City of Grand Forks - Print Friendly Form

Council Minutes

17419
January 16, 2001

PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
January 16, 2001

The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in its regular session in the council chambers in City Hall on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 at the hour of 7:30 o’clock p.m. with President Gershman presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim (on telephone system), Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 13; absent: Council Member Babinchak - 1. Mayor Brown was also on the telephone system.

President Gershman announced that anyone wishing to speak to any item may do so by being recognized prior to a vote being taken on the matter.

President Gershman welcomed three students from history class as Schroeder Middle School; and 15 or 20 students from the media writing class at UND.

President Gershman congratulated all those involved with First Night, that it was a fabulous event and had many discussions about having major events in Grand Forks, making them something of substance and making them significant, and read excerpt from the USA Today on Grand Forks. He stated that when we do things of significance like that type of event we have opportunity to get national attention.

APPROVE PLAT OF BIRKHOLZ’S 7TH ADDITION

The Planning and Zoning Commission reported having considered the matter of request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Phoenix Properties, a North Dakota Partnership, for preliminary approval of a plat of Birkholz’s 7th Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, including a variance to Subdivision Regulations Section 18-0907 (2)(L) 3 relating to access to arterial streets, being a part of the N ½ of the NW ¼ of Section 17, Township 151 North of Range 50 West of the 5th Principal Meridian (located south of 17th Avenue South between South 36th Street and South 42nd Street), and recommended to give preliminary approval of the plat of Birkholz 7th Addition with a variance to the subdivision regulations to permit two (2) access points to Lot 1 and one (1) access point to Lot 2.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Martinson that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN, AMENDING SECTION 18-0802, ELEMENTS OF THE
CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED, PERTAINING TO THE
GRAND FORKS-EAST GRAND FORKS 2022 TRANSPORTA-
TION PLAN UPDATE, 1999 BIKEWAY AND PEDESTRIAN
ELEMENTS; 2000 TRANSIT ELEMENT, AND 2000 STREET
AND HIGHWAY ELEMENT

The Planning and Zoning Commission reported having considered the matter of request for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, amending article 8, Comprehensive Plan, Section 18-0802, pertaining to the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks 2022 Transportation Plan Update, (1999 Bikeway and Pedestrian Element, 2000 Transit Element; and Year 2000 Street and Highway Element), together with al maps, information and data contained therein, and recommended to give preliminary approval to the ordinance.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Martinson to approve the recommendation for preliminary approval of an ordinance and plan text to amend the Metropolitan Transportation Plan by adding the Metropolitan Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Comprehensive Plan as an element of the plan. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

Council Member Bakken introduced an ordinance entitled “An ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan, amending Chapter XVIII, Article 8. Comprehensive Plan; Section 18-0802, Elements of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, pertaining to the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks 2022 Transportation Plan Update, 1999 Bikeway and Pedestrian Elements; 2000 Transit Element, and 2000 Street and Highway Element”, which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.

APPROVE EXTENSION OF CONTRACT FOR PARA-
TRANSIT SERVICES BY GRAND FORKS TAXI

The Public Transportation Committee reported having considered the extension of contract for paratransit services by Grand Forks Taxi, and recommended approving the one-year extension contract for paratransit services for Grand Forks Taxi.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Martinson that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson, Gershman - 13; voting “nay”: none. President Gershman declared the motion carried.

APPROVE EXTENSION OF CONTRACT FOR PARA-
TRANSIT SERVICES BY NODAK RADIO CAB COMPANY

The Public Transportation Committee reported having considered the extension of contract for paratransit services by Nodak Radio Cab Company, and recommended approving the one-year extension contract for paratransit services for Nodak Radio Cab Company.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Martinson that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson, Gershman - 13; voting “nay”: none. President Gershman declared the motion carried.

APPROVE EXTENSION OF CONTRACT WITH EAST
GRAND FORKS FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICE

The Public Transportation Committee reported having considered the extension of service contract with East Grand Forks for transportation service, and recommended approval of extension of contract with East Grand Forks subject to city attorney approval.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Martinson that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson, Gershman - 13; voting “nay”: none. President Gershman declared the motion carried.

APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT

A request for budget amendment for Local Health Services in the amount of $3,476, new 2001 revenue, was presented and read. It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Martinson that this budget amendment be and is hereby approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT FOR
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR PROJECT NO. 4717,
NORTHEND STORM SEWER ANALYSIS

Committee No. 3, Public Service, reported having considered Amendment No. 1 to agreement for engineering services with Advanced Engineering (AE) for Project No. 4717, northend storm sewer analysis, and recommended to approve Amendment No. 1 with Advanced Engineering for additional services in the amount of $4,408.00.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Martinson that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson, Gershman - 13; voting “nay”: none. President Gershman declared the motion carried.

APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 FOR PROJECT NOS.
4814 AND 4816, 2000 FORCEMAIN AND WATERMAIN

Committee No. 3, Public Service, reported having considered Change Order No. 4, 2000 forcemain and watermain, City Projects Nos. 4814 and 4816, and recommended to approve Change Order No. 4 for Projects Nos. 4814 and 4816, 2000 forcemain and watermain relocations with Industrial Contract Services, Inc. in the amount of $20,578.00.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Martinson that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson, Gershman - 13; voting “nay”: none. President Gershman declared the motion carried.

APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT

A request for budget amendment for City Hall in the amount of $40,000 for increased costs of heating and electricity was presented and read. It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Martinson that this budget amendment be and is hereby approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

APPROVE COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS

President Gershman announced the mayor’s appointments to the following committees: Mayor’s Health & Human Services Cabinet: Dr. John Clayburgh; Grand Forks Public Library Board: C.T. Marhula to fill the unexpired term ending July 1, 2003, and James D. Hovey to fill the unexpired term ending July 1, 2001; Mechanical Board: Terrence Grundysen for a three-year term; Gregg Ehreth for a three-year term expiring December 31, 2003.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Martinson that these appointments be and are hereby approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

RECEIVE PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL CDBG COST
MATRIX BUDGET TRANSFERS

The proposed supplemental CDBG cost matrix budget transfers detailing proposed budget transfers for projects remaining in CDBG funding, deadline for expenditure of the CDBG Supplemental Grant Funds is February 25, 2001, was presented for information and review.

APPROVE PROPOSALS FOR SALE AND REHABILITATION
OF HISTORIC HOUSES AT 21 SEWARD AVENUE AND 1601
LEWIS BOULEVARD

Committee No. 4, Urban Development, reported having considered the request for proposals for sale and rehabilitation of historic homes at 21 Seward Avenue and 1601 Lewis Boulevard, and recommended to accept the proposal in the amount of $43,000 from Diane Knauf for 1601 Lewis Boulevard and to accept the proposal in the amount of $25,000 from Darin Mitchel for 21 Seward.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Martinson that this recommendation be and is hereby approved and to approve proposals and to proceed with purchase agreements. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson, Gershman - 13; voting “nay”: none. President Gershman declared the motion carried.

RE-ISSUE RFP FOR HOFFMAN BUILDING IN CONJUNCTION
WITH AN RFP FOR THE BOOM TOWN BUILDING IN
FEBRUARY 2001

Committee No. 4, Urban Development, reported having considered the sale and redevelopment of 307-11 Kittson, the “Hoffman Building”, and recommended to reject the proposals from SF Properties and Concern and re-issue the RFP for the Hoffman Building in conjunction with an RFP for the Boom Town Building in February 2001 (after Renaissance Zone approval).

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Martinson that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

MATTER OF SALE OF SURPLUS HOMES

Committee No. 4, Urban Development, reported having considered the matter of sale of surplus homes, and recommended to declare all the homes discussed above surplus; to sell the following homes immediately: 112 and 115 Grassy Hills Lane and 76 Sloping Hills Cove; to provide a 60-day notice of Intent to Sell to the renters of 4 Inland Court and 105 and 109 Reeves Court and to proceed with the sale after the notice period; and to delay the sale of 108 Grassy Hills Lane until the tenants (previous owner) vacate in approximately October of 2001.
It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Martinson that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

APPROVE 2002 TO 2006 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM (CIP) AND AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF
CIP DOCUMENT INCLUDING DEPARTMENTAL NARRATIVES
AND SUPPORTING TABLES AND CHARTS

The Capital Improvements Committee reported having considered the matter of approval of Capital Improvements Program for 2002 to 2006, and recommended final approval of the 2002 to 2006 Capital Improvements Program and authorization to prepare the Capital Improvements Program document including departmental narratives and supporting tables and charts.

It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Kreun that this recommendation be and is hereby approved.

Council Member Burke stated that in the CIP for Public Works Department, Table 15, they discussed the betterment projects and that the Greenway Development in the year 2003, Grand Forks nature area, which includes $400,000 of dike funding and is local betterment funding, and thought they had moved that at the end of the process along with the amphitheater.

Council Member Burke moved to extend that to the year 2006, seconded by Council Member Christensen.

Council Member Bakken stated they were intending to leave it in at this time but bring it back later as they wanted to get public input before putting it too far back; and that there is another CIP meeting on January 22 that could change this document.

Council Member Lunak asked if they could find out how much of the CIP for 4 or 5 years will go to the taxpayer for utility funds, sanitation funds, etc. The city auditor stated they will be receiving a report on utility funds and what the impact of all of the CIP is on the rates; that the CIP for 2002 and 2006 are projections subject to change as they move from budget year to budget year, and only firm numbers that are in this are the 2001 numbers and these are basically used as planning numbers; that the council has the right as they move from year to year to move items further out or delete them. He stated that generally utility rates are raised subject to the budget that the council has approved, and council would have the opportunity to review any potential rate increases.

Council Member Brooks stated in essence what we are doing is establishing a budget figure for 2002 subject to final review of the annual budget; that we have started the process for 2002 and would like to see us in the budget process we’ve started to discuss some of this and that this is part of the overall budget process for 2002, that we can move this back and forth but also aware that in the past we have approved the CIP and then when question is raised later, that it was already approved, and thinks this has to be incorporated into our total budget process and moved to table this matter, Council Member Lunak seconded the motion.

The city auditor stated that as they come forward with the full budget presentation, they try to work off some idea of what you are looking at as CIP program so they can also look at the operating costs and give council the full impact of what’s involved in the rates; this is simply a preliminary document as a planning tool to look at the capital improvements that may occur over the next 5 years so that they can give council better numbers and more detailed numbers as to where they are going and by council approving this evening does not lock these numbers into position.

Upon call for the question on the motion to table this matter and upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Bjerke, Stevens, Lunak, Brooks - 4; voting “nay”: Council Members Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 9. President Gershman declared the motion failed.

Council Member Burke stated that if we have projects in the CIP the staff works on them as if that’s where we are heading and took issue with the promotion of some of the features of the greenway, including the nature area and the amphitheater for which funding was very soft and staff was talking about these things as if they were a final part of the project and when committee asked how to soften that up, they were told that if they don’t want the staff to work on it, take it out of the CIP or move it to the end and that’s what they are doing here; and would like to see the $400,000 of local betterment funds put to the end where they are more certain of the finances in the community and what the needs are for the betterment funds along the way, can discuss it then. He stated that his understanding of the nature area is that it won’t take a lot of additional engineering in the relative phase of the project, it’s a matter of just having the land there that would be used for it and what can be done in 2003 can be done in 2006.
Charlie Grotte, assistant city engineer, stated that part of the reason they suggested not moving that to 2006 is because it would be done in conjunction with what the Corps of Engineers would be doing with their recreational facility as part of the project, that by moving it to 2006 you would concur additional expense, that this amount of money would be actually an educational type facility, an outdoor learning type environment, and what they had envisioned would be to build that in conjunction with the restrooms and parking lots that the Corps of Engineers would be building, and by moving it to 2006 would split things up and cost more money; he encouraged council to keep it at 2003 as they intend to get the public input and bring it back, not designing it but just trying to decide what it is the community wants and how to go forward.

Upon call for the question on the floor and upon voice vote, the motion failed.

Council Member Bjerke stated that he wished to make sure that everyone is aware knows that we’re buying some Senior Citizens buses, and didn’t think when took over the Senior bus plan that we were going to be buying vehicles, $30,000 to $60,000. He also stated that in 2002 CIP includes intersection improvements/special event signage Columbia Road/10th Avenue North and Columbia Road/Gateway Drive, private funding/UND and Highway Users Funds, and questioned how much UND is putting forth and how much the Highway Users Fund is putting forth on those two projects. Mr. Grasser, acting city engineer, stated that when put that together we were still unsure of relationship between UND and Engelstad Arena, that most of those items are associated with the Arena operation and traffic control but haven’t had a chance to negotiate those out yet. Council Member Bjerke stated he wanted to remind everybody that we did put $1.6 million of CDBG money into that project already.

There was some discussion relative to the grade separation at DeMers and 42nd Street (underpass) and funding. Mr. Grasser stated that in 1998 the DOT made an offer to the City that they would contribute about $3 million of Regional Funds to the project with remaining funds to come from our Urban funds and local funding, however the caveat to access that money the City would have had to accept responsibilities for operation and maintenance of DeMers Avenue from somewhere near the Interstate to and including the downtown overpass; there were a lot of things the council was considering and took a while for the decision making to occur and in the process the DOT had to reallocate those funds. Council Member Klave stated that the council made the decision whether to accept it under the DOT’s terms and DOT reallocated the money.

There were some questions relative to the greenway concept, and how much we’re going to spend on the greenway. Mr. Grotte stated that he understands we cannot use Transportation Enhancement Funds to match with the Corps money, that they came up with recreation features with funds to be determined because the Corps in the process of redoing their cost estimates and that’s where the trails fall into the plan and that’s where the Corps monies will be and the City’s 50-50 match for those recreational features.

Council Member Bjerke questioned matter of bikeway on North 55th Street, which is a new street, very little traffic and ready to put a potential for a bikeway on there, that he thought because of the dike funding were going to have some fiscal restraint as a council - sees no fiscal restraint and attempt not to do some things.

Upon call for the question on the original motion, approval of the CIP program for 2002 to 2006, and upon voice vote, the motion carried 10 votes affirmative, Council Members Brooks, Bjerke and Lunak voting against the motion.

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN, PERTAINING TO THE GRAND FORKS-EAST GRAND
FORKS 2022 TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE, 1999 BIKEWAY
AND PEDESTRIAN ELEMENTS, 2000 TRANSIT ELEMENT,
2000 STREET AND HIGHWAY ELEMENT AND 2000 METRO-
POLITAN INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENT

The Planning and Zoning Commission reported having considered the request from the Grand Forks Planning and Zoning Commission for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, amending article 8, Comprehensive Plan, Section 18-0802, pertaining to the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks 2022 Transportation Plan Update, (1999 Bikeway and Pedestrian Elements, 2000 Transit Element, Year 2000 Street and Highway Element and 2000 Metropolitan Intelligent Transportation Systems comprehensive Plan Element), together with all maps, information and data contained therein, and recommended to give preliminary approval to the ordinance.

It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Klave that this recommendation be and is hereby approved to give preliminary approval of an ordinance and plan text amending the Bikeway Element of the Transportation Plan incorporating a site evaluation for non-motorized bridge locations. Upon voice vote, the motion carried.

Council Member Bakken introduced an ordinance entitled “An ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan, amending Chapter XVIII, Article 8, Comprehensive Plan; Section 18-0802, Elements of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, pertaining to the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks 2022 Transportation Plan Update, (1999 Bikeway and Pedestrian Elements; 2000 Transit Element, 2000 Street and Highway Element and 2000 Metropolitan Intelligent Transportation Systems Comprehensive Plan Element)”, which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.

APPROVE CONTRACT FOR BUS SERVICES WITH UND
FOR FY 2001

The Public Transportation Committee reported having considered the UND contract for FY 2001 for bus services, and recommended to approve the FY 2001 contract with the University of North Dakota.

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Bakken that this recommendation be and is hereby approved.

Council Member Glassheim stated it was his understanding that during the discussions on this contract, the Student Senate decided to delete faculty and staff from those eligible to receive the subsidy, and was concerned about removing staff, that it is their prerogative and not suggesting that the City subsidize that but would like to request staff to meet with UND administration and ask about the bus subsidy for UND staff, many of them are at the bottom of the financial ladder, some are former Grafton School people.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that Student Government President, Berly Nelson, was at the meetings and had extensive discussions at the Student Senate, that because it’s the students money they will have reduced rates but they don’t want to use student money to pay for faculty bus subsidy.

Upon call for the question and upon roll call vote the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson, Gershman - 13; voting “nay”: none. President Gershman declared the motion carried.

SET PUBLIC HEARING ON MATTER OF PROGRAM
PROJECTS, FY 2001, 5307 OPERATIONS AND CAPITAL
ASSISTANCE FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORATION

The Public Transportation Committee reported having considered the Program of Projects, 5307 Operating and Capital Assistance FY 2001, and recommended setting a public hearing date for January 15, 2001.

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Bakken that this recommendation be and is hereby approved.

Council Member Bjerke questioned total sources of funding. Mr. Foster stated that $1,160,984 is total project cost that they are showing of match with federal funds, state and local funds, that they are required to submit a program of projects in order to apply for funds for 2001; and that $424,532 is total local share.

Council Member Bjerke moved to set the public hearing date as February 6, 2001 before the Public Transportation Committee, Council Member Brooks seconded the motion. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

Upon call for the question on the original motion, and upon voice vote, the motion carried 13 votes affirmative.

AWARD CONTRACT FOR GLOBAL POSITIONING
SYSTEM EQUIPMENT, PROJECT NO. 5085, GEOGRAPHICAL
INFORMATION SYSTEM MAPPING CITY-WIDE

Committee No. 3, Public Service, reported having considered the bids for global positioning system (GPS) equipment, City Project No. 5085, geographical information system (GIS) mapping city-wide, and recommended to award contract to lowest responsible bidder, Frontier Precision, in the amount of $26,340.00.

It was moved by Council Member Stevens and seconded by Council Member Klave that this recommendation be and is hereby approved.

Mr. Grasser reported funding is contingent upon the necessary budget transfers taking place, and CDBG funding will cover it.

Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson, Gershman - 13; voting “nay”: none. President Gershman declared the motion carried.

APPROVE TCSP GRANT APPLICATION FOR FUNDING
DOWNTOWN BRIDGE AND ASSISTING WITH THE COST
OF OTHER BRIDGES IN THE GREENWAY

Committee No. 3, Public Service, reported having considered the Transportation and Community and System Preservation (TCSP) grant, and recommended to authorize TCSP grant application.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Stevens that this recommendation be and is hereby approved.

Council Member Kreun asked Mr. Haugen for an explanation of how the funding will take place on this project, and stated that we have to keep in mind that these projects are not final as far as these bridges are concerned and that when feasibility or funding comes available will then determine whether to proceed or not.

Earl Haugen, MPO, stated that on October 2 the city council took three actions regarding bridges across the Red River in conjunction with the Corps of Engineers, first one was to ask the Corps to include a downtown bridge as a fourth bridge to their plan and at the same time asked staff to pursue other grant sources to help fund that bridge in case the Corps wasn’t able to include it as a fourth, and third motion was to ask the MPO to do a study of all the non-motorized crossings to determine better locations and to look at the elevations that could or could not be and if additional costs if there was additional funding sources. He stated the funding sources show funding breakout for the four bridges - on the downtown bridge are not including any Corps money, that on October 2 the council approved a grant application to ND Department of Transportation for Transportation Enhancement funds, that request was $250,000 as part of that request, indicated that you would have $250,000 in local match plus going for $550,000 in grant called Transportation/Community/System Preservation Grant; for the north side bridge, in Riverside area, show $300,000 for the Corps and $150,000 for local match required as part of the Corps project; that if we went to the higher elevation that’s being recommended (825 elevation rather than 810) additional costs would show up in the TCSP grant, the same with the southside, and the Red Lake River bridge no cost for Grand Forks as not in Grand Forks. He stated that the request tonight is to approve the request for $1 million for the TCSP grant, $550,00 would be programmed for the downtown bridge, $250,000 for the north side bridge and $250,000 for the southside to help raise those elevations to a more appropriate height than what the Corps was proposing.
Council Member Kreun asked if it would be feasible because of the constraints that are being put on the downtown bridge, 1) if there are four options, one at 810, one at 820, 825 and 840, if we build in the middle range or 825 range we would gain very little as far as reducing our water retention in a large flood, that the old bridge took 6/10th as what they indicated it would hold back and if build one of the two bridges in that middle range would hold back 2 to 3/10ths and wouldn’t gain much. He stated if they want to build one in the low position at 810 or 820 range, would probably eliminate the possibility of riverboat at that stage, and leaves basically one choice, the 840 range which is very high and would be levee to levee, and that brings on a problem of approach to the bridge and becomes an engineering design so that bridge may or may not be that feasible in that respect, and if we do the $550,000 in TCSP, can we write that so that there is another usage for that money if we decide not to build that bridge.

Mr. Haugen stated that the staff and committees have agreed that we would include the language of adding trails and amenities to the trails to the grant proposal, so if don’t want to use all the money on the downtown bridge you could use it for some of the trail building activities beyond what the Corps may be doing. The grant is for the 840 elevation downtown, $2 million total project.

Council Member Burke stated that the staff showed the Bikeway Committee funding options on the downtown bridge, that included no local funds - $250,000 in the TE and $750,000 in the TCSP, and asked why they did not pursue that funding option as opposed to the one that includes $200,000 of local funds. Mr. Haugen stated that the decision was made to strengthen the application by showing some local dollars involved and that’s where the $200,000 came in, and will end up an 80-20% match that’s more typical of the Federal Highway’s Program and decision was to put some local dollars in here to strengthen the application to get the federal funds. Council Member Burke stated that the TCSP is a pilot program and that it might have been a candidate to get full funding and no local funds. Mr. Haugen stated that originally it was a pilot program, however, the TCSP has become a Congressional earmarked program, 100% of the funds are earmarked by Congress for projects, but the original application was set up to be competitive so trying to put yourself in a better competitive advantage, if went to 100% federal funds vs. other projects that were having commitment of local funds, typically those other projects would have a higher rating than one without any local dollars involved, and are asking for $1 million.

There was some discussion as to damage to the bridge when it floods by ice and trees, etc.; Mr. Grotte stated that at the 810 elevation you are probably less likely to get ice damage than at a higher elevation since water elevation in spring is above 810 by the time ice starts moving, that they’ve been assured by various consultants that they can design a bridge to withstand the ice damage, there could be some minor damage over the years.

Council Member Kreun stated that the bridge that would be built closest to the dam is also at a higher level than what we originally anticipated, and that recommendation came through the Greenway Alliance and other agencies to bring that to a higher level as well and what would precipitate that because the riverboat was the defining factor on the other bridges so why would we raise that bridge. Mr. Haugen stated that all 3 bridges outside of the downtown were at the 825 elevation, one reason would be having it higher up, less frequent flooding and have less maintenance issues addressed after each flood event, more benefit by having use of it more days of the year.

President Gershman stated that the cost of the bridge is $600,000 and also seen $750,000, but that does not include the soft cost engineering, surveying and architectural, and asked if that was true of this bridge too. Mr. Haugen stated that figures are construction costs, Corps has the other soft costs elsewhere in their budget, the $600,000 is the cost for construction of the three bridges that they have identified in their recreation plan. President Gershman suggested that when they build a project should know all the costs, and asked that the staff begin to do that so they see the full cost.

Council Member Christensen questioned what would happen to the TE grant money and the TCSP grant money (if approved) if downtown bridge not built, could they use grant money for the greenway. Mr. Haugen stated the TE grant money would go back to the State of North Dakota and they would program it to the next application that was not funded state-wide; and that the TCSP grant is being written so it can go for any of the four bridges and also for trails and trail amenities in the greenway and that means if don’t do the downtown bridge you have TCSP identified for the south bridge, the north bridge, maybe not on Red Lake, but the other places where it could be used is for trails and trail amenities.

Council Member Christensen also questioned whether the $600,000 figure the Corps has given us for construction was for the 810 bridge, and asked what cost would be for expansion of the bridge. Mr. Haugen stated it was for the low level bridge which they agreed means an elevation of 810, and additional cost of $375,000; and that the cost for the other 3 bridges doesn’t reflect the design cost but the downtown bridge of $2 million does include the design cost. Council Member Christensen stated that if we build these bridges at 810 or 820 or 830 these bridges will go from $600,000 to about $1.1 million; and Mr. Grotte stated that was correct and that’s what the TCSP funding covers is the additional cost.

Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 13 votes affirmative.

APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO ENGINEERING
SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR PROJECT NO. 4769, RAW
WATER INTAKE AND TRANSMISSION LINES

Committee No. 3, Public Service, reported having considered Amendment No. 1 to agreement for engineering services between the City of Grand Forks and Advanced Engineering & Environmental Services for Project No. 4769, Raw Water Intake and Transmission Lines, and recommended to approve Amendment No. 1 to agreement for engineering services in the amount of $454,500 with an agreement maximum fee not to exceed $1,941,500.00.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Stevens that this recommendation be and is hereby approved.

Council Member Lunak stated that about a year ago the City put about $100,000 into one intake for emergency repairs, and thought that the City was going to wait to replace the intakes until they got the new plant up. Mr. Grotte stated that originally that was the plan, that prior to the flood were looking at a long range plan of upgrading the three raw water intakes we have, however, after the flood it became apparent that even as high as those structures were they all flooded and it was decided that rather than leave our raw water intakes in the flood plain, would build a new consolidated facility that draws water from both rivers on the dry side of the dike at a height that hopefully will never flood. He stated this has been part of the flood protection project since 1997, and after the flood it was moved ahead and is part of our flood protection project, most of this funding is included as part of our relocation cost for the flood protection project. He also stated that City needed to repair that facility ($100,000 for intake emergency repairs) to be able to get enough water to supply the needs, and if repair had not been made, would have seen rationing of water. Council Member Lunak asked if we could leave everything the way it is now for five years, and Mr. Grotte stated that would not work with the Corps flood protection project, and with the levees the Corps is proposing those stations would be even under more water leaving the city without any source of water during a flood.

Council Member Lunak stated that the whole project is going to cost $18 million which includes the engineering, geotech, consultants and contingencies, and questioned amount of money for taxpayers to pick up. Mr. Grotte stated that the cost is estimated at approx. $18 million, and in working with the Corps were looking at replacement costs of our existing facilities which in 1997 were est. at $13.2 or $13.6 million, and that portion would be cost shared under the Corps of Engineers program, that the City would pay the upfront costs and credited to our overall project cost which now appears to be about a 50-50 split. He stated that since getting into more detail see that the facility is going to cost more than originally anticipated, and need to re-evaluate our costs, that basically the Corps would pay the replacement cost of our existing facility and City paying for increased capacity and future expansion capabilities, etc.

He stated that the State of North Dakota has agreed to pay 45% of our flood protection costs up to $52 million, that the 50-50 cost share with the Corps, the 45-55% cost share with the State, have State Revolving Loan and our intentions were to basically put the entire project cost against the State Revolving Loan so get the money at 3% vs. going rate for bonds; and those costs would be a betterment as increased capacity type things, would be paid back through user fees (water rates); the part that’s eligible for the cost share would be paid back through the special assessment or through the State’s 45%. He stated 50% of $13 million or $6.5 million, 45% of est. $10 million or less; that this number has been included in the special assessment discussion so won’t make it go up more than what we’ve talked about already, the part that’s a betterment is somewhere between that $13.2 or $13.6 and the $18 million and that’s the part we need to work on with the Corps to see how much they really would credit. Council Member Lunak stated that when we do large projects that we prepare taxpayer of what they will have to pay. Mr. Grotte stated that this number has been included in our plans for at least three years as far as special assessment project, and not an additional amount to be special assessed, that we do have the utility rate study that was just recently completed and will be discussed next week that clearly shows all the extra costs related to this project as part of that process.

Council Member Lunak questioned why the City didn’t just do the one line rather than the three lines. Mr. Grasser stated that before the flood protection project it was understood that we needed to replace all of the intakes, two on the Red and one on the Red Lake, and that they mix water from the Red River and Red Lake for chemical reasons, that when the flood protection project came along because of the routing of the dike and possibility of getting funding, it didn’t make sense to go out and do three individually, they all have to be done in conjunction with the Corps project, and we’re replacing the same intakes we currently have with two intakes, one on each river and being bored underground to come up on the other side of the levee. He also stated that the repair of the line that was done with excavations and relatively shallow and that getting into the unstable soils along the Red, the soils shifted and pulled the pipes apart and would expect that happen again, and would continue to happen with that line.

Council Member Kreun stated that this project is authorized and brought to the council’s attention because of the large change order and wanted council to understand the reasoning and complexity of this project, and asked representative from Advanced Engineering to make a presentation so that we would all have the general understanding of what is happening and why this change order is taking place. Mr. Grasser stated that we are currently under contract with Advanced Engineering, and that the bidding for the construction has not occurred.