Committee Minutes

Service/Safety Standby Committee
Thursday, November 16, 2006 - - 4:30 p.m.

Page 1 of 7

Kreun called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. in Room A101, City Hall.

Present at roll call were: Kreun, McNamara, Gershman. Absent: Bakken.

1. 40th Avenue South Federal Aid Paving Project Concept Reports.

Grasser commented that as a part of this agenda item that he has also brought along the special assessment district staff reports for paving and stormsewer that are associated with this area.

Mark Lambrecht and Melissa Knutson, CPS, were present to discuss the project concept report. Lambrecht displayed a map of the area being discussed and pointed out where new developments are underway and will benefit from this project. He stated that this is a noncontroversial project and will connect existing paved sections of 40th Avenue South, that it will be a 41’ 2 wide lane road that is adaptable to 2 lane with a center turn lane in the future when traffic warrants it. He stated that stormsewer is being included in the project. Lambrecht continued that the project is in the PCR stage and needs approval to be submitted for federal aid application. He continued that the timetable for the project would be a highway bid opening in May with construction in the summer of 2007. From a funding standpoint, he stated they estimate the cost to be $1.6-1.7 million, with $1 million in federal funds available at the 80% participation rate.

Gershman inquired whether South 20th St. is paved at the point it connects to this street. Lambrecht responded that it is paved all the way to 47th Avenue South and this intersection will also be on for traffic control in the future, but that for now there will be a two-way stop with traffic on 40th Ave S stopping. He added that there will also be signals at the intersection of South Washington St. but that current traffic does not warrant now and will be planned for and spacing allowed to install in the future. Lambrecht commented that we will probably see signals installed at 47th Ave S and South Washington first.

Grasser commented that this project is a good fit for urban road funds for this project and is a good way to lower specials for property owners in this area.

Gershman inquired whether there is anyway to get the census numbers updated, as we seem to be underreported and should work to get an update that may help us in some of these areas. He stated that there seems to be an understanding by the census bureau that some areas of our community, including the university and air base. Grasser stated that we probably won’t see a correction until after the next census is done, based on how this type of issue has been handled in the past and that the change should not be a significant impact on any funding concerning this type of project.

Grasser commented that one of the reasons that this project has been so noncontroversial is that we are doing it in a proactive manner before a lot of the development is underway. The group discussed that this means that we are working with the developers and landowners and should also make the cost information more available to people before they purchase a lot in the area and that we have gotten complaints from new homeowners in the past when we have come in with this type of project just after the homes are developed and sold, some homeowners feel it’s a surprise and have problem fitting the new cost into their budget so much better to be proactive when we can.

The group inquired whether these urban road funds could be used for any projects. Grasser stated that they can only be used on section or quarter section roads and not for streets within a development. Lambrecht informed the group that this project has received no negative comments from any of the public meetings that have been held and this may be due to the proactive nature of the development.

Kreun commented that the group should also keep in mind that this is not a straight 80/20 split on the project due to some costs such as engineering that can not be counted as eligible costs in the project.

Lambrecht commented that another factor that has kept the cost down for this project is that it goes half way back to the next classified street on both sides of the road, which means it can be spread to more property, thereby keeping the per lot costs down.

Motion by McNamara, second by Kreun, to approve the project concept report for Project 5988 – paving 40th Avenue South (South 20th Street to South Washington). Aye: All. Motion carried.

Grasser stated that the next two staff reports is to create the special assessment district for City Project No. 5988, District No. 627, Pacing 40th Ave South (South 20th Street to South Washington Street) and Project No. 6059, District No. 453, Trunk Storm Sewer Crossing on 40th Ave South (1600 Block). Justin Klabo, Civil Engineer, displayed the proposed district for the paving portion of the project to the committee and stated that it runs up to 36th Ave S and down to 44th Ave S, that with federal funds capped at $1 million, and also expected participation from NDDOT in the amount of $100,000. Klabo displayed the map of the proposed district for the stormsewer portion of the project and noted that it is different than the paving district because it takes into account that the land south of 40th Ave S will drain to the southend drainway so would not participate in this project. He noted that on the northside of the project extends all the way back to 32nd Ave S as that is the area that will be actually draining into this pipe. Klabo explained that there are some properties on the northside that were exempted from this district, as they have already been served by existing stormsewer projects on either South 20th Street or South Washington. Klabo continued that the stormsewer portion is also assessed by actual drainage area (by square foot), whereas the paving project is assessed based on front footage.

Grasser stated that the reason it seems appropriate to bring this storm sewer project in with the paving is that we need a trunk crossing across 40th Avenue South and seems appropriate to tie in at this location.

Kreun commented that the staff report includes a proposed timeline and shows other opportunities that Council will have to offer suggestions on this matter. Gershman inquired why the five month time lag between approval of this report and notices to property owners. Grasser stated that once this report is approved, the plans and specs can be done, and also need time to get to the DOT and get response from the federal agency. He continued that once we have a cost estimate, we send letters to property owners and that they try to schedule this based on requirements in Century Code and to allow time for property owners to react once the actual bids are opened and a better cost estimate is available.

Motion by McNamara, Second by Kreun, to approve the creation of a special assessment district for Project No. 5988, District No. 627, Paving 40th Ave South (South 20th Street to South Washington Street). Aye: All. Nay: None. Motion Carried.

Motion by McNamara, Second by Kreun, to approve the creation of a special assessment district for Project No. 6059, District No. 453, Trunk Storm Sewer crossing on 40th Avenue South (1600 Block). Aye: All. Nay: None. Motion Carried.

2. Landfill Update.

Todd Feland, Public Works Director, stated that has been working with Ron Fisher on a brief that will be filed at the end of this month and anticipate a hearing late January or February. He continued that there is currently an ongoing public hearing process on our permit to extend the use of our current landfill until October 2008 and thus far there has been no opposition and that the comment period will end this week and don’t expect any problem with getting the extension. He added that given the normal timeline, should have the permit by December 1.

Feland continued that they will also be looking at extraterritorial area, so that in the event we decide that we want to explore siting a landfill within the 4 mile area. He explained that the developer that was looking at siting a landfill in Lakeville Township may be interested in siting a landfill in the extraterritorial area and are very interested in having the business of the City. He noted that this would still require the normal approval process and the soonest that they could potentially be operational would be 3-4 years from now.

Feland informed the group that the proposals for hauling and disposal have been reviewed. Feland proceeded to give a detailed presentation of the numbers received from the bidders and comparative example calculation based on a 3 year term contract starting October 1, 2008 for hauling and based example on 200 ton per day figure. He continued that he arrived at that tonnage based on our current average of 300 ton per day and lowered based on that including some inert materials that would not be sent and potential loss of some of the current customers that we have. He noted that in the proposals we had also asked that fuel costs be bid separately so that can more easily track that cost as prices fluctuate.

Feland explained that our current cost for disposal is $33.50 and that based on his sample data, he arrived at an estimated cost of $56.12 per ton for Gwinner and $56.87 for Fargo, which is based on baling our waste and includes overhead expenses of a tapping fee and debt service. He review the calculations for arriving at each number with the committee and noted that we actually save $2.40 per ton less by baling our own garbage than by transporting loose waste.

Feland stated that a residential customer currently pays $11.45 which is half for disposal and half for collection. He continued that based on the example calculation the disposal side of that would increase approximately $4.02 per month for a residential customer. He noted that we still need to look at the collection and recycling side to see there are any adjustments that need to be made to those rates.

Gershman inquired whether we have looked at doing collection bi-weekly instead of weekly and whether that would help our costs. Feland stated that they could look at that, as well as explore making changes in the container options for individuals. He stated that presently there is one size residential container and some communities offer different sizes, so that way those with more waste could have larger container and pay more or pay for more frequent pick-ups. He stated that we could also encourage higher use of the recycling program to further curb our waste.

Feland reviewed the personnel side of the landfill operation where we currently have 4 equipment operators, 1.5 scale house operators, and 5 baling operators. He noted that there are currently 2 open positions that have not been filled, pending outcome of the process we are in. He continued that for the interim plan we would probably still need the 1.5 scale operators, only 1-2 equipment operators, and an unknown amount for the baling facility. He stated that there is a minimum number needed to work the equipment, but after that it is dependent on our volume and how many of our existing customers that we keep. He explained that our cost per ton goes up as our tonnage goes down due to the amount of the fixed costs and also determines how many employees we need in the baling facility.

Feland stated that our next step is to secure written commitment from our existing customers and will need in 2007 because that will drastically affect our costs. Kreun commented that we need all the garbage that we can get so we have a broader base over which to spread our costs. McNamara asked if there are any suggestions for what we offer to entice others to continue with us. Feland stated that we need to secure the best price we can get and strive to keep costs as close to what they currently are as we can and that may include making changes in the way we currently operate with our own sanitation needs. McNamara stated that he has a concern that we not promise more than we can deliver. Feland stated that we are not sure of where we will end up and need to continue reviewing our processes which is why we still have two vacant positions in Sanitation and still need to look at potential ways to lower cost in the collection and recycling sides to offset any cost increase in the disposal side. Feland stated that he is looking for authorization to begin discussions with Fargo so that he can get good comparison between them and Gwinner. He noted that in order for us to haul to Fargo would need to have approval of Fargo City Commission as well as our City Council and in the initial discussions, their Public Works Director thinks there may be some strings to getting that approval.

Feland stated that for research purposes he would like to treat the two respondents equally as we continue to work on this matter. The group discussed that the only there is a need for sanitary disposal locations in the Red River Valley and that all opponents have accomplished thus far is increasing costs and that overall resolution of the situation may ultimately require state involvement to resolve. The group also discussed that Fargo is also at the point where they are searching for landfill solutions and perhaps a regionwide solution can be arrived at as part of this process.

The group discussed that some citizens always bring up the incineration plant in Fosston, but don’t know that half the cost of that plant was paid for by the State of Minnesota and is supported by taxpayers of the region through a line item on their annual property tax bill, both of which are not options for us. Gershman stated that he has a concern with the large amount of fuel that would be expended to haul to Gwinner and would prefer to see a solution with Fargo if one can be worked out.

Motion by McNamara, Second by Kreun, to authorize Feland to begin discussions with Fargo and other bidders to negotiate rates for sanitation hauling and disposal. Aye: All. Nay: None. Motion Carried.

3. Water Drought Management and Conservation Plan and Water/Wastewater Master Plan Summaries.

Hazel Fetters-Sletten, Water Superintendent, stated that this report has been updated and an addition of the Clearwell was made, as well as a deduction for the capacity lost due to the flood project. She noted that this report would outline the steps we would use in the event of a drought, whether from environmental factors or a disaster event that affected our ability to produce potable water and cited the windstorm as an example. She continued that the report includes several indicators which have been updated and are the same that Fargo uses in their plan and these are all further explained in Appendix C. She explained that the plan now includes a five step system: normal, advisory, watch, warning, emergency. Fetters-Sletten explained each level and what types of steps would occur at each. She stated that the report details three levels of water restriction and that she has plans to revise this to a five level system to correspond to the five drought levels.

The group discussed that there are times such as this past summer when the water plant has been near capacity and we were on the verge of needing to go to a level of restriction and that we had several days at 14.8mgd, and plant capacity is at 16 mgd. Fetters-Sletten stated that having an isolated day that close to capacity is not as big a concern, but having several in a row could lead to problems, as its harder on the equipment to be running constantly at that level. She added that last year it rained just at the point where we would have been looking at starting to implement some restrictions and have been lucky in that regard haven’t had to take any steps since 1989 to restrict usage.

The group reviewed the proposed fines for violating restrictions and consensus was that they seemed appropriate. Fetters-Sletten commented that they wanted to set them high enough to be a deterrent and also to make them more timely than had been in the past policy.

The group was informed that the next step will be to bring a final draft document to the Committee of the Whole and City Council meeting in early December and asked that any comments be returned as soon as possible so that they can be included in the document.

Feland displayed a graphical representation of the costs associated with maintaining the water system and noted that we have spent $40 million since the flood on drought management without having a big impact on rates and that the reason there is not more discussion of this fact is that the associated projects have been successful.

Feland continued that he also wanted to make the committee aware that in 2007 they will be seeing memos on the Water Treatment Facility and also on the Red River Valley Water Supply needs and that in 2008 and later will need to look at making a decision on the Water Treatment Plant and Distribution System. He continued that there will also be some Wastewater issues that will be forthcoming as the southend continues to develop. He explained that the forcemain that serves that area was installed in the 1950’s and 1960’s and runs under Columbia Road and that we will need to do an asset management evaluation. He added that the concern will be that the initial installation cost was done after World War II with federal cost participation, but that will not be available for replacement, which will lead to our need to prioritize the worst of the worst problems and also to look at determining alternative funding sources beyond utility rates. The group discussed the need to also keep conversations going with East Grand Forks, as they will also have some of the same needs in the future and possibly there is a way to work together.

4. Smiley Water Tower Demolition and Menards Water Tower Rehabilitation Discussion.

Fetters-Sletten reported that the Smiley Water Tower is in need of repair. She explained that it was repainted after the flood, but that finish faded within five years and that currently large fissures in the actual finish and will soon be chipping away in large sections and to really repair need to actually sandblast and then paint and that dealing with lead based paint so some concern with that as well, as it flakes off. She continued that the water tower has not been in use since 1998 and was actually disconnected from the system in 2005. She stated that the area that used to be served by this tower years ago was the downtown area and that need is now served by the tower near the Purpur Arena. Fetters-Sletten stated that there is community sentimental value attached to the tower and it has been a commonly used landmark since its construction in 1931. She added that there is also a need to repaint the Menard’s tower this year, which is general maintenance. McNamara suggested that in repainting the Menard’s tower perhaps could use a smiley face logo on that as a replacement.

Fetters-Sletten reported that there will be other concerns regarding structural soundness of the Smiley Tower that will occur in a few years and that we are no longer getting any revenue from using it to host communication antennas for other companies. She continued that in 2005 numbers had been gathered regarding a demolition of the tower with a cost of $50,000 versus the cost of a complete restoration being approximately $190,000 and that these numbers would need to be updated to today’s pricing, but assume would be higher today. McNamara inquired whether there is any historic significance for the tower that would get us any funding to assist with the restoration. The group discussed that there was no distinction at this time, and that usually that does not bring any funding, but more restrictions on removal.

Fetters-Sletten added that the other thing to consider is that should the previously discussed rehab of the North Washington underpass that is currently scheduled for 2011 occur, the tower would need to be removed at that time to allow for the project to proceed and also noted that any work done on this tower would be funded through revenue from utility rates and are for a nonfunctioning part of the system.

Following discussion, Kreun directed that updated numbers should be gathered on both the rehab and the demolition of the Smiley tower, and that the consensus is to also work up budget numbers for repainting the Menard’s tower and to bring in both the numbers and potential designs for that project.

5. Other.

There were no other items.

6. Adjourn.

Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,


Sherie Lundmark
Admin Spec Sr.