Council Minutes

MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Monday, July 23, 2001

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, July 23, 2001 at 7:00 p.m.. in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 10; absent: Council Members Lunak, Klave, Bakken, Martinson - 4.

Mayor Brown announced that when addressing the committee to please come forward to use the microphone for the record and advised that the meeting is being televised.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ITEMS

2.1 Request from the Grand Forks Planning and Zoning Department for final approval of a resolution and to adopt 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, (2000 Bikeway and 1999 Pedestrian Elements, 2000 Metropolitan Intelligent Transportation Systems Comprehensive Plan Element), together with all maps, information and data contained therein._____________________________________________________________
Todd Feland, public works director, reported they had a public hearing last Wednesday on the route structure and heard two opposing options: 1) MPO or consultant’s option, which was modified to address some of the concerns they had heard the last time this was before the city council; and 2) a modification of our current route system which was presented by a group of citizens. He stated that Roger Foster had a proposal that was a modification of our current route structure, but this would make it simpler and an easier choice of what we’ve done - that they’ve had the two options - one is a modification of the existing system and 2) is MPO or consultant’s report, which was modified since the last meeting. He stated that Ryan Brooks has a brief presentation on the modifications he has made to his route structure, and allow the citizens group to make a presentation; and that this would go back to the city council on August 6.

Ryan Brooks, MPO, stated that when last here in May, they heard the comments from the council and the citizens that missing several spots on the routes (Riverside and Great Plains Court area) and these are included in the new proposal and also stated that route deviations were pulled. He made a brief presentation of their proposal which has 3 routes, including maps and proposed time schedules.

Mr. Brooks stated the plan is to mainstream ridership of public transportation to the fixed route, that there are relatively fixed costs over time and the Dial-a-Ride variable costs and the cost of that system has increased; that it is the intent of ADA to mainstream the public and not to have two separate systems - and how do we mainstream - to provide more frequent service, simplify the route structure and minimize the number of transfers, provide competitive travel time and in each system shown tonight, there are going to be extremes where travel times will be up around 70 minutes, and providing the least barrier and more accessible coaches, want to expose more riders or agencies to lower costs. He stated the way they accomplished the first four points is through the routes; he noted that the ridership is a downward trend since 1996. He noted there was discussion in the plans that the city is growing and need to get away from the pulse and that’s the reason they have come to the plan they are proposing. He stated that according to policy there aren’t any coverage holes, that’s ¾ mile and that’s been established by the FTA.

There was some discussion relating to the MPO’s proposal - (it was noted that the cost is $3.63 per rider over and above the federal subsidy).


COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/July 23, 2001 - Page 2

Council Member Gershman stated that several months ago the issue was the Dial-a-Ride expense and there was going to be a deviation system that was going to reduce expense, there’s no discussion of Dial-a-Ride now and neither group wants to discuss that, that if you go from a two-block distance to ¾ mile for people to walk, won’t they increase the dial-a-ride expense and if the MPO plan will increase the Dial-a-Ride expense, why would they do that. Mr. Brooks stated there was a list of how to mainstream the public to the routes and was frequency, competitive travel times and those things were improving with this in terms of frequencies, every 30 minutes somebody could get on and with Dial-a-Ride we can’t compete with their frequency. Council Member Gershman stated that if you increase the distance and weather, that they will opt for the dial-a-ride system because they probably will qualify at that time, that this was to save the City money on dial-a-ride and his concern is that could drive more people to dial-a-ride and increase the expenses with the MPO plan because of the distances that people have to walk. He stated that many of the citizens who ride the bus in Grand Forks have built their lives around the system, they live where the routes are most convenient - that no one has been able to answer the increased cost of dial-a-ride and that there’s concern by the council on the cost of dial-a-ride and that was the start for part of this study and the 30-minute headways and more convenient - more convenient on timing but have created more negative impact for citizens and they will find a way to use dial-a-ride. Mr. Brooks stated they can increase the frequency and not sure missing that many people riding the fixed route and would now become eligible for dial-a-ride. He stated dial-a-ride is increasing today, it’s 20% increase this year over last year, that they are hoping to level it off a little. Council Member Gershman asked if the MPO system will help level it off with the increased distances that people will have to walk. Mr. Brooks stated that over the other proposal, he stated it would.

Council Member Bjerke stated that all of the savings from the original plan have basically been eliminated, will stop anywhere and not have deviations, this is a plan to put in place so that if we lose some federal money easier to downsize it versus what it would take if we kept the old system; Mr. Brooks stated it is a status quo, what you are spending today you would be spending on this plan as well, but also have heard comments about eliminating Saturday service and they are saying rather than eliminating Saturday service, have an option of scaling down Saturday service under our proposal and spending half the amount on Saturdays. It was noted that they have eliminated all of the savings out of this plan.

Council Member Glassheim questioned the deep discounted fares, Mr. Brooks stated that is what is being done today and they wouldn’t ask to change anything about discounted fares. Mr. Brooks also noted that it would only take one transfer to get anywhere in the city. Council Member Glassheim asked if one is to save money or to increase ridership, which is main purpose and if it is, the people who ride it don’t like it and how increase ridership if the people who use the bus system now don’t like it. Mr. Brooks stated there are quite a few people that aren’t taking the bus now where new avenues are opened up for them with 30-minute service versus 60-minute service, and also mainstreaming people to the fixed route system - from dial-a-ride to the fixed route system is what they are trying to do. He stated it will be easier for new people in town having an easier time learning the system and increasing frequency, minimize transfers.

Council Member Burke asked what portion of riders and what portion of revenue come from discounted tickets and passes; Mr. Brooks stated the majority of tickets are discounted fares, most of the revenue is through tickets or passes to get the discount, and majority use that. Council Member Burke stated what they charge for dial-a-ride is tied to our full fare on the bus; Mr. Brooks stated they can only charge double what you charge for full fare, no discounts for dial-a-ride except for multiple loads.

Blair Sondreal, 2482 Huntington Park Drive, bus driver, read communication from one of the bus riders

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/July 23, 2001 - Page 3

opposing the 3-route plan which was to reduce dial-a-ride use through the deviation scheme, that it was stated at their meeting on July 18 that diversion is no longer any part of the 3-route proposal and it was
confirmed that the 3-route plan costs are the same as current costs and the same as Citizens’ Drivers Plan costs, and why would city government make Grand Forks less accessible to public transportation dependent residents and visitors, and please reconsider the vote for the 3-route proposal, it will weaken and can destroy city bus and please support the Citizens’ Drivers Plan.

Mary Weaver, 509 Cherry Street, stated that no taxpayers money has been spent in preparing any of our documents, maps or routes, and presented the Citizens’ Committee Bus Routes Proposal, that they are very pleased with their proposed route system and how it addresses issues. She also noted that there was another coach added to our fleet (trolley) and in the Transit budget there is money allocated for 12 full time drivers although they have 11. She stated they have not made any substitute changes in the routes because don’t feel changes like that are necessary; that they examined the transit budgets and that dial-a-ride costs a lot more than regular transit, but that’s a separate issue and been agreed that the solutions are separate as well. She stated that the firm that made recommendations in the ’89 to ’93 Grand Forks Transit Development Plan said that universal transfers by all coaches pulsing in a central location would improve connectivity and this did happen and continues to do in a well coordinated manner. The pulse system increases ridership because of easy transferring and no long waits and have maintained the pulse system in their plan, and question the MPO’s statement that the pulse cannot remain because its allegedly a barrier to growth is unsupported statement. She stated their route plan takes up the progressive spirit shown by the council in building the new transfer center and in purchasing the trolley and have included new places on the route to take into account the growth of the city and changing needs, their plan has no regressions or cuts but only improvements; that they are building on established successful routes with no inconveniences to the riding public but adding greater service to the southend retail areas of the UND community. She stated the system works very well now, other plans would only diminish it, make it less efficient and create hardships for riders whereas theirs will make a good system even better.

Ms. Weaver noted that the MPO plan calls for moving all the shelters, and in their plan will stay where they are but plans call for new shelter at SuperTarget. MPO plan offers less coverage, longer rides and some difficult transfers; people will have to walk farther to catch the bus and ride longer, all transfers are timed transfers and feel these issues will be deterrent to taking the bus under the MPO plan, their plan also fails to meet the EGF bus to transfer in a timely manner. She stated that since both plans cost the same because MPO has stated several times in public that the costs are the same, that the Citizen’s Committee proposal offers the greatest benefit in terms of service area, ridership, residents serviced and greater revenues and for these reasons there is a much higher benefit cost ratio than the MPO plan. She stated MPO designed their plan because dial-a-ride costs a lot and their plan intended to do something about it, that they want to mainstream the paratransit users by providing more frequent service, simplifying route structure, minimizing the number of transfers, providing competitive travel time, etc. and that their plan does the opposite, their changes will not fix dial-a-ride and not increase ridership on regular routes, dial-a-ride’s problems and solutions are separate from regular transit system and will push more people to dial-a-ride. She stated that the Citizens’ Committee plan is the best for the public and gives the city the best opportunity for good transit and health economy.

There was some discussion relative to the presentation.

Council Member Gershman stated that everyone who has contacted him in writing has commented on how wonderful the drivers are in this system, the care that they give and we have something in place that we can be proud of with the people that are working that system. Council Member Gershman stated they need answers to the ridership, and the new transit center downtown and asked if the MPO system
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/July 23, 2001 - Page 4

adequately use the transfer system that they built, and if it doesn’t and we’re only going to have 3 buses at the transit center, that they went through building the transit center and that wasn’t easy and reasons given recently about why the transit center had to be built the way and where it is, and now it’s changing under
this system and the moving of shelters and curb cuts and has some problems with the MPO system and all need clarification on the ridership.

Council Member Christensen stated he believed it would be appropriate for the MPO to give response to the issues they have raised, but important for council to have it before making their decision and within the next two weeks. The second issue is that it occurs to him they are going in the wrong direction, if we’re committed to bus service for the less fortunate, then one of the main issues they should be addressing when address this plan that we should not be having people standing on corners for 6 or 7 months of the year for 20-30 minutes for a bus and if there’s any way of decreasing ridership immediately and increasing people who currently ride the bus and start taking dial-a-ride and feels that’s an inappropriate plan especially for this clime and community.

The following individuals spoke for the proposal submitted by the Citizens’ Committee plan:
Jerry Foote, 3720 Cherry Street.
Frank Helmoski, 2400 South 17th Street
Frank Harlow, 110 Cherry Street
Rod Ringbloom, 602 High Plains Court
Kathy Dittennore, 1712 Continental Drive, #213
Kathleen Harrie, 626 22nd Avenue South

Mayor Brown advised individuals that the council will not be voting tonight because this is committee of the whole, the discussion portion of our governmental process where we look at the issues, have a week to digest it and when the council meets August 6 is when these items will come up for a vote.

Mr. Feland stated we have two distinctive views, the MPO plan and our current system and modifications thereof and hope can make a decision on August 6.

Council Member Bjerke stated that the entity that provides the service should have to end up paying for it, and if we pay for it and it’s part of the School System, let them tell the people that they will have to provide it or make the parents provide it themselves, and if they don’t address the issue then, we end up doing things that the City shouldn’t be doing.

John Rolczynski, 23 North 3rd Street, stated that the vote won’t be taken this evening, and the same explanation was given on both the MPO plan and Citizens’ plan, and asked who makes the final decision, the city council - that they were elected by the people of Grand Forks to represent our interests or even after you know of the two plans, the MPO plan and the Citizens’ plan, he can live with either one, but is concerned over the fact of how this has been presented over the course of time - that the question was raised whether the council would make the decision or the MPO - in a matter of taxation we take our local money which was meant to be spent locally for local services, that we the people should decide through our representatives, this council, what kind of services we have and the people want the best system they can get; the other way is we take our tax dollars and send them to Washington and they hire bureaucrats to decide how the money is supposed to be spent down here. He also asked where the business community is in all of this, that at the July 18 meeting, there were several businessmen present, as they had some idea that there was something going to be affecting them but overall we haven’t heard any businessman come forward or ask a question, attend the meeting, and ask whether bus service is going to
affect his business - that Washington and from Hammerling to 32nd was rebuilt, along with cut-aways
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/July 23, 2001 - Page 5

where the bus would stop so that it wouldn’t interfere with two lanes of traffic each way - that was put in at a cost by the Department of Transportation that didn’t affect the city, but the City had something to say about it because that was an important corner, now we’re talking about saving money. He also asked where is KCNN, on July 18 they invited Mr. Foster and council members have been on, but where was the Citizens’ Committee, they weren’t invited to respond to comments - that we’re trying to serve the public - that he thinks the Citizens’ Committee put their own paperwork together, and asked what it cost to have MPO people figure this out for you and commented on salary and asked if it takes that much to figure this out or could a few citizens getting together do the same.

Mark Laudt, 4837 5th Avenue, urged the council to go with the Citizens’ plan.
Cheryl Brooks, 809 15th Avenue South, also spoke in favor of the Citizens’ plan.

Council Member Burke stated concern is that if we listen to what we’ve heard here tonight, we’ll never change anything in this city because people are used to what we have and won’t be able to make adjustments because it will inconvenience some people - when looking at ridership, there’s something that needs to be fixed - our goal needs to get more of the costs of the system out of the farebox and if that’s through more ridership, but we need to see that ratio start to change and if can’t do it with ridership, look at other ways to do it and not sure anything we have in front of us will do that.

Council Member Brooks stated the one issue relayed to him is the concern about his position and a conflict of interest and he has a concern about conflict of interest and if there are some people, please relay those to him so that he can evaluate them.

2.2 HVAC specifications for Central Fire Station.
There were no comments.

2.3 Issuance and annual fees for Class 3, Off and/or On-sale Wine and Beer alcoholic beverage
license - Vintner’s Cellar._____________________----------___________________________________
Howard Swanson, city attorney, stated that as he understands the business proposal - it is to provide facilities for individuals to make their own wines in a commercial setting, in connection with that commercial venture there will be free samples of various wines made available to customers or potential customers, under our City Code it was his opinion that that constitutes a sale of alcoholic beverage and the definition of sale means the furnishing of any or all manners of furnishing alcoholic beverages for commercial purposes, after making that determination, he reviewed the Code as to what is available and there really is not a class of license that specifically addresses what this business is intending to do or wanting to do, the only one that comes reasonably close is a combination license of wine and beer, on and off sale - that would allow this business if it chose to at some future time to make its own beverages and bottle it for off-sale purposes or even sell it on-sale purposes; the fees have been identified in the correspondence, both issuance and annual fees - and that except for provisional licenses or seasonal licenses that’s the lowest fee there is - your options are either to determine that the Class 3 is an appropriate license to use for that activity or establish a new class for vintners or brewers or make a local determination and no local license is needed or amend the fees, or combination. He stated this is the only request of this nature, have had inquiries at different times for micro-breweries, however, always been in connection with a restaurant, this is unique.

Tony Osowski, Minto, ND applicant for the license, stated there is an operation in Bismarck (beer but not wine) and this is new type of venture, new to the United States and is a franchise and he is working in an 8-state area and chose Grand Forks to be first venture and would bring people in to train new franchisees.
Mr. Swanson stated he could evaluate the Bismarck ordinance and report back, but council will have to
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/July 23, 2001 - Page 6

make some determination. - if not doing sampling would not need license from local government. He stated they do govern samples both in on and off sales and is allowed provided they have a license.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that the staff report did not include an option for reduction in license fee but Mr. Swanson listed that option, but because of the very nature of this particular situation and knows there are breweries in other place but somewhat different and would seem can’t have an ordinance for every possible business, that might be one way of going rather than just a reduction, that this is situation and we’re looking for economic development, and have a special code for it.

Mr. Osowski explained process - that individual comes in and determines type of wine they want to make, brewed in small batch lots primarily from a kit, that their conditions are very sterile, can actually taste the wine and customize the wine to the person’s taste, they order the wine and they sell the kit, customer will add the yeast to it and that’s when it starts beginning process to become alcohol, ferments from 4 to 6 weeks and individual comes back to the store and assists with the bottling and takes the wine home. Council Member Kreun asked if it was an off-sale situation , buying ingredients and making it yourself is what you are indicating; Mr. Osowski stated that was correct, that they are selling kit (yeast and grape juice). Mr. Swanson stated he looked at from a risk of loss analysis, and if he screws up the yeast that’s his problem, vintner - the issuance is not in the bottling but is the samples, the concern is that it’s not regulated as to limited to who can come in for the samples, there’s nothing in our code that addresses what he wants to do - the only thing that comes close to is Class 3 license, anything more unique would require some action by the council. Mr. Osowski stated they sell the bottle and ingredients and bottles, do the racking of the wine and filtering, de-gassing of it for them and done in a sterile situation, difficult to do in home environment. Several council members suggested using a different class of license with the descriptions on it and with whatever protections the public needs. Council Member Christensen suggested limiting the scope of the ordinance, that he wants to open in the next week or two but doesn’t want him opening up and being shut down because he doesn’t have a license, and suggest that on Monday night to grant him an exemption from any license requirement for a period of from 3 to 6 months until we get an ordinance passed. Mr. Swanson stated he could draw an ordinance but several other items - issuance fee and how much, annual fee, regulations contemplating and could have something at next meeting and will take two readings because it is an ordinance, can do issuance of license on the second reading. He stated he will provide an ordinance with blanks for fees for council to determine. Council Member Kerian stated she would expect normal retail store hours rather than bar hours, which would make some difference in the enforcement provisions and that the individual is going to be limited as to amounts of samples, etc. Council Member Kreun suggested a $550.00 issuance fee with a $250.00 annual fee, and go with guidelines that we have for most alcohol establishments as far as age and responsibility, etc. Mr. Swanson stated they will draft ordinance for both beer and wine.

2.4 Local Health Services Grant - budget amendment, HL70, $13,398, 7/10/01, new 2001 revenue.
There were no comments.

2.5 Mosquito Control budget amendment (Fund 2160, $15,000, 7/10/01, additional 2001 revenue.)
Mr. Shields reported they have spent $130,000 in chemicals in May because they ramped up the larvicide program to kill mosquitoes before they hatch - in the past spending about $70 to $80,000 for those same chemicals and won’t have a total chemical cost until fall because that’s very weather dependent - that staff after rains last week out treating a lot more areas that are wet, but whatever dollars remaining will carry over to next year, would expect to have money left over because they have about $35,000 included in the total amount of $300,000 for capital equipment replacement, and probably not spend the full $300,000 if have normal summer. He stated they are generating approx. $25,300 on a
monthly basis and over 12 months = $300,000, the 2001 budget has $285,000 and this would bring it up
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/July 23, 2001 - Page 7

to account for the revenue we’re generating based upon the increase in the mosquito fee that was passed last August - not spending more money than we have but equalizing the revenue that’s being generated and asking that be placed in the budget in case we continue to have a wet summer and need to spend those dollars for chemicals.

2.6 Care Coordination grant amendment #310-04366 ($35,000, 7/1/01 - 6/30/02)
Council Member Burke stated he didn’t see any requirement for match - Mr. Shields stated the grant does call for a match, there is a requirement for a $20,700 match with this grant, and grant is for $35,000. Council Member Burke stated the grant covers services in 4 counties and asked if other 3 counties are contributing to the match - Mr. Shields stated they are not, that the individual on the payroll is a classified full-time person in the Grand Forks Health Department, but person lives in Cavalier and travels around serving people with special needs in all of these counties, primarily through the use of state and federal dollars, 75% of the $20,700 match is all in-kind (sq. footage which they have at some cost that’s associated with the health department and not really spending any budget dollars for that), they are asking for an in-kind match so not asking for in-kind matches from other places to match the federal and state dollars. Council Member Burke stated if serving the four counties, they should be providing the match together and asked if he could think of a way that the other counties could participate, perhaps contribute to the rent we pay to the County; Mr. Shields stated he could ask the other counties if they want to contribute to that, but can assure you that the majority of the clients and customers and people served in this program really are in Grand Forks and Grand Forks County, few located in outlying areas - most of their care are here in Grand Forks but will bring that up to the other counties - He stated the care of these people with chronic illnesses and disability conditions such as cleft lip, cleft palate, heart conditions, cerebral palsy, etc. and we don’t provide that care but coordinate that care to make sure that the care they need can be provided by health care providers in Grand Forks or elsewhere so they can take care of their special needs; our staff may coordinate that care to make sure someone visits them and that there’s a federal revenue stream associated with that - but doesn’t require that they provide home care services but provides that links these people with services that are needed and provided throughout the area.

2.7 Moving permit application to move garage from 21 Euclid Avenue to 3521 Cherry Street.
There were no comments.

2.8 Moving permit application to move the home from 421 River Street to 614 South 4th Street.
There were no comments.

2.9 Moving permit application to move home from 423 River Street to 521 S. 6th Street.
Mr. Kuchera stated he was here to object to the application for permit as part of the historic mitigation program and moving of building of 423 River Street to be relocated at 521 South 6th Street, their property abuts that lot and has looked at the house they want to move, that we have a vacant lot and have a house that has to be moved and will be an unfortunate situation - that the house does not seem to fit on the lot, appears to be more recent in origin than other houses on South 6th Street and is on a larger lot than the one they want to put it on and it appears there is no way they can make that house fit on the lot except by tearing off the attached garage; there is a sketch of how this looks and he has doubts about the house they want to move will fit on the lot while observing all of the sideyard allowances that go with it, and those basis for his objections; and hope it won’t be necessary to cut trees and would hope that the council would scrutinize the plan to make sure that all of the sideyard requirements, etc. have been observed. Bev Collings reported that Urban Development staff has indicated to her that the attached garage will be moved with the building and converted to living space with similar type windows. Mrs. Kuchera stated there were some lots on South 5th Street that are larger than the one next to them where it
might fit very nicely. Ms. Collings stated that the house does fit on the lot and meets all the criteria that
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/July 23, 2001 - Page 8

the City has set, that they are required to have a 5 ft. sideyard and 8 ft. on the other side, and there is an existing detached garage that’s already on the site and that will remain. Council Member Hamerlik asked if this was an historic home, nothing in staff report and why is City having a lot, moving house and then trying to sell it - we’ve sold lots, we’ve sold houses, moved some and have RFP’s going out for historic homes to take care of those, giving away homes and lots, that it is our responsibility to contribute as individuals but not sure should contribute homes and lots for the City, and now starting to move them, etc. but if this is an historic home - Ms. Collings stated it was built in 1929. Council Member Burke asked if this was part of the mitigation agreement - it was noted it is.

Terry Hanson, Urban Development, stated that both homes on River Street are considered historical and part of the historic mitigation; he stated they have 3 houses that they are selling tonight with an RFP and they do require rehab., not livable in present condition, but do not have to be relocated and are on the dry-side of the dike but do need substantial dollars for the rehab. of them, that an individual can buy these homes at the price they sell them for as not sold at 95% of value but through a proposal and can obtain affordable house by rehabbing houses on their own. He stated they also have houses required by Historical Mitigation that they be preserved but they are on the wet side of the dike, those houses do have to be moved and cost to move is exorbitant and exceeds the value of the house when they’re done and that is why the City takes those projects and does the relocation to an existing lot the City owns, we supply the money to put in the foundation, to move the house, and once house relocated depending upon the current condition of the home they may continue and do little more renovation to preserve the exterior of the house or may sell it as is under an RFP. He stated the reason they give houses away because City approached by non-profit organization (Easter Seals) for the contribution of a house and a lot, they renovate the house at their cost and there are no additional funds put into the project other than the provision of the lot and they rehab the house and bring it to a condition where they can sell it at an affordable price and that is request by the non-profit to the City for the donation of that property.

Mr. Hanson stated the houses at 421 and 423 River Street are on the dike line and have to be moved, that these houses were part of the historical mitigation agreement that the City entered into with the National Historic Preservation Office; and requires the City to preserve the houses.

Council Member Kerian asked if there was another site that might be appropriate for these houses; Mr. Hanson stated there is another site in Grand Forks that would be appropriate for them, however, there was a study done on all of the houses that are on the historic mitigation agreement by a consultant and he presented report with lots for these house based on age of the other homes in the area and this one would have followed his recommendation - that this house is one of a group that we must save - that we must save 20 out of 29 and are within 5 to 6 houses of meeting that commitment. Mr. Hanson stated we’re operating under two historic mitigation agreements - one with the Corps and one with CDBG and trying to get through them all as quickly as can, hopefully this year. Council Member Burke stated he was looking for a score card - that this one being objected to, whether overlook this one and meet our obligations with moves that aren’t objected to; Mr. Hanson stated they would look into that and be back by council meeting.

Mrs. Kuchera asked how many vacant lots there are that might be another option to move this house to - that on South 5th Street maybe could go there as there is a bigger lot, that they don’t feel that the house fits in their neighborhood and doesn’t think it’s a good match and might be other lots close by that might be a good option. Mr. Hanson stated they would review their list to see if there are other options.

2.10 Bids for City Project No. 5203, 2001 Storm/Sanitary Sewer Repairs.
There were no comments.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/July 23, 2001 - Page 9

2.11 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5266, District No. 582, paving Nordonna Circle.
There were no comments.

2.12 Bids for City Project No. 5256, District No. 88 - Street Improvements for 24th Ave. N.
There were no comments.

2.13 Project Concept Report engineering services agreement for City Project No. 5217 - Inter-
section Improvements at 32nd Avenue South and Columbia Road.______________________
Council Member Bjerke asked purpose of this project. Mr. Grasser stated this project first surfaced back in the 1990’s as being a safety project because of the location of the signals and number of accidents, high accident intersection and was identified as potential recipient of safety funds from the State and limit for safety funds was approx. $100,000 and when looked at initial issues with the intersection it became apparent that there would be some geometric issues that needed to be addressed and dollars went beyond what they would fund with safety dollars, that couple years later it started to get into our federal aid urban dollars and again project was looked at with the State and more issues identified and was going to be a million dollar project, this is project where more they look at it the more things there are to address because since initial projects we have had 32nd Avenue South corridor studied as well as Columbia Road study which have identified a number of geometric deficiencies on both of those corridors - and if do project need to bring those things up to standard and standards using now are federal requirements that if we spend the money we need to bring it up to geometric and standards for the next 20-year traffic projects and this project has grown and using both City Urban monies and the State has also recognized that they have some obligations under the Regional Transportation System so this project has grown to dollars and this report would identify that - something in neighborhood of $5 to $7 million project and part of the concept report is going to identify how far back on Columbia Road and 32nd Avenue South corridors we can go with monies that we now have allocated - adding lanes but impact utilities, overhead power line and open drainage ditch on Columbia Road on the Mall side and lift station that may have problems and upgrading to the point of dual left turn lanes, etc. to handle traffic loads. He stated there were two separate studies and both done by the MPO and that identified the traffic needs and projections of those areas.

2.14 Bids for City Project No. 4371, Bid Package No. 8 - Architectural, Mechanical and Electrical Work at the Grand Forks Wastewater Treatment Plant.______________________________
Council Member Bjerke stated he has a report from the council committee of the whole July 9 and council meeting on July 16 and on back says they were going to spend $1.2 million as projected cost of this project, and this week up to a projected cost of $3.24 million, and actual cost that came in was $1.5 million but on June 8 this project was $29 million and now on July 23 now up to $30.5 million - this just keeps growing, and not supposed to be done until July 30 of 2002 - that this first estimated at $13 million and previous council added to it but we haven’t even talked about compost facility they might need with it - $8 to $12 million more.

Jim West, KBM, Inc. stated he has been involved with this project since 1995, worked very hard on this plant to have it come in at a very reasonable price - when project was procured for the equipment in 1998, the council had observed loads going into their wastewater treatment plant approaching 60,000 lb. BOD
per day, were bidding very economical plant at that time and projecting it was going to be running at $16 million and still had soil problems, etc. and did not have the complex contingencies that they put into the plant to contend with at that point - started at 30,000 lbs. BOD per day, when they provided an alternate to the City of Grand Forks to look at a larger plant because of those situations that local industries had problems with in discharging, etc. and going from $6.7 million on the procurement of a 30,000/lb.per day plant they offered to the City for another $2 to $3 million offered them the capacity of guaranteed
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/July 23, 2001 - Page 10

capacity to go to 40,000 lbs./day and that was warranted at $9.2 to $9.3 millions for one year and $500,000 for the next 4 years for a total of 5 years on the project to guarantee the 40,000 lbs.; that this plant is very unique and interesting design and parts that have come together from various parts of the world, Germany, for treatment of the waste biologically through clarification of the waste; that he sent letter to the City about 10 days ago that this plant actually has capacity for 50,000/lbs. BOD per day at 15 to 18 million gal. water and probably going to end up when get into operation and get a feel for the plant, will be able to handle 60,000 lbs/BOD per day. He stated that a plant like that should cost you on the open market, and that they’ve worked very hard and feel that the plant is going to end up at approx. $32 million, have one more bid package to landscape it, change order or two to deal with and the job will be around $32 million and that plant on the open market will cost you if built under conventional means, etc. and not all the basins covered would cost you $50 to $60 million - that it appears that the bid out of proportion and takes that comment and is concerned about it but have really tried to do an excellent job for the City, that you have a lot of capacity and have tough waste to treat and when the council made the upgrade, this was done without asking what the big picture will be, have stainless steel manifolds in there, excellent valves in the plant and will go long beyond the pay period that you’re going to be paying for it.

Mr. West stated that BOD is biochemical oxygen demand, amount of oxygen necessary to satisfy the biological load and clean it up - that now average between 20 to 28,000 lbs. of BOD per day, depends on how industries are discharging, flows around 7 to 8 mgd and original plan to 30,000 lbs. was designed for 10 mgd flow. Council Member Brooks stated that we’re paying for plant with much larger capacity than we currently have and why going to such a huge increase.

Council Member Burke stated he keeps hearing that there are more change orders coming, that slippage in the schedule has created hardships for contractors and subcontractors and they are asking to be compensated for their increased costs and there’s a debate going on for how much you are going to ask us for and how much eat - and when find out what this actually going to cost us. Mr. West stated that the City has contracted out engineering fees of about $31.3 million and would say another $700,000 to $32 million - he stated they have one contractor who is requesting additional funds -BDT/LPH (Lunseth Plumbing & Heating) and their comment is legitimate, not asking for more than have coming - but are negotiating on whether it’s fair or not - that they have negotiated and worked on this contract in the best interest of the city of Grand Forks and even though the costs have gone up on the construction, etc, and you have more capacity, they have not come in and asked for an engineering change order but will be, but have not tried to escalate their costs up on it.