Committee Minutes

Minutes of the Grand Forks City Council/Service/Safety
Standby Committee - Tuesday, April 3, 2007 - 4:00 p.m.

The city council of the city of Grand Forks sitting as the Service/Safety Standby Committee met in Room A101 of City Hall on Tuesday, April 3, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. Present at roll call were Council Members Kreun, chair; Bakken, and ex-officio member Gershman; absent: McNamara.

Others present included: Todd Feland, Hazel Fetters-Sletten, LeahRae Wasvik, Wayne Gerszewski, Roger Foster, Al Grasser, John Thompson, Earl Haugen.

1. Landfill update.
Todd Feland, public works director, reported they were at District Court on March 1 and that Judge Medd stated he would try to make decision within 30 days re. their case, and hopefully sometime in April will get a decision from District Court. He stated they are working on budgets, 2008 and projecting out what 2009 looks like. He stated he is planning to bring back potential sites within ET area at first meeting in May. He stated they were part of study of Red River Valley & Lake Region Solid Waste Study and they looked at incinerator in Grand Forks which is 200 tons per day and 1,000 tons per day which would be for entire region; that they looked at a large regional landfill in Fargo/Moorhead and a landfill in the Grand Forks area. He stated that figures on incinerator options includes associated landfill next to incinerator, and confirms that a nearby landfill is most feasible option that we have which is $39.50 to $49.50 option. He stated since the first phase of the feasibility study is complete and we paid $5,000 of the $60,000 for the study, and they are at the point where they want to do Phase II and look at sites in the Fargo/Moorhead area and the question they are going to have, is do we want to continue to participate and his thought is that we should participate if a reasonable amount of money and we can get something from it, doesn't know what the dollar amounts are going to be but they wanted to get a feeling from each city or county.

Gershman stated a more important question would be timing of the regional landfill (10 years) and what do we do in the meantime and if we were to pay extra costs for 10 years to ship it somewhere while they build it. Feland stated they would continue with what they are doing, and the most feasible option is the Grand Forks area and we are not going to get anything out of this effort in Fargo/Moorhead and would recommend not investing very much into it, if nominal fee might want to be member, have to weigh costs. Kreun stated we want to keep exploring all options but don't want to put a lot of money in one that isn't feasible for us, but look at cost and if questionable, bring back and if minor, go ahead.

Feland stated the Red River Valley Regional Landfill and the most significant thing is that the site is 3 miles east of Gilby, 3 miles west of Manvel and 7 miles north of Grand Forks Air Force Base and that is the one want to be most cautious of because of our significant buffer area that we have sold the Air Force on with future missions and that is the most significant issue. RRVRL is seeking recommendation from the Air Force on what they think is an appropriate buffer. Gershman stated there may be an opportunity for US training in doing that and that could be pretty significant for us having that air space. Feland stated there are some concerns there and could become an issue that could challenge that site, and should be aware of that.

Feland stated at the beginning of the year they lost Pennington County of about 8,000 tons and got a call from the city administrator of City of Devils Lake and they have chosen to go to Sawyer, which is waste management landfill, and have lost total of 13,000 tons of solid waste between the two, and that he will have another regional meeting in May with remaining customers so can finalize what put into 2008 and 2009 projections. He noted that 13,000 tons is about $4 to $500,000/year and his concern is looking at revenue projections because last year $2.7 million in outside landfill revenue and projecting $2 million this year and has to look at the expense side, and will continue working on issues. Feland stated our total solid waste in landfill tonnage in 2006 was about 93,000 tons and in 2008 will be about 67,000 tons. He stated the problem with building a landfill there are certain upfront costs that you will have no matter what is built.

Kreun stated one of the things we want to take into consideration is if customers go somewhere else and we happen to become regional landfill, there will be different fees, that not go through the cost and those that stayed with us paid that cost and the ones that left want to come back get the benefit of the work that has been put into it, is something we have to consider. Feland stated that next month they will come back with additional information and have a decision by then from District Court and to keep in mind that no landfill alternative is easy Kreun stated that the options they have been exploring for the past several years, thinks we will be able to develop an option rather than just hauling to Sawyer, and thinks better in the end than what people anticipate but we have 3 or 4 different options that could possibly work and would be cheaper than hauling to Sawyer or Gwinner.- that we're looking at dirty composting, regional portion of it, and looking at different alternatives for landfills and we have just as good a chance of winning the lawsuit as losing it - that we will keep all our options open and continue to look.

2. Public Transit update.
Feland stated they have been working on this and have some concepts to show committee - financials and how to serve Industrial Park and southwest area of the city. The State funding plan that would have doubled our State funding from $134,000 to $260,000 was defeated in the House. He stated they have added in as far as financial plan one route that would serve the Industrial Park and in the south and southwest part of the city, have not added early Saturday service. He noted that our revenues are over our expenses over the 3-year term, and New Freedoms, started with 85 which will help pay for half of the new route, and backed that down to 60 assuming that Bismarck would get into the action and take percentage and maybe Fargo, that cash carryover is $257 and projects up to $640 and over term it is revenues over expenses.

Roger Foster stated what saw from '05 to '06 was a shift from the dial-a-ride to the senior riders and senior riders became more popular, plus increases in that program are based on the CPI and expect that is going to continue each year.

Feland stated looking at financial we should be able to sustain a new route but have not included additional hours of service, starting Saturday service at 6:00-6:30 a.m. rather than 10:00 a.m. It was noted that the plants are running 7 days week and 24 hours. He stated he, Roger and MPO met with Industrial Park and had major employers (Cirrus, Glasfiber, Concrete Inc., Stevens Mattress, Amazon.com) provided verbal input and they are very interested in bus service and willing to help out, they stated that 10 to 20% of workforce are unable to drive to work, and are aware of tax incentives they can have for their employees who use public transit. Roger Foster stated that incentive was passed this year and that a person can collect up to $112.00/month and use that for public transportation purposes and if an employee collects so that means a business can collect.

Feland stated major challenge is Industrial Park and trying to serve the southwest, new medical complex all the way to the south end of Grand Forks, including 42nd Avenue to the Alerus Center and new hotel, but the Industrial Park is a separate customer because most of the shifts start at 6:00 or 7:00 a.m., whereas bus service starts around 7:00 and need to be inventive and try to find out how we can serve them at the same time we are serving the rest of the city; peak time in Industrial park is 7:00 a.m. and get them home at 3:00 p.m. He stated what comes out might not be standard service but have something that meets their needs; proposed starting date is June 1 and are trying to time the opening of the hotel complex and Aurora medical complex with the needs at the Industrial Park.

Feland stated the MPO is helping them study and trying to look at best routes and data. He stated there is a lot of interest in medical park; and all routes are going to require one additional route and est. a route costs $160-170,000.00, now have route 8 & 9 which serves the westerly part of the city that connects it to the main routes and one thought is to look at route 8/9 to see how can expand that, right now half hour in the north end and other half on the south end and may need a route on the south and a route on the north. The other is having a new route called 12/13 where on the north half would run a half hour route and on the south end serving all the way down to Aurora Medical Park and that would be south half. He stated the new express bus route to serve the Industrial Park, a route stating at Metro Transit Center going out to the Industrial Park so looking at how to serve them when they start their shifts in the mornings and that is another concept they are looking at. Route 1 serves basically the southeast part of the city and how that could interim with the Aurora Medical Park, and also looking at car pool/park and ride, shuttle service and lot of these park and ride, shuttle service concepts specifically deal with how to serve the Industrial Park, out there at peak times, early in the morning, mid-afternoon and late afternoon, maybe more like a tripper route and workers that they are serving and not running a bus when nobody is there but serve a peak bus and those are other things they are trying to study.

He stated they are talking joint use of Metro Transit Center with Jefferson Lines, that they will probably bring that back at some point in the future with a draft agreement, Howard Swanson is currently reviewing draft example, probably June 1, 2007. Study and come back with draft and working on that issue with the routes.

3. Water Tower update.
Feland reported they are going to rehab the Menard's water tower which has the sunflake Grand Forks logo and now is the opportune time to make change; have estimated costs of logos - a simple one-color with smiley face is $3500 to $4,000; 2 color design with lettering $6500 to $7800; skyline concept with Alerus Center, Canad Inns, Engelstad Arena and some of the downtown area and if do it one side as you drive into Grand Forks, $9,000 to $10,000 but if do it all the way around the tower, $21,000 to $25,000; multi colored option, $29,000 to $35,000. He stated their question is whether they want to put a logo on the tower and wanted idea of which concept they liked that staff could bring back.

There was some discussion that the Smiley face originated in Grand Forks - and in 1984 the sunflake logo was developed (committee stated they did not like the sunflake logo). Committee suggested doing the Smiley face first on the Purpur tower with bow tie in another color, cost $3500 to $4200; and do not want the sunflake for the Menard's tower. Hazel Sletten stated timeline and would like to be working on this in August or September at the latest. Feland stated that as long as have concept bid - do bow tie color - on Purpur tower and multi-color on the Menards tower.

Feland stated they are going to do the north tower 2 years from now. It was noted the UND didn't pay for putting their logo on the water tower - Grasser stated that was part of trade for continuing easement for the tower.

Feland stated they asked for cost estimates on what to do with the old Smiley tower, appearance code is $147,00 to $168,000 and complete exterior removal and replacement is the $340,000 and general is $75,000 to $78,000 and their recommendation is to receive and file the cost estimates and delay, continue to examine it, maintain it and come back later. He also noted that if they ever redo underpass, then will know - leave it. It was suggested to repaint face and bow tie and no other surface painting, as that will cost $3500.00. Feland stated they could address this is 2009 to see where they are at; and noted that Menards tower is being rehabbed this year and put multi-color on that and put Smiley figure on the Purpur Arena tower, and leave current Smiley for now and revisit that in 2009.

Christensen suggested that they should design theme of how we are going to do our water towers in town, have 6 towers in town. It was suggested that logo be different by area of town they are in. Kreun asked that staff look at all the water towers, put all 6 together to see what kind of theme or logo to put on them. Grasser stated they looked at light towers number of years back, problem is because dealing with curved surface. It was also suggested selling space for titles for money - sell name (i.e., Nike, Coke) and look at that.

4. Special assessment district for Sunbeam mill and overlay.
Al Grasser, city engineer, stated they came back to committee for further discussion on refining what kind of costs or how handle distribution of benefit questions; that they created a draft engineer's report on the project showing a breakdown of costs. He stated since they last discussed this they went back and found some old plans for the Sunbeam mill and overlay in the mid-90's and along with that project, there is a mill and overlay and some curb and gutter repair. There are places where curb has settlement, some around fire hydrants and some areas around the sidewalks where ponding water, that if take care of those problems, would be talking about a reconstruction project - that they broke those costs out for this meeting - construction cost estimate for mill and overlay, $400,000, construction cost for curb and gutter replacement portion, $71,000; and total cost $471,000, which is higher than original numbers. One of the questions they have is, do they go back strictly to the mill and overlay, only the overlay portion but if can control the curb and gutter, there are some benefits of fixing some of that up while doing that work.

He said danger is going to be if have water ponding in the driveway and have to redo curb and gutter, have to take out the driveway approach and end up doing the driveway and driveway approach and curb and gutter can be $5,000 - $7,000 per property. It was stated that they aren't going to take out people's driveway; and as long as solid on that, suggesting that we pick up some of that curb and gutter work, but budget wise have to constraint that to the $71,000 - and that creates a construction project of $471,000, took all the streets in Sunbeam that qualified as haul roads which is most of them, costs of seal coats is est. at $45,000, putting that in as a total project cost, and getting credit from the flood protection project and reduce project cost to $426,000 and standard 50% City share of mill and overlay rehab., $213,000, which would leave assessment construction cost of $213,000. He stated they are not including some of the streets at the southerly end (Grassy Hills, part of Loamy Hills, etc.) as those are concrete and will be picking those streets up under concrete panel replacement which doesn't have an assessment district boundary and that is why those streets are not included in this district. Grasser stated in case there were some cracked panels, they will come back and pick them up and that is free of charge because it is part of the CPI.

Christensen stated what he would like the committee to consider is area along Grassy Hills, that they pick up Sloping Lanes - he stated he didn't know how many more of those streets were hammered, they didn't drive much down Inland Hills. Grasser stated that once they get past Lot 31 and that on Northridge Hills most of that cement, etc. brought in the backside, only one stretch along Grassy Hills. Christensen stated that if they could pick up area on Grassy Hills and think about Northridge Hills because that was used a lot, but questioned Circle Hills - treating like those along Olson Drive and along the dike. Grasser stated that on Olson Drive and Elmwood talked about not assessing that area, all seal coat and all the CPR is free on any of those types of projects. He stated would caution to do what they are suggesting, gerrymander and take out streets and would like committee to give boundary.

It was noted that benefits would be determined by the Special Assessment Commission.

The committee recommended that Flood Protection Betterment Funds be used to pay for 50% of the cost to mill and overlay a portion of Northridge Hills Court and 75% of the cost to mill and overlay a portion of Grassy Hills Lane. The Committee also suggested that the typical 27% mark-up costs be reduced (take out administrative and engineering costs) and to pay only the real costs (advertising, legals, interim financing). The City, per its policy, will pay a 50% share of the remaining project construction costs utilizing Flood Protection Betterment Funds as a funding source.

5. Floodplain revisions in areas within city limits but outside the flood protection
boundaries._________________________________________________________
Mr. Grasser presented boundaries and reviewed with committee; time line - issue LMR in next couple weeks - 90 days after - publication approval notice and effective date in August, and area outside comes in with County remapping in '07 or '08. Notify committee that people caught up in that and if City wanted to do.

Christensen asked what cost is - Grasser stated $1,000 to $1,500 for individual lot. Christensen stated let us do that by letter, notify and contact CPS. Grasser stated would send -e-mail to city council on LMR

6. Pedestrian bridge agreements with EGF.
It was noted that the city council acted on that and committee to meet with East Grand Forks. Kreun stated that either Bakken or McNamara meet in ad hoc committee. Kreun stated that Bakken or Gershman meet with EGF, meeting set for April 12 at 3:30 p.m. here.

7. Review of Federal Aid Urban Funds allocated to Grand Forks.
Grasser presented info. re. Grand Forks' share of urban pot, under $2.5 million, have that amount coming in and may change with next Highway Bill and Program - need $800 to $900,000 to recognize budget process and need another $1 to $200,000 for regular program needs, about $1 million to meet matches, vary some project to project.

Reg. 90% State and 10% City, DeMers Avenue Skyway, State fixes and ask us to take over and trying to get concept on 42nd Avenue underpass, don't have money to build - $15 to $16 million, running behind on keeping up on that because of costs of steel.

Christensen stated getting behind on repairing streets, in every ward - 3rd, 4th and 5th wards.
Grasser stated have $200,000 to take care of overlays and cost match gen. 50% rehab and 80% want to make sure match. Kreun stated that engineering department has list of streets that need repair, and do as much every year to get caught up, Bakken do as soon as possible, because costs continue to increase.

The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

Alice Fontaine, City Clerk