Committee Minutes

Grand Forks City Council Service/Safety Standby Committee
Tuesday, November 9, 2010 - 5:30 p.m.____________________

The Service/Safety Standby Committee met on Tuesday, November 9, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Council Member Kreun presiding. Present at roll call were Bjerke, Grandstrand, Gershman (ex-officio).

Others present included: John Bernstrom, Al Grasser, Todd Feland, Dale Bergman, Saroj Jerath, Don Shields, Emily Fossen, Chief O'Neill, Chief Packett, Dean Rau, Jean Williams, Mark Aubol, Hazel Sletten, Mel Carsen, Earl Haugen.

1. Safe Intersections/Parking Enforcement Campaign. (Information only)
John Bernstrom, Info. Center, reported that the City is working with UND and Safe Kids Grand Forks re. on-street parking issues and highly congested areas in Grand Forks around the campus, downtown, around schools - that this is an information campaign relating to existing ordinances - want to determine the area of concern - media, PSA's, adding structural components and sign changes, etc. and enforcement. Information only.

2. Park District's request for partnership with the City of Grand Forks regarding Health and Wellness Center Project.
Reps. of the Park District made brief presentation of their request. Cam Tweten, rep.Grand Forks Park District, stated their request brought forward to the city council asking for support of potential needs for the development of the new Wellness Center that will start construction in the spring of 2011, and addressed in their letter development of new facility and some needs for the City of Grand Forks in regards to development of library for the future and also development of an extension of 40th Avenue that would extend from Ruemmele Road approx. to 38th. That in trying to reduce their costs and save money to the taxpayers, how they can partner together and have addressed re. to tax issues and believe that the 42 acres that they have is an opportunity for the City to develop a spot for the potential library in the future and have laid out 5 acres of land that would be dedicated for that piece of property and opportunity for the Library Board to look at a way of increasing traffic to their facility, way of developing programs within their organization of the Park District and share programs - ways for the City and Library Board to save money re. operational costs, share parking spaces, reduce some of their costs and also putting in a complete geothermal system into the property, they can tap into and save 40% of their utility costs. There is a need for future development south of the Target Center which would be development of 40th Avenue, would give easement for the property needed to develop that property for future growth; and are asking that the City of Grand Forks to partner with them, not asking for any free money but trading some land for some potential savings for some infrastructure costs and some other costs, building permit fees, licenses, etc. He stated they are not here to represent the library but have investigated this quite a bit in regards to the development of this facility and looking for economic development opportunities in the community, that this site and the announcement of their moving forward has brought a lot of other development come forward and have seen some other large projects come out in the next few weeks, will help Grand Forks grow and become a better community and only asking the City to come in with them, have 9 organizations that will partner with them and are asking the City to be one of those partners.

Kreun stated one of the things that will be brought up is the statement that no tax money will be involved in the Wellness Center and asked for explanation in partnering up with the City and utilizing tax payer dollars or not. Mr. Tweten stated their organization, Forks Area Health & Wellness Committee, has developed a plan for the Park District for the last 3 years and have raised over $15 million in cash donations towards this project and have developed another $10 to $12 million in regards to partnership of leases to the facility - have land available that the City will need in the future, and rather than selling it to the City, trade for some money upfront to cover some of their utility costs and will give the City the land in trade to make an equal deal - good for both ends and save the citizens of Grand Forks money in the long run. They have said they would commit 1 mill of their levy to support this project of $140,000/year for the length of the mortgage and would not increase any other tax increments to that purpose.

Kreun stated that he wants people to understand that this is a request, isn't defined and not ready to sign at this point in time but to look at the items brought to the City. Mr. Tweten stated they had initial small pieces of infrastructure costs for sewer and water that came out this fall and are starting that work this week, had a projected cost of $177,000, came in at $172,000 and gave us a $50,000 donation to the project, so $122,000 - and don't know what the final dollar is and hopefully will reduce some of that.

Al Grasser, city engineer, reported how utilities, etc. would affect the City, the Park District and the library. He outlined the types of items - tapping fees, building permits and that Washington Street, 40th and 47th Avenues South and that the 40 acres is broken down on the plat on 3 lots (Lots 1, 2 and 3) and tapping fee calculation and location of the Wellness Center building talking about Lot 2 and lot of ponding is contained in Lot 2.

That on-site infrastructure is going to be associated with parking lots and where majority of their costs are at, roads, etc. and on-site facilities. The Park District has bid out their Phase I of the utility master plan (sewer and waterlines). That off-site infrastructure including existing infrastructure up to 44th Ave.S. and the additional infrastructure est. at $1.5 is really the remaining infrastructure to get tied up into 40th Ave.S. (sanitary sewer and extension of water, extension in road paving and assoc. lighting and storm sewer) also included within that number is the holding pond (this has been suggested and broken up into 2 phases) and part of that cost - general discussion has been that it be located on Park District property and an easement, that the City would design it in special assessed form and that is part of the est. $1.5 million; and in the future there is another item to finish off the holding pond , some additional that would go in when site development occurs on Lot 1.

They had lot of discussion re. ponding at Planning and Zoning and one of the things that this site has always had a concern on the master plan is how to get the drainage out - have limited capacity on Washington Street and master plan had talked about putting a pipe from 47th Ave.S. down to the southend drainway to be able to remove the water, and that consultants came up with concept is to oversize the pond because of aesthetics, economics and have water feature at the site and discussion about being able as have half mile length - another benefit of the pond is that it can reduce the peak of the water discharge to a point where they can accept that capacity on Washington Street and would eliminate the need to run that separate discharge line to the southend drainway. It was noted that with new water quality have to store water on top of the ground somewhere in order to meet those standards and if can utilize those features and make amenities rather than weeds with chain link fence and want to avoid that.

They discussed the right of way on 40th Ave. and S. 34th St., and have had concept of S. 34th St. coming through and that existing right of way that the City owns for S.34th St. extension and have discussed in getting the road system improved as 40th Ave.S. is delivering classified street-type of roadway numbers onto Ruemmele Road which has direct access and configured as residential type street and idea was to take 40th Ave. and put in roundabout and then run 34th St. back.

Grasser stated re. cost, that our current policies would be to have the City contributing 80% of the cost of construction as it is a classified street and the other 20% would be special assessed - because of the way we assess halfway back to the next classified street, which would be Ruemmele Road and 36th and the assessment district would be contained within the Park District boundaries and as per partnership we are providing bulk of the money to build it but they are going to end up picking up the special assessments. There are a lot of details that once they review it is that on special assessments, have to be careful about assigning a dollar amount because the work will have at least items that are beyond the control of the city council - one is the price that we actually receive when we bid it, and second would be how the Special Assessment Commission distributes the benefits, concepts are valid but need to be carefully about being too precise on identifying a cost at this time.

Bjerke stated an issue is that taxing entities - that if don't want the Park District to be a separate taxing entity there is a way to accomplish that, can disband he Park District and make it a city department - that have funded the pool and dog park and now into this issue. He presented questions/concerns for information and to make it available to everyone:
1) would like a complete thorough and all encompassing list of all fees, permits, cost, in-kind worth, etc. and costs of waived item or cost to provide it. If the City is going to provide any services - needs specific numbers and the amount of money we are not collecting and amount of money spending as a separate taxing entity.
2) Regarding off-site infrastructure, the roads going into this on Map #4, if there is anything, whether roads, etc. now or later that is not covered by the $1.5 million - and if going to end up special assessing property within the district. Grasser stated that addressing that without numbers of where the assessment district boundaries are going to be, but doesn't see where there is going to be exposure to residential properties by any of the infrastructure that he is envisioning now.
The pond may capture some of the other unplatted parcels, but in this case not seeing anything they would propose beyond this boundary - something unexpected could come up.
2a) The City will pay $1.5 million and what is the funding source for the $1.5 million from the City. Saroj Jerath, city auditor, reported the Rental Rehab. Program, no restrictions on that money - Fund 2199. Bjerke stated that in the future if we have unrestricted dollars that equal $1 million that they can spend on whatever we want, should be part of our budget discussions. He stated if we want to talk about raising taxes for roads, here's million we could do with that and that if we are unable to provide the services we should provide as a city, why give money to other taxing entities.
2b) Asked that Mr. Duquette request the Park District and would like in letter form, why they can't bond the money themselves, and why the City needs to be involved. Kreun stated that the City can get a better interest rate and also there is a cap on the ability for the bonding amount.
3) Request to Mr. Carsen, city assessor, the value of the 5 acres of land. Mr. Carsen stated it is not a simple answer - the biggest challenge is the future costs that might be assessed to any parcel of ground that would be set aside for the library - there will be water and sewer, streets, ponds and a portion of that is going to be assessed back to the proposed library site - tried to arrive at a value of what the land might be worth today as it sits- with the anticipation that the Wellness Center would be built as that is the key component - the value of between $3 and $4/sq.ft. as it sits now and is a range of value of $130,700 on $174,200 per acre - average is $152,500/acre and 5 acre site be worth based on his calculations $762,500. Bjerke asked for value of the road (40th Ave.S.) - Carsen stated there is mutual benefit to the property owners when have R/W and often R/W is given up as part of the deal at no cost - stated $20,000 to $30,000/acre - and 3.5 acres = $87,500. Bjerke also stated for the record that the city council is not the Library Board and can't make this decision.
Gershman excused
4) Request for current city policies - Map #5 - that if we are going to develop this area and City requires road and pond, what is normal policy - do we pay for that land or would we normally pay for a pond. Grasser stated they haven't developed policies on the pond, that the City would like to move towards more of a regional pond system so don't end up with number of small ponds spread all over, need to have that discussion this year as to how the City would acquire that - his preference would be that it becomes part of the land developer donation to parks and open space
- now have been requiring the developer to incorporate these ponds on their sites and they continue to own and maintain them and is a piecemeal effort as they get into developing new areas - but would like a more regional pond system..

Bjerke also questioned land for the road, if we design, etc., if that is part of the development - Grasser stated in this case, and the question to a park could be debated as to how much of that land should be expected to be provided for free - but there is a valid question here of what would be the proper expectation of donation - but that our current land donations only apply residential. Bjerke asked who owns the existing library building and who gets the money if building sold - that there is no guarantee that we are going to have a new library but decided by the taxpayers at election, and doesn't know how we can promise $1 million upfront - that there will be a debate over the library as to whether it goes remodel vs. new - that he heard no taxpayer money and is open to some of the swapping and is willing to look at that and will be waiting for information at their convenience.

Mr. Duquette stated that staff works together to ferret out these proposals and has been happening with Mr. Staley and his staff and our staff, and they bring the information forward to the respective bodies for further discussion and future approvals. Staff has been working together on this Wellness Center site, trying to figure out infrastructure costs, etc. This is different proposal and have two government entities working together and one entity is making a request of the other entity but the initial work done by the staff has been normal procedure.

Grandstrand had several questions - some people concerned with the finances of the Wellness Center project and if there will be future requests for money Jim Bollman, Park District, stated they are in good shape financially, they are prepared to go ahead with building the Wellness Center with the financing they have without the partners - with lease business they have and with the grant and donation money think they are in shape, and using some of the proceeds from the Wellness Center itself to help pay off the bonds

Relative to asking the City for more money, can start without it and maybe have the 5 acres available and if the City, library or whoever would build on that property, and what they are offering is a proposal/bartering system, that they can use some things from the City, the City possibly can use some things from them and make a better deal for everybody, not just the Park District. Re. financially they are in good shape to go ahead and get this project underway, and still fundraising and asking for donations that will help them to enhance what doing and get some things in it that maybe would be extras. That if can work a bartering system to the benefit of the City and to the Park District, would like to do that The Wellness Center will basically be in the center of the property - location of the 5 acres still to be determined.
It was noted that they are developing geothermal system that can be utilized on a number of facilities in the site, would be building big enough field to meet the needs of the library for the future and also the hockey rink to the south of the property. Park District would be covering the cost of the field, where others could tap into that system would be a cost.

Relative to parking they don't know the size of the library, been working with the engineering department of the city re. size of parking that Park District would need for their facilities (hockey rink, Wellness Center, library) and opportunity to share combined parking lots and would reduce the amount of space that would be needed.. Grasser stated for stand alone facility need to have x number of parking spaces per sq.ft. of retail space - but when bring different facilities together, when mix uses together can probably share some of those parking spaces, and that is an analysis that the Planning Department would go through to figure out what would be a reasonable expectation of shared parking for the two facilities - would have to analyze specific buildings being discussed.

Relative to bonds Grandstrand asked how do they deal with the risk of non-payment or any risk associated with bonding for another entity - that the case maybe needs to be stronger about how it is going to be paid for as citizens nervous. Mrs. Jerath, city auditor, stated that in bonding cases we need to have reserve requirement, which most of the time is 10%, need to have the debt service coverage, and to cover the risk have to have those requirements. She noted that in talking about special assessment bonds, that our bonds are special assessment bond for 20 years and not 30 years. Grandstrand stated the risk of nonpayment is non-existent from the City and whether they ought to pay for it or not, they would special assess the entire city for amount they wouldn't be able to pay for otherwise. This will not affect our bond rating.

Kreun stated that fees when discussion of building permits, sewer connections, the actual sewer connection fee is $29,473, reconstruction on Washington and portion of special assessment tapping fee is $49,630 and southend drainway portion is $61,673 for $140,776; the building permit for a $10 million building permit would be $42,000 and if $15 million building, $62,000.

Bjerke stated that he will request in writing from the Library Board, assuming they own the building, that when the building is sold they must use that money for the new building and will make that motion; and that if the Library bond passes that the motion will state that the $1 million must be paid back to the City from sales tax as the library sales tax should pay for the library, not from other city sources, that those motions will be made; that if they do this and the library doesn't get built, then out the money. Kreun stated that in our MOU that if the library does not get built, that they would be able to use that property for some other use or would not be participating without the property, that if not built by 2015 it would revert back and still get to keep the million, not a good idea and not good negotiating tool - that this is a request and things that would fine-tuned and put in the memorandum of understanding or joint powers agreement - could put a fire station out there as will need one in the southend anyway.

Kreun stated hopefully have given public little more information - there were no additional questions.

3. Request for approval of resolution for N. 55th Street quiet zone and additional financial and procedural quiet zone items.
Jane Williams, traffic engineer, reported these items are related to the quiet zone - that in establishing a quiet zone have prepared studies, reviewed everything, and one of the final parts is to issue a notice of intent and is to advise all of the entities that are involved that they are intending to pursue a quiet zone; that 55th is the last quiet zone they have to issue an intent on; and will be asking for approval to do that. The grant is a state program that matching grant, max of $225,000 available to an entity and is matched at 10%, and have a limit of $75,000 at each crossing that can be spent and no limit on the number of crossings. The staff report shows listing of the crossing where they would like to expend the funds and are matching - the result of that is that leaves the city, which includes the 10% match at $153,980 which would be our total expenditure. There are no dollars for Gateway and that is being included in a project being done by the ND Dept. of Transp. ($24,000) and nothing in the quiet zone on that project.

There is an attachment that covers the grant which requires the city council to approve the application for the grant along with signatures, etc. and are asking for approval and to send on to city council.

The third item with 55th which is also part of the grant, there is a device, constant warning time, that is installed on the tracks that compensates for the varying speeds that the train approaches so that the gates come down at the correct time and give person time to stop regardless of how fast the train is approaching. Installation will be by BNSF and we would enter into an agreement, that the City would provide the funding for it and they would do the improvements. Agreement would be attached to the grant giving the State information on that, has been reviewed by the city attorney and are asking approval of that agreement.

The fourth item is the consolidation of the quiet zone implementation - the quiet zones have not progressed together, were separated because of paper implementation, etc. and as a result the downtown quiet zone which are the 3 crossing downtown, 42nd and DeMers, Glasston which is the one that runs parallel to 42nd through the campus; had one on the west wye, one on the east wye and those are separate and not concurrent with either the downtown or the Glasston, and 55th - so have 5 separate quiet zones running at 5 separate times. They met with BNSF last week and there are several different recommendations when implementing a quiet zone to bring up safety standards - when the horns are not sounded you can put in medians, additional crossing gates and many different things - our quiet zone the minimum standard was based on an average and meeting with BNSF, and our recommendation is to proceed with all the quiet zones together and that they all meet the minimum standards and would implement them all at the same time. .

She stated they also had one more request, which Pete Haga has been working on, that BNSF had originally given us work estimate of about 12 months after the agreement was signed and would like to see if could work with them to get this implemented a little quicker.

Kreun stated what probably is going to be the most difficult but most important is the last item - to get Burlington Northern to give us a completion date by June 1 of 2011 for 55th - indicating that we would like to implement all of this at one time in mid-summer or in 2011. He suggested sending strong message from the mayor and city council how important this is to our community.

Williams stated they do have the budget page in the packet where the funding will come from, $153,000, was budgeted for this coming year.

It was noted that the Mill spur is not included and will take many dollars to do that and was first required and every single crossing to start with, and that is not part of this study.

Motion by Bjerke and Grandstrand to approve and send to city council along with letter being written by the mayor to BNSF. Motion carried.

4. Request for approval of recommendation for Metropolitan Planning Organization 2011-2012 Work Program.
Jane Williams, traffic engineer, stated this is biennial request from MPO for their work plan, staff has come up with a list of items to submit to them, first item is urban development and rest are engineering requests, things they feel need to be addressed. Williams stated it was priority how the information is in the order that they need it. Bjerke stated that he thinks that item #7 be one of the first items done and should be item #3 because of coordination of traffic lights between the two towns. Williams stated they could move that item up and make them 3a and 3b. Motion by Bjerke and Grandstrand to approve and refer to city council. Motion carried.

5. Federal Transportation funding requests.
Dean Rau, asst. city engineer, reported this is annual project, have to update the transportation enhancement program with the State, this year two of the programs come due at the same time and bringing 3 requests in at one time. A listing of projects they are looking at funding is attached, those from 2012 thru 2014 have been on the list previously, newest one is 2015 project and in 2011 have a safe routes to school application and will be moving two different pedestrian signals that are not needed in those intersections and will move to intersections that need them. They have a TE request and the #1 item is the main request, to put in a bikepath from 42nd Street west to 48th Street, and plan to extend it to 55th and back north to the University. They have to work with the MPO, project wanted to install as a 2015 project is Columbia Road from 36th to 47th Avenue, long range project in the Long Range Transportation Plan and cannot add that at this time and need to amend that Plan, currently have a placeholder and see it as a 2017 project because plan is to insert the Columbia Road project, when get the plan amended will modify the TIP - request to approve attached list and direct them to submit it to the MPO for their processing.

Bjerke stated that if you get to North 55th and the come from the direction and that is a 4-lane
road and that from University to DeMers there isn't a bikepath there yet but that road is extremely wide and could on that and over to the Industrial Park, is important to have one here because there is no path and people do use it - would like to see that go in two consecutive years, been contacted by number of people, that Industrial Park is not in his ward but is a need - Grasser suggested making motion at city council. Motion by Bjerke and Grandstrand to move forward to city council. Motion carried.

6. Bids for Project No. 6594.2, Tower for PSAP Addition Project.
Grasser stated one of the key pieces of the communication building is the tower, was put out on separate bid because specialized piece of work, and received one bid from Sabre Communications Corp. for $141,409, engineer's estimate was $160,000, and have talked with Elert & Assoc., consultant, on the project and they are comfortable with the contractor as being qualified to do the work. He noted that this project is very specialized work and heard back from several contractors that to do this work in ND needed to be licensed contractor which costs several thousand dollars to get license, most didn't feel like they wanted to spend that money for license to be able to bid. The bid came in less than the estimate and would like to move ahead with it. Motion by Grandstrand and Bjerke to approve and move forward to city council Motion carried.

7. Grand Forks Water Treatment Plant Pilot Project. (Information only)
Hazel Sletten, water superintendent, introduced project team and gave brief update on the project - that they have completed first quarter of the project, and summarized some of the bullet points they have found out to date. One of the things modifying on their filter is that going to actually mimic the main plant filter and changing the media on that based on the date staff is collecting and in consultation called Malcolm-Tierney and they thought it would be better controlled if we actually mimicked the filter media that we are using in the current plant. Filters are performing and will go back and refine that part of it.

Relative to the ozone did find that its effective on taste and odor, have done some promate testing (bi-product with ozone) and wanted to make sure that doesn't exceed any limits and that we would be able to use ozone and are continuing to monitor that and move into that. At this point we're at the time where we were going to do the challenge testing and have contacted this committee members for volunteers for an odor challenge, not going to taste the water because that would be unhealthy, but rather check the effectiveness of ozone, removing the taste or causing compounds and that is going to happen next week, will have our first panel, have participants from finance, public works, from this committee and a couple members of the public at large as well as a volunteer from Advanced Engineering staff. They have experienced some time delays and equipment problems and addressing those and looking at our supplier contact and because of some of the delays with equipment breakdown, have missed our summer window and are looking at extending our testing periods and looking at that contract to see if we can negotiate a deal to not pay rent for the time that we lost based on their failure. We do have some budget implications because of that and consider those stand-up issues and have spent a lot of money on our engineering time and have a proposal to stay within the budget and that is under the budget implications slide with summary but did mix our summer window of temperature so going longer has potential at this point, trying to stay within our testing budget but there is a potential and making you aware of that. Pilot testing is very crucial to our overall project because want to make sure making the correct technology decision and this testing is important so if have to go longer is really an investment in our future decision making.

Moving forward will continue and take our over challenge, next week and then looking at the simulated distribution system effects and then will be moving into the winter phase and preparing for the next quarterly update. Have experienced the flooding episode so have challenged the equipment and are collecting bid data. She stated there are options and if we get into cold water and the testing shows really consistent results maybe can back off and save a little money, and will be flexible

Kreun stated what get from this group is to make sure that the testing is right because they went through a lot of work to determine what type of system they were going to use and want to make sure that is the correct one before going into the design process. Sletten stated that is their intent but wanted to inform you that they are watching the budget. Kreun stated that is not the driving factor in this case but appreciate that.

8. Grand Forks Water Treatment Plant Funding Development.
Todd Feland, public works director, reported they have funding agreement, have an update - the City of Grand Forks has received a federal earmark out of the signed appropriations committee, committee that Senator Dorgan chaired, and the City of Grand Forks received $1.5 million, had requested $2.3 and that the remaining amount was for the next federal fiscal year - that if watching news there is a bit of transition period going on right now in Congress and uncertain where that is going to happen but will follow up re. that earmark, and where the Senate is going to proceed. At this point have Hazel Sletten, Mr. Kreun and he have made trip to Bismarck and had discussions on our request for the Grand Forks Water Treatment Plant funding - the funding request was 25% federal, 25% state and 50% local and deciding on the local part and work out whether utility rates or funding.
They are talking about us at the water coalition meetings and that they have MR & I (Municipal, Rural and Industrial) requests and as have written the staff report arguing that we fit all three - are original water system, serve municipal, serve GFAFB, our location on the west end of town will only enhance to serve rural interests and are a large industrial community with Simplot, Philadelphia Macaroni, or other institutional users like University of North Dakota. We concur with that and have met as part of the state funding with Governor Hoeven and he encouraged us to keep proceeding in this process and to work with the State Water Commission, Water Coalition and Garrison Diversion District to continue being a partner and have continued that and at this point Governor Hoeven is to become Senator Hoeven and Lieutenant Govern Dalrymple is to become governor and that both share an interest in long term infrastructure needs in the State of North Dakota which includes eastern ND - there is some interest and they are talking about us and they are pleased with our multi-biennium approach and the first step of $1.7 that they are requesting is a step they should be able to make - their issue now in the upcoming biennium, have significant issue with Devils Lake outlets and downstream impacts and now setting aside about $70 million for that - there will be outlets and downstream impacts and are weighed in to some degree and on a wait and see approach - see how Devils Lake outlets will place more volume in the Sheyenne River and how it will affect the Red River -have advantage in Grand Forks as farther downstream and also have the Red Lake River.

Re. the city of Valley City, the State of ND has funded approx. 90% of their water treatment plant, doing a membrane plant, and they are going to ask for $5 million in additional funds; that Fargo is going to ask for addition money for downstream impacts re. Devils Lake outlets and that they have funding as part of that $70 million, and asking for 50% cost share as part of their water treatment plant where they would do some membrane technology. He stated that we didn't go down the membrane approach, are doing the ozone approach and are trying to say that we are concerned and want to monitor it - we do have some other issues with this but haven't piloted the membranes which would be the technology we would choose if our concerns were really approached on the Devils Lake outlets, etc. and that is something have to keep in mind and other issues they have in western ND - they are looking at a western area water supply and at expanding the Williston water treatment plant and to serve communities in and around Williston in the northwest corner.; that oil companies are willing to help fund some of that project. They are almost done with the M R & I and how fund that and as part of this request we are encouraging them to fund these requests up to their ability, 2) that the City of Grand Forks reserve all of these needs and into the future, that our 25% the last goal is if not able to procure the 25% from the federal that we would not be locked out but be able to come back and seek up to 50% from the allocation and that we are not asking for the 90% that Valley City is getting or not asking 75% that rural entities get, we are asking for what other municipal entities have asked for up to that 50% and we will continue to seek as many partners on this project as we can.

The next meeting coming up is on November 23 and there will be further discussion, have had two of them over the last two months about the 2011-2013 signing and they have asked for input from the cities and that we should come back to the committee and council and reaffirm that we like the direction they are doing in investing the long term infrastructure and in particular our case is a reasonable request and that we are willing to be partners with State of North Dakota. There are also additional meetings in December in which they are going to look at these and that our goal is to get in the State Water Commission's budget which will mean that we are in the Governor's budget - are continuing to follow up on the State side and Mr. Kreun can speak for himself as he is on the State Legislative side but we have done some good work in getting to this point, that being talked about and being considered and think we need to make the final push.

Bjerke asked re. Devils Lake issue - do we still have time to make on our system, and if at that time will Mr. Feland and his staff and Mr. Kreun because of the State work input that information into our decision so that will be looked at and will be brought back to committee for further discussion along with data results; make sure have all the information before making decision year from now. Feland stated that Ms. Sletten is monitoring and being cautious and want to be real in our request - and over the next year based upon what the Sate does approve with these outlets, that they would come back with team and continue to look at that and if do need to change course, can bring that to you.

Motion by Bjerke and Grandstrand to approve recommendation in the staff report (bulletin points) and refer to council.

Kreun stated they have to keep in mind that working with an elected group and with combined subcommittee of the Water Coalition, Water Commission and the Garrison Diversion and working with Water Coalition and with State Water Commission to get this funding through - each one of these bodies has input into this funding mechanism, and if look at report that having some trouble struggling with various policy issues to handle as many requests as received - have to deal with each and everyone along with Governor's Office - and invited either one of you along to get a feel for this because very convoluted but gaining some insight with this - long struggle and need strong support from council and mayor and that is why coming back with this reaffirmation and that we need it. Upon call for the question and upon vote, the motion carried.

9. Dial-A-Ride (DAR)/Senior Rider Request for Proposal (RFP) Results.
Feland stated they anticipate the cost for rides going up and would like to review several points that he and Dale Bergman reviewed along with reps. from East Grand Forks - this is a metro-service that we provide for East Grand Forks, Grand Forks and the University of North Dakota - they received one proposal from Grand Forks Taxi (current provider of this service). We still have Option C as the best value for the City of Grand Forks, option in which the City would perform the reservations and dispatching at the hours in the RFP, would do maintenance on all vehicles, do fueling on city provided vehicles and storage of those vehicles. They looked at the dispatching costs and propose 2 dispatchers, about $60,000/year, in city bus facility and that is vs. the $77,000 that would be charged if Grand Forks Taxi were going to do it, and find some savings there; and have better understanding of the day to day operation. On the maintenance side not proposing any increases in staff; and can store city-owned vans in our facility.

Second issue is to wait and see approach as costs go up and suggested moving that up to $3.00/ride which is max. they can do at this time, and asking as part of the proposal is that just approve the 2011, that this is a 5-year agreement, but come back each year with the cost, and did include the 2012 ride cost at $3.15 and in 2013, $4.00, but not recommending at this time - only asking for the 2011 and continue to work on that.

The final thing would be - our adult cash is $1.50 and could charge twice that amount and if want to go above that then have to reorientate our entire fare cost per ride for adults.

They have talked about doing the para-transit dispatching hardware and software improvements and this will allow us to have better control of the system and better management and recommending to proceed with the joint purchase with the City of Fargo and they have their bid out there for this route match, looks like best system and would like to proceed with that system via the City of Fargo joint purchase.
Relative to the budget of $458,000 for 2011 as part of this service and if look at the additional cost of this service, will have est. cost, less fueling, of $540,000 and will have a deficit of $82,000. He also noted that they had a $27,587 operating surplus and when did revenues over expenses, had $27,000 more revenue than expenses; that if take the $82,000 and will have some additional fuel costs that aren't taken into concept - looking at $70 to $80,000 that we're going to spend our cash from. Our unreserved cash balance in that fund is almost $500,000 and can spend that down to cash now but can't do on a long term, that's unsustainable and because it is unsustainable we will partner it with East Grand Forks, University of North Dakota and the MPO, and MPO is looking at a study of improvement in the system, and as get this kicked off on January 1, start looking at improvements and working throughout the next year to look at service improvements and cost containment ideas- and work with GF Taxi and in 2012 can look at ways to lessen the burden on the City and passengers. They looked at a per hour cost, right now on a per ride cost to see if that would be better deal for the City

Some other communities separate their Dial-a-Ride and have had a very good run the last 8 years of the Senior Rider, when the City took over the Sr.Rider and combined it with Dial-a-Ride and had good per ride cost. An additional idea to look at is separating the Dial-a-Ride per ride cost or per hour cost from Sr. Rider cost, in Dial-a-Ride have the ADA vans which are specialized where the Sr. Rider system is picking people up that can use a regular van, and look at separating those two service and still combine service where a cost per ride would be for optional service which is the Sr.Rider service vs. what their mandatory service which is the Dial-a-Ride service. The three things they are recommending from now and continue to look at throughout the year with some assistance from the MPO and updating you on how things are going month to month with service provider and updating you on an as needed basis on how that report is coming in and bringing back some suggestions on how they would like to proceed.

Motion by Kreun and Grandstrand to approve and refer to city council. Motion carried, Bjerke voting against the motion.

10. Matter of sale of real estate property at 5702 70th Avenue North.