle River Twp. Mr. Feland stated he will call them and have them come prior to their March meeting to provide a briefing.

Mr. Feland stated he received a letter back from FAA and that we are not part of the 6-mile rule but part of the 5-mile advisory rule, and if look at our ET zone, and was going to prepare to look (moratorium comes off the third week in March and Land Use Plan is scheduled to be completed in the next month) but as another alternative - that we look at our own ET zone and on map showing area that doesn't meet airport compatibility and if look outside the 5-mile rule, that if want to look in Grand Forks areas and should look at our major corridors to the south and the southwest and those corridors are 47th, 62nd and Merrifield Road, those are three corridors to look for a landfill in our ET zone, in north end can't get away from the airport and leaves us to the south and southwest. Kreun stated that during this 4-mile ET discussion is that nothing is going to be off the table, explore all those options and not exclude anything. Mr. Feland stated he would like to explore the ET zone and bring back plans and would coincide around the time the moratorium comes off and would look at potential sites for your review. Mr. Feland stated that the closer you are to the river, the thicker the clay is, harder to work with but then have thicker clay which is good but also higher your ground water table is, and the farther you get away from the river the clays is thinner and more workable because water drains through them but groundwater table is lower, and have things good for landfill, thick clay but then groundwater table is little higher and thinner clay is good but clay not as good. Feland stated they would look at exclusions and look at residential areas, etc., has looked at transportation, number of property owners, geology, surface water issues, ground water and give examination of areas where areas that could be and bring that back in the next month.

Mr. Feland stated final thing on the landfill is that someone had asked about how 2006 was compared to 2005 on recycling; and in 2006 recycling was 1721 tons and last year was 1631 tons, and recycling was up and total landfill MSW tonnage was 93,400 tons and last year 92,400 and in comparing 2005 with 2006, most part our tonnage was up and through the siting process and trying to keep our regional neighbors involved with what we are doing, kept most of our customers, but lost Pennington County which is 8,000 tons; but if look at the 93,000 probably lost about 8,000 of that and did account for in the 2007 budget that we would lose some tonnage and have tried to take that into account for this year's revenue - have kept Mayville, Hillsboro, to Devils Lake are still interested in solutions and want to be kept abreast of new development.

b) Mr. Feland presented the matter of yard waste which they need to plan for - yard waste sites; that at Schroeder they are going to allow us to have yard waste but not during school hours, he presented aerial photo is that have problem in the south end of city - map shows existing site and one at Schroeder encompasses the whole Southend and have everybody from 17th, from 62nd and outside the city limits bringing their grass in, and a lot of people from the other side of Washington bringing grass into this, and overwhelming Schroeder/Kelly School site and what they could do to alleviate some of the issues. The other site he wanted to put back in action on the north end at North 3rd Street and 8th Avenue North but wont' put back until the contractor is out; Schroeder site; and at 47th Ave.S. between Belmont Road and cherry Street, complaints from residents because of location. Proposed site at Ruemmele Road and 40th Avenue South, and 4th option at Adams Drive. Cost some money because of concrete, barriers and fencing. He stated we have to do a better job and when put pump station in should treat it as public works facility and co-locate all residential features. Kreun stated locations on the map that they want to implement and two have been old sites rejuvenated and Ruemmele Road is a new site, and asking approval for those 3. He stated they should start by holding pond or on Adams Drive and start preparing to be ready to be developed. Mr. Feland stated their goal is to think more general view.

c) Mr. Feland stated he has had a meet and greet with the City of East Grand Forks and Crystal Sugar re. wastewater, that Crystal Sugar is doing a $2 to $3 million improvement project but they are overloading their treatment system right now and about 25% overloading their lagoons, and they feel like they are landlocked at American Crystal Sugar and the next big thing they have to do at the plant is mechanically with wastewater system and that is a $30 to $40million fix for them, that they spoke with Mr. Kreun about possibility of working together, and they would like the City to look at if there is a potential, there are concerns about don't want to transfer one problem from one side of the river to the other, and East Grand Forks has some capital improvements that they need in the near and long term, and they did come to the City and wanted to meet and further the conversation but would have to do some study and work and Crystal Sugar at their last meeting thought they would be willing to provide some money towards this study to see how the City is going to interface, and that EGF would put up some money and GF would have some money involved, and concept report of how could it be done, cost, upgrades needed and would have an idea of order of magnitude, large scope activities, but wanted to brief committee and wanted feedback. Benefit to Grand Forks would be when the wastewater treatment plant was built it was built with a lot of extra capacity and we would max. our facility, have additional large customers that could expand our revenue stream, would use up some of our future g4owth and that would be part of the study in looking at what their loadings are and what we would have to do at our plant and make a strategic choice of whether good idea or not, those things would require capital improvements., things we would need to do on the underground, lot of hurdles and they would like it looked at. Bakken stated part of looking at it is to find out your upfront costs but long term payback on upfront costs might be beneficial to our citizenry over long term and worth studying to find that out, maybe put up bigger plant and this would help pay for it and help citizens down the road so don't have to raise the fees quite so high. Mr. Feland stated what they did in the past was build for future capacity and wouldn't do that now, would build it for little bit more than what you need but not build for an asset and then let it decay over the next 20 years because you don't use it.

Kreun stated we have the capacity to do a lot more with that plant than what we have the ability to grow into - we won't grow into that plant for 20 or 30 years at least, and residents and businesses are going to have to pay for that plant and if we can do this with a reasonable capital expenditure and it is a 3-way capital expenditure and we get the cost back through out monthly rates and put that back in there, it is a potential of at lease a revenue stream to pay for that plant so our residents don't have to pay for it for the next 30 years by themselves; Crystal Sugar only be taking the peaks off of what they have, we cannot have the capacity to take their whole plant, but they run in peaks and what they can't process they dump into the lagoons and don't have ability to process it back again before the thaw comes in the spring and that is where smell comes from, and if we can take their peaks and run it through the normal process, we will make it so we don't get any smell but hopefully take the smell away from them because the material will already be processed before spring comes along. East Grand Forks has their lagoons that have to be completely rebuilt or moved, they are building a higher end residential area a quarter of a mile away from their lagoons and have a real incentive to look at this as well. We could take their complete processing and bring it over here and still have room for growth at this point in time at least by our preliminary information. Crystal Sugar has a direct line to the river, about a 5 or 6 ft. pipe and could reline that pipe with a 3 or 4 ft and be able to get it to the river without tearing up EGF, our problem is we would have to have a redundant line and could potentially take some of what we have and hook it to RDO but wouldn't be able to take it all so would have to build a redundant line with a lift station to our facility, but that would be part of the cost that we would incorporate and off-set. Mr. Feland stated they had an initial conversation and he wanted to make sure committee aware, and if it is worth looking at, and that they will look at that and will be another thing that will come back and he will report back to Crystal Sugar and East Grand Forks.

c.1) Mr. Feland stated they are working on master planning and Howard is helping them draft the drought water conservation ordinance that will come back to committee within the next month or so, and are working on flows and will come back as an asset management and what he wants to bring back to this committee is an asset management examination of where both systems - wastewater and water system, and talked a lot about the water treatment plant, here is the facility and here's what we can do with the facility over the next 5 years, 10 year picture or 20 year picture, and will bring back over the next several months, and that they are continuing to work on those things, and document you will see is that they really tried to look at projects and tried to prioritize because asset management basically is that you don't have enough money and try to maintain what you have, and those are the documents that are going to come back. As part of the master planning and the Herald reporter asked these questions and answers provided, and explained some of the answers. First question is what is water usage now and we have a 16 mgd plant and all water treatment plants are built for peaks, that during summer need to be making as much water within reason during peak times. Our average day is about 8 mgd and our peaking factor is not very high and about 0.4 is for AFB and 2.0 mgd for Simplot, and that last summer Simplot was up to 3 mgd during peak production and AFB was 1.5 mgd at peak, and our peak day dame in late June and start of the summer was pretty dry and we were at a 14 mgd, and didn't have UND at full session and can see that we are pushing our plant capacity at its peak, that lot of people in Grand Forks don't water their lawns because depend on rain and don't want to spend a lot of money on water. We have different water pattern that you have in western ND.

He stated next question is project water usage in 2050 and as part of Red River Valley Water Needs Assessment Project is that we are looking at a planning horizon to 2050, and the Bureau of Reclamation is looking at this project as though we are going to put one pipe in the ground and it is going to get us to forever, and as part of the planning the questions come up of what are we planning for Grand Forks and there are two formulas and both of the formulas have 105.5 gpcd (gallons per capita per day) and that includes water conservation, drought mitigation, that people are using less water. We have two population parameters, 63,000 population and an 83,000 population - that the 63,000 pop. that number comes from Northwest Economics and their presumption on that parameter is that the baby boomers are going to start dying off and they are a huge generation, and population is going to start to slow down unless we have some sort of net migration, people start moving from the coast because there are bad things that are happening and things can't predict could happen. The 83,000 pop. comes from historic periods of how we have grown, grown from .9 to 1.2 and now think we are about 53,000 people and that means we have been growing at 1.2% over last few years, and question comes in next 50 years of how we're going to grow, because pop. does have an effect on what they are asking for - and are trying to determine what they would ask for from the project and we have an intake and draw water from both the Red Lake River and Red River, the model assume under a drought condition that the Red Lake River is not a secondary source, that is dry too, and that is the assumption you have to assume; and for most days we take about 75% of our water from the Red Lake River from MN because it is a better quality water; that is where we get the 10 to 13 CFS and that is the number we have gone with in the planning purposes and that translates to 6.7 to 8.8 mgd and those are in 2050 and can see that we are having to conserve water. The second number is a 17.9 cfs which is about 11.6 mgd and that is where the industrial component and the 17.9 has Simplot contained within that number that has the AFB contained within that number and has future industry and about 9.2 of that industrial component relates to future industry that may come from now to 2050, that the Bureau of Reclamation hired NDSU to provide a study about what the future industry is going to be in the Valley and they attributed to the northern Valley, Grand Forks County, that would be the number of the industrial. and what they mean by biodiesel plants, ethanol plants, things they think could be in the northern Valley over the next 50 year planning horizon and that is the number that is going to apply to the Grand Forks area (they are calling it the Grand Forks area) so when they say 17.9 cft. we are 11.6 mgd and that is for Grand Forks County area. The final point is that we don't know how the financing is going to be worked out, they are working on the models of how this is going to distribute it, currently the models looked at the industrial component would be paid 75% by the State and 25% by whatever locality wanted the industrial capacity, and they looked at more of a cost share for the domestic on the local side, but this is all contingent on what the federal government is going to do, what the State government is going to fund and whether the locals can pay, and that is how he answered questions 4 and 5.is that the City hasn't committed, it is a conceptual stage and we don't know the final numbers and whatever else, that we haven't committed but are a part of the process and haven't committed because we don't have good enough information for which the policy makers can make a decision.
He noted in answer to a question by Bakken that for the AFB they are assuming current capacity, and if they got larger, that would come out of the future industrial component, and if the Base expanded in the next 50 years that would come out of our future industrial component; and Simplot has doubled so gained it all back with Simplot what we lost from the AFB.

d) Mr. Feland stated they wanted to look at expanding some services and wanted to look at where we are at - he thanked Nicole, Dave Hampsten, Earl Haugen and Roger Foster who did all the work and effort.

Bus usage has increased and has gone up 6.5% and our costs have gone up a little under 2.9%; Dial a Ride usage has gone down since they switched, our senior rider has gone up a little bit and our costs have gone down a lot when we made combined service. They changed from a subsidized to a per trip, they got out the tax rate, they got rid of the tripper and combined service and have gone to smaller buses in response to what people really wanted. He noted some performance indicators and can see cost for a bus ride - in 2005 was $5.67 and is $5.84 today, DAR is $6.12 pre ride and now $5.36 and did add some of the overhead costs into this number and that is why it went from 20 to 12 and have 51% and other side 49% but about a 50% reduction and can see $8.90 and then $4.35 and probably could have balanced the overhead costs and taken a portion of the overhead costs and maybe percentage would have been different.

He stated they looked at the system wide costs and in 2005 and in 2006 can see - that in EGF have a metro system and they pay us to have a bus over there, we administer the program and is a model where we can work together on things with EGF - This is a contract and they pay for their service (costs) 10% of revenue, federal government pays 40% and have operating funds and couldn't run system without federal government, and

On DAR we tell contractor to keep the fare, fare is $2.50 (was $3.00); Sr. Rider was $1.00 and made that $2.50 - equalized them, and of the subsidized portion, remaining cost of the ride, the federal government pays 52% and locals pay 44%.