Committee Minutes

MINUTES/FLOOD RESPONSE COMMITTEE
Thursday, August 7, 1997 - 5:00 p.m.

I. Call to order:
Members present: Hafner, Bakken, Polovitz.

II. Matter of Mortenson update:
Tom Nonweiler, M.A.Mortenson, submitted tabulation of bids and change orders and reviewed with committee:
a) Parking Ramp (Electrical Refurbishment)
Mr. Nonweiler reported low bid was $15,729.00 from Square D to refurbish existing Square D panel boards. and recommended award.
b) 9 Parking lots (cleaning)
Mr. Nonweiler reported this was lump bid for cleaning, and recommended award of combined bid with cleaning of 2 pedestrian canopies, to HazTran: $4,535.00 for the parking lots.
c) Pedestrian Canopies (2) (clean and sanitize including tunnel) (Gateway Dr. and S. Columbia Rd.)
HazTran's bid was $4,095.00
d) North Fire Station (change order - application of epoxy paint in lieu of specified latex paint) - T.F. Powers, $3,990.00
e) Police Station (change order - replacement of existing basement level ceiling tile which warped due to humidity) - TF Powers, $4,923.00.
f) Police Station (change order - replacement of existing basement level ceiling tile which was warped due to humidity) - TF Powers, $7,825.32 (Have commitment from Fema to include in DSR)
g) Police Station (change order - deletion of carpeting from storage room (not originally there)- TF Powers - deduct of $285.00.
Moved by Bakken and Polovitz to accept the bids and the change orders as presented. Motion carried.

III. Matter of FEMA update - John LaBrune.
Mr. LaBrune reported that 24,314 have registered for assistance; they employ 39 residents; 641 families provided with travel trailers or manufactured homes; 15,429 have visited the Disaster Recovery Center of which 4,161 have visited the mitigation table to discuss mitigation with counselors; Corps of Engineers are finishing their damage estimates, visited approx 1100 structures, and finishing inspections tomorrow and Saturday.

Mr. LaBrune introduced Joanne Gagnon who will be handling the buyout system through HMGP Program. Ms. Gagnon stated she is the hazard mitigation grant program specialist, and will be coordin-ating the buyouts with Wynne Consulting, and that if she can be of assistance to contact her.

IV. Matter of plans and specs. for utilities in Congressional Resubdivision No. 1 and Congressional Resubdivision No. 2.
Al Grasser, asst. city engineer, reported titles have been changed to North Congressional Resub. No. 1 (was Sun Land West) and South Congressional Resub. No. 2 (Hi-Tech Park), and stated these are two areas targeted to provide some of the first housing for flood relief, goal is to shoot for 200 homes to be occupied by
MINUTES/FLOOD RESPONSE COMMITTEE
August 8, 1997 - Page 2

first of January, and are requesting approval from this committee, will be advertising bids with due date of August 25, and starting installation mid-September with paving to follow. Mark Lambrecht, CPS, consultant, reported there are approx. 260 lots in these two subdivisions, 69 in the northerly portion and 190 lots in the southerly portion, and are planning to have first 200 lots having utility services by November of this year. He reported that these are set up as two completely separate projects and will have two separate bid openings (one in morning and one in afternoon).

Moved by Bakken and Polovitz to approve plans and specifications, subject to review by engineering department and authorization to publish call for bids. Motion carried.

V. Matter of FAST team's Red River Floodway Pre-feasibility study.
Hal Gershman submitted Grand Forks Red River Floodway Pre-feasibility Study, July 1997, prepared by Acres International Limited, and reported that the FAST Team accepted the report and presented report to the Committee so is on record.

Mr. Gershman stated that the report speaks for itself, that others are working in some meetings on this, and hopefully a diversion of some sort would work. He stated that the difference in Corps cost and Acres cost is in excavation and amount of land, and that they don't have a recommendation other than what was in the report, which does support a west bound diversion.

Moved by Polovitz and Bakken to receive and file the Acres report.

Tom Hagness stated he would like committee to make recommendation and ask that council meet on Monday night because East Grand Forks council will be making recommendation on Tuesday night. He stated they need committee recommendation to act on and would be appro-priate for this committee to make a recommendation, whether dike or west side diversion, east side diversion, that recommendation is point of discussion and could be changed. He stated it is important to get information to Corps.

Ken Vein, city engineer, stated there are some things that the Corps wants that need clarification, one involves clarification of what the Corps wants from the City; they want City to possibly select the level of protection for any type of levee system, and also they looked at the split flow diversion alternative, that they didn't want to evaluate more than one of any type of diversion, and wanted City to make a selection of that and that's decision council would have to make; and that there's need to coordinate with the Corps the wording of the resolutions as they go forward. He stated the recommendation they had was that Mayor would work with staff in trying to establish meeting for Monday, need to be clear on questions and on what want to request of the Corps, and make sure that we give them the proper data.
MINUTES/FLOOD RESPONSE COMMITTEE
August 7, 1997 - Page 3

Bakken stated that it was his understanding that City had option of selecting levee system now with a diversion study and in year still have option of making decision. Mr. Vein stated that Corps requesting that City make a decision now and that decision would be for a levee system in order to have funding available in 1998 and start construction in 1999, that anything short of that would cause a delay in the project and not be eligible for WRDA (Water Resource Development Act) financing in 1998. He stated that any diversion will involve diking (total diversion would include tie back levees). Mr. Vein stated that one of the earlier goals was that if could start construction of dikes now and then do diversion as second phase but that can't happen, have to have one environmental impact statement for the whole project. He stated that if split the projects the benefits associated with the dike project would be all used up and that there wouldn't be enough benefit to support a diversion. He stated they are making recommendation to proceed with set-back levee. He stated the Corps will proceed with the completion of the technical report which is in place of feasibility report doing now for dikes, and can do that because EGF has an approved project and can become part of that and proceed; that City has backing for that and Corps' support for that. that will allow us to proceed much quicker that normal. He stated that if go with diversion will start over again and that's why his recommendation is to proceed with the dikes because if don't do that will spend number of years in an EIS and feasibility report before even get docket for funding for more comprehensive project.

There was some discussion re. elevation of a dike.

Polovitz stated our situation doesn't ft into normal flood fighting mitigation program of federal government, and should ask for exception.

Lisa Hedin, Corps of Engineers, reported that the Corps is doing an exception, but not as much as City asking for, 1) first with levees only alternative and being able to do technical report piggy-backed onto East Grand Forks with approval of OMB in their headquarters to put in authorizing language, even before report is done, which is December 31, 1998, that is an exception. She stated they want to make City aware that is an exception and that's speedy process that would allow construction to start in 1999 and they need to start on that technical report, and are asking for direction on that now.
2) Another exception, need request from City to do a second study of a split-flow or combination alternative, would like direction as to which side of the river split flow would be on, and will under-take in same timeframe as levees only plan, pursue a very serious focus on refining alignment, refining size of the diversion vs. the size of the levees (would be taking place on one side only), try to get detailed handle on costs, put hard focus on economics and try to get as many benefits attributed to this as possible, and if at December, 1998 have a completed technical report for levees, have
MINUTES/FLOOD RESPONSE COMMITTEE
August 7, 1997 - page 4

a feasibility report for split-flow, that's going to be decision point, the Corps will look at the split flow analysis, the refine-ment of the cost and benefits to see if economically justified, does it look like there is an opportunity and what are the costs between the two, and at that point another decision will need to be made, is City willing to go forward and attempt to get a split flow diversion, is it reasonable, feasible, etc. and if not falls aside and the setback levees alternative is authorized award in 1998, there are funds in place, goal would be to be in construction in 1999; if the split flow diversion becomes feasible, some additional cost reduction and some additional benefits found, at that point City would say they are interested in doing the split flow diver-sion, would not be a decision document, would not have all environ-mental coordination completed and would not be available for authorization, and can certainly try for another exception at that time; would take it, refine it, do environmental analysis and push it through to a point where a decision document and would be available for authorization.

Mr. Gershman asked if it would be possible for City to hire outside consultant to assist Corps; Ms. Hedin stated they will be hiring outside consultants themselves, the bulk of the work and time frames in terms of critical path can't be short circuited; have to go through optimization of diversion size vs. levee size and until that completed, can't really initiate EIS, not question of number of people but critical path issues, some timelines that cannot be compressed.

Bakken moved to proceed with the project, levee system and to include diversion study so have option at December 1998.

Ms. Hedin stated they would like statement of minimum level of protection that City would like to see a resolution to go forward with setback levees or levees only alternative with a minimum level of protection. Mr. Vein stated they would make that recommendation at some point; and another question is to make decision on which side want diversion.

After some discussion the committee called for question to receive and file the Acres report. Motion carried.

Bakken stated he would like to see 210 year level of protection, with west side diversion.

Ms. Hedin stated that Corps asking for two separate things, that by passing resolution requesting Corps to pursue completion of a technical report for a levees only alternative, level of protection no less than the 1997 event; that does not relate to taking benefits away from the split flow diversion alternative, the split flow diversion alternative City would be going forward independently, and third thing happening completely outside of
MINUTES/FLOOD RESPONSE COMMITTEE
August 7, 1997 - Page 5

Corps is City's buyout of property, and that buyout happening independent of the long term flood protection, that's going to impact benefits irregardless. She stated that another point to be aware of is that the 210 year event used in their analysis indi-cates that that flood just experienced is very close to discharge used in their analysis, would encourage staying away from numbers and tieing to either flood just experienced or falling back to regulated 100-year because that would be actual discharge but less than what had this year.

Ms. Hedin stated they would have standard Corps levee at a minimum which is 10 ft. top, levees in city are emergency construction levees. They will be in close contact with the City and would encourage this in scope and make it clear what minimum level of protection they are willing to accept and if have some guides be big carrying point when go forward with waiver, and ask that difference not carried by City but carried cost-share (difference in cost between NED plan and locally preferred plan is a local cost but possible to get waiver, and then difference cost-shared).

Ms. Hedin stated she has some concerns as they don't know what NED plan is and don't know if a waiver will go through, and costs could change. Ms. Hedin stated they have to have decision by 11th of August, that is drop-dead date.

After further discussion Mayor Owens stated they would like to hold this matter until she visits with General Anderson of the Corps of Engineers, and then council meet as committee of the whole on Monday with special council meeting following.

VI. Matter of long-term flood protection plan timetable.
This item was covered with item V.

VII. Matter of flood recovery cost matrix.
Roxanne Fiala, finance analyst, presented draft report, emphasizing "draft" and reviewed figures with the committee
showing source of funding, implemented projects and proposed projects, with projected City share of $37+million, and last page listed funding for flood protection.

Mr. O'Leary reported that the intent of the spread sheet was to give committee heads up on kinds of projects that are proposed, some discussed (Phase III buyout), number of these are projects discussed by mayor's revisioning/reimagining committee, some from Tri-chairs and some from city council, that next week consultants coming back to town and will give firmer figures. He stated that there are some projects which will need to be acted on soon, ie., need to prepare another application to EDA requesting $3 million for the downtown building if decide to proceed with that; they are encouraging City to submit almost immediately. He stated other projects - southend land development project, if proceed need to
MINUTES/FLOOD RESPONSE COMMITTEE
August 7, 1997 - Page 6

obligate funds and let bids and install infrastructure. He noted that $8.2 million allocated to voucher program but doesn't know what that will be - don't know what interest will be in that pro-gram on construction or acquisition of houses. He stated that projects merit committee's consideration. He stated that another project that will need attention soon, is construction of a storage building for donated goods, the Tri-chairs are making a recommenda-tion that an addition be made to the public works building. Mr. O'Leary reported that there is a narrative being prepared for each individual project which will state what project involves.

Hafner questioned whether "buyout" right terminology for Phase III, suggested buyout/rehab. or grant program, to more clearly define, that there are other options. Polovitz stated that public needs to understand that this is preliminary plan. Mr. O'Leary stated reason being presented is that there's not going to be enough money to do everything that needs to be done and council needs to look at all projects.

Bakken reported that the volunteer program (labor and materials) will start taking calls on Monday at the Info. Center, putting list together for review and start prioritizing according to specific requirements and getting back to people to assist for next two to three years, and also have some funds under special conditions.

Polovitz questioned whether any of this funding could be used for rebuilding schools, and asked what school system doing to rebuild, whether increase mill levy. Dan Mehls, M.A.Mortenson, stated sources of funds - good portion will be insurance and balance should be FEMA, at this point they are not planning any bond issues or alternate sources of funds.

Moved by Polovitz and Bakken to receive and file. Motion carried.

VIII. Other business:
There was no other business.

The committee's next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, August 13, 1997 at 5:00 p.m.

Moved by Polovitz and Bakken to adjourn; meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk
Dated: 8/08/97.