Committee Minutes

Grand Forks City Council Service/Safety Standby Committee
Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 4:30 p.m._- Council Chambers _____

The city council of the city of Grand Forks sitting as the Service/Safety Standby Committee met in the council chambers in City Hall on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 at 4:34 p.m. Present at roll call were Council Members Kreun, Bakken, Bjerke.

Others present were Todd Feland, LeahRae Amundson, Chief Packett, Don Shields, Pete Haga, Greg Hoover, Earl Haugen, Dale Bergman, Brad Gengler, reps. of Burns & McDonnell, and reps of Rye Township, and Heather Kienitz of SEH.

1. Downtown updates.
Parking/Traffic:
Greg Hoover, Urban Development, reported they have added diagonal parking downtown, has not had any complaints at his office and few comments have been favorable and have added spaces where not originally planned earlier and est. of spaces gained is 70 and that leaves plenty of parking in the ramps and diagonal parking was to address the issue for people who wanted more convenient and access to the businesses downtown. At the Central Ramp they have put in security cameras and in couple instances were able to catch some young people who damaged some vehicles and other illicit acts in the ramps and has been beneficial. He noted they shut down the ramp on July 7 and intend to open before August 15, the ramp is almost totally painted inside (walls and the ceilings) and also replacing rubber treads in stairwells, painting doors and doing improvements in landscaping, replaced yellow posts and putting planter containers where had exits to 4th and 5th Streets and exits now are on 1st Ave.N. They have several areas on corners of 1st Ave., 5th and 4th that are set back and putting in some benches and pavers, and have plans that are being put into place to do landscaping along side the ramp and repairing entire sidewalk on 5th Street and 1st Ave.N. and include pavers and in the future put in some lighting improvements with respect to street lights, getting signage ready and all will be done by August 15 and at the Finance/Development Comm. within next 30 days will be coming with a new parking fee plan to increase revenue which has not been increased over last 10 years. There is money in the budget next year to do the painting and energy efficient lighting in the Corporate Ramp and are doing the energy efficient lighting in the Central Ramp.

There was a question as to enforcement in areas with restrictions. Enforcement in 2006 consultant report suggested that Urban Development take over both on-street parking along with what they are doing in off-street parking areas; and beginning January 1 enforcement will be transferred to the police department using a CSO, there will be 2-hour limits and a parking plan in Central Ramp - 100 spaces on first level for the public with 2-hour spaces, middle levels will be reserved from 6:00 to 6:00 and upper 2 floors of the ramp will be leased to the School District for Central students; they will be vacating the lot across from the civic auditorium as they begin to redevelop there.

It was also noted that the area on the east side of the levee system and if indicated to School System that is available. Hoover stated they had discussed that but there are concerns from public safety standpoint, of traffic egress and ingress esp. in the morning and that is why they are putting kids in the Central Ramp and that the lower area near levee will be available for people using the greenway and overflow parking for downtown.

Feland stated that they have been informed that the downtown would like to reduce the number of days they have street maintenance, currently it is Monday, Wednesday and Friday and on avenues Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday; and that they are proposing to do Monday/Wednesday on streets and Tuesday/Thursday for the avenues and that would require an ordinance change. Another change would be no parking signs which say 1:00 a.m. and with 2:00 a.m. bar closing and proposing to change that to 2:00 a.m. and that they weren't towing people until after 2:00 a.m. on 3rd and 4th.

He stated if committee concurred he would bring that to Committee of the Whole as that requires two readings. He stated there is some concern as it reduces number of days for maintenance. In winter time if that sufficient to clean streets - and concern is where have bars ands restaurants on 3rd and 4th and have to define downtown district as part of this modification. He stated it worked pretty good last year but have doubled the number of diagonal parking spaces but if bad winter can declare emergency for maintenance. It was noted could see formula for complaints.

Pete Haga reported that Ali's playground is doing really well and ready to order equipment and hopefully get in this fall and appreciate support from the mayor and city council.

Kreun asked where change came from for change in maintenance. Mr. Haga stated it was initiated by residents of the downtown and at one of the early UND Senate meetings as a way to alleviate some of congestion and parking concerns with downtown area and would double the parking ability on Thursday and Friday nights. Kreun stated they have now reduced ability to clean the street, not opposed to trying it. Haga stated if goes to council for two readings will get lot of air time and discussion. Committee stated they couldn't give strong recommendation but would bring to council for discussion and public hearings.

Earl Haugen, MPO, reported he has consulting firm working on the downtown plan, and have a newsletter that has been established and copies in the back relating to updating of the downtown plans. He stated they want to focus on two things: highlight of the existing traffic conditions in the downtown; and that there has been talk of converting the one-way pairs on 3rd and 4th Streets between University Avenue and Gateway Drive and have a memorandum for review to help guide them as they consider this possibility and how engage the public, etc.

Chief Packett stated they have not voiced an opinion on the one-way issue but will be willing to work with traffic engineering and planning and mayor's office re. that and be prepared by the time council would consider that.

Heather Kientz, traffic engineer with SEH, one of the consultants working with MPO on the downtown plan, stated one of the issues for evaluation as part of the plan was potential conversion of the two streets from one-way to two-way between University and Gateway and discussed potential of needs to consider. The memo summarizes the situation, reasons for evaluation is that can provide better neighborhood circulation, better connectivity to people and there is perception that vehicles travel faster on one-way streets than on two-way and that this is a residential neighborhood and no need to run traffic through that neighborhood quickly, and no stop signs between University and Gateway and traffic has potential to move faster. MPO is collecting data that will collect speed and volume data on both of those streets.

Next are the intersections with Gateway, concern is entering Gateway at a skewed intersection at 4th, 3rd comes in perpendicular but is a narrow street and has a signal at the School, have multiple access in a short distance, and need to consider full access movements at U.S. Highway intersections so the DOT needs to consider; that Jane Williams, city traffic engineer, is concerned about those intersections so proposed potentially not extending the two-way section all the way to Gateway but backing it to 10th or 9th Aves. - one or two blocks so not have to change anything at Gateway. She stated they will evaluate crash information at Gateway to see if there might be a problem or if designs are so low that it is not necessarily something of concern. Some of the implications at Gateway are shown at the back of the memo (attachments re. turning radius, etc.) At 3rd Street either passenger cars or single unit trucks both have overlaps for inbound and outbound vehicles, narrow section of 27 ft., and need to have widening of the street but doesn't have R/W lines, but is another consideration.

She stated that once they meet with the neighborhood group, and if a lot of support for whether test this for period of 3 months, collect data and results of the test or if enough support and belief in part of professionals involved that is a good idea and don’t need to do the test or implement a conversion, and is dictated by funding. Some of the things are pavement markings, signing, replacing or moving signs, striping and once convert to two-way would need to consider new signing and that from University to Gateway there is no stop control and when making change, might want to consider where should or could have all way stop control or stop signs - something that provides different rights of way to the drivers on the E/W street vs. N/S street, as both 3rd and 4th have full right of way but when introducing turns off those streets, will want to stop people at certain locations. Another consideration is pedestrian traffic and is reason for neighborhood involvement to make sure people are aware of any changes that occur.

Council Member Kreun stated that the pedestrian underpass under Gateway that was just updated, and if that was looked at usage of that in the study. Kientz stated she was not familiar with that.

Earl Haugen reported they met this noon with technical steering committee on the study and neither traffic engineer nor district engineer were very favorable with modifying Gateway Drive access and seemed like the focus they present to the neighborhood is that two-way conversion would be possible up to 10th or 11th Avenue but doesn't sound possible to Gateway Drive unless have a desire to make it to Gateway Dr.; there are obstacles that would have to be overcome, major one to make modifications to the intersections, and would like direction from the committee to inform the neighborhood that it won't go to Gateway Drive. The request for this change came from the Near Northside Neighborhood at a meeting. They stated that the one-ways attract a speed issue through the neighborhood and felt two-way traffic would lower the speeds. It was noted that when the Kennedy Bridge was built the one-way pair was instituted to be a quick way to get to get downtown since they lost a lot of the downtown traffic because it was by-passing on Kennedy Bridge but dynamics of downtown have changed where one-way pairs aren't serving that function anymore; have history of this being desired and considered as part of downtown plans to convert it back to two-ways and not until recently that the neighborhood expressed any interest in doing that conversion. That they are doing a downtown plan and this was an issue that was expressed as part of that plan and that is why it is in the scope of study, and question is that we are not going to try to modify the Gateway Drive access, and the second issue is the incremental cost to do a test pilot, and whether we want to go ahead and pay those costs knowing that we might remove the improvements or changes we make because the test pilot fails. Question is whether we do a test pilot or if enough neighborhood support after we describe we can't get to Gateway Drive, do it and that it can be changed and drop idea of pilot test. Bjerke stated they are looking at 6 or 7 blocks and part of 3rd St. uninhabited, concerned that if not going all the way, concerns about doing part of the way. Haugen stated the main reason is to reduce speeds, two-way traffic has lower speeds than one-ways, and another reason would be access change, providing more access to the neighborhood residents along those streets. Bjerke stated he would like to see the accident reports and concerned about putting money in 6 block project if can't go all the way. Haugen stated there is a cost but it is reasonable.

Kreun stated that this is one without a huge reconstruction, isn't going to accommodate double turning movements. Kientz stated if look at North 3rd Street and traffic coming in and out of there now, they show paths inbound and outbound going out together are adj. or overlapping and need another 10 ft. and need to consider your curb radius, and at the other intersection the concern is that if you were to exit off of N. 4th and take a right onto Gateway, you have to either swing out into the on-coming left turn traffic or cut the corner and revise the curb radius to allow for a full access movement, that radius change is more expensive than changing sign and paint, but not a huge investment and thinks it will help to have the turning movement data to understand and also to understand the volumes on these streets to know what impact it may or may not have.

Kientz stated another issue is that this is a residential neighborhood and not a need to push people through quickly, one-way streets are not used for access, have access along here and forcing them to go around the block, it is not ideal not to continue onto Gateway but already have a stop at University so shifting that point of one-way/two-way conversion towards Gateway. She stated they considered the elementary school that turns at 11th so consideration is there for school crossing guards, where parents drop off kids and that they drive along 4th and drop off on the left side of car in the lane of traffic and things they still need to consider.

Kreun stated they want a recommendation to bring forward to try it and either use suggestions to stop two-way at 10th and 11th. Haugen stated it is an easy conversion - change signs and no issue at Gateway Drive and State and city traffic officer not in favor of two-way traffic at Gateway Drive on either 3rd or 4th Sts. It was also noted that the DOT will have final say whether we have turning movements on Gateway Drive. Cost off testing will be minimal if don't do anything at the intersections with Gateway - striping and signage (bag over existing signs). It was also stated that the residents have to understand that may not get the turning movements on and off Gateway Drive. Bjerke made a motion to do the test and stop at 10th and 11th Avenues on both 3rd and 4th Streets; Bakken seconded the motion. Motion carried. (Committee action only)

Haugen stated when they have the data, will analyze it and will arrange a neighborhood meeting, get feedback and come back to committee.

Kientz stated they are doing the downtown plan and that there might be potential redevelopment scenarios and how those might impact traffic operations, and wanted to develop a base line of traffic operations, they went through and updated the city's syncro models, computer model with updated signal timing and updated turning movement counts which are for the a.m. and p.m. peak house and evaluated operations at all the intersections - about 28. There is some excess capacity at these locations for additional traffic and the city traffic engineer has done a good job of re-coordinating signals through downtown Grand Forks.

Haugen stated that last fall Jane Williams and John Thompson re-timed signals and problem is that they are old antiquated signals, clocks won't be synchronized for long and that is why doing part of the study as there is a million dollar investment to upgrade all the signals downtown in 2011 or 2012 and this will confirm or validate that recommendation - we can squeeze a lot more traffic through if our signals are timed right, and in the past haven't had that signal time coordination and had some stop and go issues downtown. Kientz stated they are time based coordinated and once have radio wave control can actually improve and as development increases should be able to serve it but will run those scenarios as they get them. Kreun stated that is good news and we won't have to rebuild the intersections.

Todd Feland reported that they have decided that Urban Development is going to do the downtown general maintenance, public works will do the levee maintenance, wet side and greenway; Urban Development is going to maintain the ramps and going to do sweeps through the downtown to pick up the general area (personnel go through the downtown and pick up misc. litter, etc.) to keep up the general appearance of the downtown, including Town Square park. He stated what would be included in that is that there has been a call to have refuse containers, that what they had proposed is that they would put in metal garbage containers in the downtown area, esp. on 3rd and 4th Streets and adjoining avenues - on 3rd up to the Toasted Frog and to Kittson Avenue and 4th save area and try to cover DeMers, Kittson - and purchase 20 containers to do that - est. cost $800 each or $16,000. It was considered that they use Beautification funds and backup plan was to purchase containers with sanitation funds, once purchased out of container fund budget, Urban Development would be in charge and do maintenance and upkeep of the containers. He noted this is under the $30,000 limit, can proceed with purchase, but wanted to bring it before committee prior to purchasing the equipment. He stated that Mr. Haga has had conversations with bar owners and that Urban Development would receive the revenue since they are doing the general maintenance of the containers and that there would be a charge on a residential unit basis and also a commercial basis whether bar or retail store but no fee structure set up for the maintenance. City will purchase containers and there is an on-going user fee; and proposing 2 containers per block.

Proposal is to purchase 20 containers and locate them, pay for them through the utility fund and charge for service by Urban Development - may end up on utility bill or through parking assessments that they do downtown area.

Bjerke asked if this is for beer bottles and asked if have an open container of alcohol on the sidewalk isn't that a violation of city code - and if they should be leaving bar with alcohol in their hands - and that should be addressed. Pete Haga stated he thought it was unfair to say this is for alcohol containers - some are but there are residents who live downtown and everything not coming from the bars but out of apartments as well - and is general appearance and at this time there is no place to put them. Bjerke stated if do it, do it right - have trash containers emptied, etc. Feland stated they will do it right. He stated people complain Saturday mornings when coming downtown for Farmers Market re. litter on the streets - and goal is to have it all picked up by then, and Urban Development is committed to that. Haga stated it is a basic understanding that we help provide the receptacles and they take care of the property.

Kreun asked why is Urban Development picking up the trash and if they are equipped to do that - Haga stated they do general maintenance of the downtown. Feland stated that he wanted committee's concurrence so that when he bids containers and in meantime get fee structure. Kreun stated their consensus would be to go forward and when have completed with fee structure in place let them know and will move it to the council.

Feland stated that they are working on recycling garbage on 3rd and 4th as talked earlier about traffic pilots and doing pilot study down there and LeahRae Amundson from public works is doing a great job and doing on pilot there as there has been some demand from apartment owners and business owners around Urban Stampede and Sander's and are working on that. Kreun asked if the City is doing that, and when is Waste Management's contract up for recycling; that they have increased their tonnage each year but haven't gone into large apartment complexes, University area, downtown businesses for recycling to promote it. Todd stated contract is up this year and have to make some decisions and have had some discussions on it; and that Waste Mgmt's will continue to do the recycling but City is conduit to bring people together to make things happen and that when have diverse interests and that in the last year have had more people call and want to have recycling because of our green call, and apartments going away from individual containers but one commingled thing is to go with the container for solid waste container and have recycling container where you can throw everything in, and when start talking recycling in the next month or so those are some of the things they will change, and for household where have one container where you can throw all your recyclables in; not ready to present all the information but have had a few meetings with Waste Mgmt. and they are trying to be more coactive and that is the next thing they will have to push along with the other things they are working on.

Kreun stated he is a little disappointed with Waste Management as it has been 3 or 4 years that they have had the contract and have asked numerous times to get involved and we are the one again instigating this when we gave them the ability and payment to increase their tonnage and income and hasn't materialized. Feland stated they have increased their tonnage goals and are on a record year again this year. People are more excited about doing this (recycling) now.

Bakken stated that Hugo's on 32nd has recycling containers out but when drive by there they are overflowing, on ground, etc. and haven't been dumped ; and it was noted that is Waste Mgmt.; and it was also noted that SuperOne is going to have an additional site on the southend also and maybe take some of the stress off Hugo's. Kreun stated that in the bidding process, some of these are going to be private sector and will be required and not voluntary in the bid process and have to provide maint. Feland stated that in August will bring back the recycling and get some feedback and get that rebid.

2. Dial-a-Ride/Senior Rider Service fee increase request from GF Taxi.
Todd Feland, public works, stated that in June they increased the taxicab fare and are now back here and that the RFP in fall of 2005 and was effective January 1, 2006 for combining the dial-a-ride/senior rider system and there is contract changes and that we do have the ability to change the agreement and move the fee up or down, and today's request is to move the contract fee up. He stated in his written comments that the first part is that the contract started on January 1, 2006 and that it was $2.50 per user and City would carry the balance of $4.35 and total cost of $6.85; and that contract changes on January 1 of each year and this is a 5-year term based on Midwest CPI and on January 1, 2007 was 3.2% and in January 1, 2008 it was 4.4% was inflationary increase. The other part of this contract is that the increase on the 4.4% went over the entire amount, but only the City's subsidy carried the cost increase and one of the goals and objectives was to keep the user fee at $2.50 and the 4.4% is over the entire fee, and in January 1, 2008 it went up to $7.38 and at the time had one other proposal which was from Nodak Cab, and they did an RFP that looked at it two different ways - a standard taxicab, a standard unit that wasn't ADA accessible; second fee they looked at was a wheelchair accessible van where they could carry ADA people and had two different fee structures - and at January 1, 2006 they started at $7.05 vs. Grand Forks Taxi, $6.85; and wheelchair accessible was $9.95 so more expensive. Grand Forks Taxi chose to do one fee for everything and so he carried the same logic from 2007 to 2008 using the same inflationary cost factors.

Feland stated the taxicab fare increase in May of 2005 was $2.25 per base fee and $0.30 per 1/8th of a mile and a 3 mile average trip in Grand Forks was $9.15 and after June increase of this year, the flag went to $3.00 and 1/8th mile stayed at $0.30 and the 3 mile average trip went from $9.15 to $9.90. Grand Forks Taxi above and beyond the inflationary increase that was provided is requesting a $1.00 increase from the $7.38 to $8.38 ride. He stated they want to be fair to the other proposer and looked at Nodak Cab comparison and assuming that 70% of the rides are provided by ADA vans and 30% provided by people that don't need an ADA van, have limited mobility but can get around without an ADA van, and that in 2008 all those inflationary factors and assuming the breakdown of Nodak Cab, their average cost of a ride to be $9.78 per rid and that even with the increase that has been requested, they are approx. $1.50 less per ride with the $1.00 increase. He stated that in FY2007 we provided 56,000 dial-a-ride/senior rider rides and that in January 2006 when this contract became effective, the price per gal. was $2.17 and in July, $4.00, almost doubled. He stated that we are much lower than Bismarck and Fargo on a per ride basis, and Moorhead ride cost is $19.63 of which the user pays $2.00 and City subsidizes it at $17.63 per ride and will get Bismarck and Fargo info. He stated we do have funds and have been relatively successfully in Public Transit Dept. to have some cash balances and to be in the positive side on the revenues over expenses in both dial-a-ride/senior rider in Public Transit even in 2009 budget and even with adding cost in dial-a-ride we would still have more revenue coming in than expense and even on positive side even with the adjustment.

He stated he thinks our private sector provider paratransit service including senior rider is in trouble and doesn't know if they can sustain for much longer and if they cannot, we will have a big challenge in short amount of time in trying to re-configure what we have done - will cause anxiety with people that depend on this service; and that we would have to take over the ADA van type service and get as many vans here as quickly as possible with the monies that we have.

Bjerke stated that if they increased the $2.50 to $2.75 and the City pay $0.75 and the consumer would pay $0.25 and the quarter times 56,000 would generate $14,000 which means they would only need $5,280 more into City's budget - they would get their $1.00 and we would break even and still be taking 75% of the increase; and that if everyone else has to pay more and if giving a discounted ride - doesn't dispute that needs $1.00 more. Feland stated the quickest way to do it is to absorb the hit because if raise the dial-a-ride fee and users requires public hearings and could say for January 1, 2009 propose a rate increase for the users. He stated now 100% of the City and January 1, 2009 go 25 cents increase for the user and 75 cents to the City. Bakken asked if $1.00 is enough and doesn't want to do this every 6 months; land noted that Mr. Bentz thinks they are okay unless things go extremely up.

Haugen stated that this is a 3-way party agreement and East Grand Forks will have to concur to the increase in cost or possibly the 3-way agreement would have to result in some other arrangements, not suggesting that East Grand Forks wouldn't but that 3 of them are parties to this agreement that is suggested being amended. He stated that if doing the quarter increase that would have to cause an amendment to the transit plan, public hearings because it's a fare increase and EGF has a contractual arrangement with MNDOT that supplies most of the subsidy. He stated that MNDOT has a cap and if going to do this mid-year would have to work out in the budget amendment with them to cover that increased cost but if doing it now, January 1, 2009, have time to work on next year's budget. The $1.00 increase to the City would be somewhere around 15 to 20% of that or 15 cents to 20 cents, the rest of that is covered by the State; his office would make the proposal to East Grand Forks.

Feland stated that if could start this in July billing cycle with new rate and it was asked that he send a memo to the council so that they know that is taking place; this will have to go to the city council to amend the agreement and will have this on Monday's committee of the whole agenda and for concurrence with full council.

3. New Landfill update.
Todd Feland presented representatives of Burns & McDonnell, Phil Shefchek, project geologist and Kristina Stewart, hydrogeologist.
He reported they received the permit extension to when the runway is complete and operational, no later than October 1, 2009, and received letter on July 10, and projected final completion date is the end of October, 2008 and this gives us 30 days. There will be a meeting with the Airport Authority at working session tomorrow and questions can be answered.

In July and August will be working on finalizing permitting documents and will have meetings with Dept. of Health as they review some of the plans and objectives, goal is to get this information in after Labor Day and that within 120 days will have a landfill hearing in Grand Forks to review documentation. He stated they are working on appraisals n property and that Mr. Warcup, asst. city attorney, has sent letter to property owners- the first appraisal is on Klien property which will be done this coming Friday and will have appraisal before city council within next two weeks and that Mr. Roos has contacted other property owners.

He stated they have three briefings coming up:
(1) Rye Twp. Board of Supervisors is having meeting on Tuesday, July 29, in the Alerus Center at 7:00 p.m. - intent of this meeting is that there has been request from citizens of Rye Twp. to meet with Twp. Board, that there is a list of things they wanted the City to address and to make sure that was on record, and additional things that they would like to have aired and perhaps included to the list. He stated he was asked by Mr. Stromsodt to give a 20-minute overview of landfill plan..
(2) Meet with Grand Forks County Commission and he is included on their August 5 agenda at 4:00 p.m.
(3) On Wednesday, August 6, plan to do a Grand Forks Planning & Zoning Commission briefing at their 5:30 p.m. meeting.

Mr. Shefchek reported with interim update re. fieldwork for the hydrogeological investigation which was largely completed on July 1 and bulk of drilling has been done, wells and monitoring of those have been installed, over 100 soil samples have been maintained and those are now under testing in the laboratory, and still have some field work to do. Purpose of the investigation is to characterize the soils and groundwater beneath the site and to provide enough information for our geotechnical engineers to be able to design the foundation so that the landfill would be stable. All their date and information including geotechnical design goes to the North Dakota Department of Health for the landfill permit application. He stated they drilled at 55 locations on the site, 40 are basic hydrogeological data, soil type, soil color, groundwater characteristics and they installed one boring that includes sensors that tell the water pressure at different depts. and drilled 9 borings away from the landfill site but still on the property to find borrow soils because the water table is quite shallow and to obtain enough soils to do landfill construction and daily cover type of things, may need extra soil and defined soils that could be used for that purpose.

Piezometers are wells or devices to measure the water pressure in the soil and tells us where and how quickly the groundwater is flowing, have 25 wells that they routinely measure water level measurements in depth below ground so can calculate the hydraulic pressure, groundwater flows from high pressure to low and defining where it flows. They have over 100 soil samples in the laboratory for testing, and also sampling groundwater and soil chemistry. He stated they installed piezometers to get a general idea of the groundwater flow and the geology for the comparison of the north and south areas. The number of borings is regulated by the State and have exceeded guideline. He stated no surprises at all - clay and silt strata, much like the current landfill and uniform layering, layers are even because they are lake sediment deposits that flowed in at the end of the glacial episode. The water is highly mineralized and not a potable water source and have lot of chemical data to show that and water table is about 10 feet down, which is shallow, and poses some construction challenges.

Layers are very simple and straightforward, virtually all of the soils are clay, some layers have more silt in or less and layering will have very little impact on the design. There are some fractures in the soil which is very normal in fine grained soils that groundwater either flows between the silt and sand grains or clay grains or flows in fractures, and very fine fracture and very normal and best test to calculate the groundwater flow rate. The groundwater at this site is very salty, that is shallow and deep, not usable potable aquifer and the constituents that make it salty water - chlorides, sulfate and solids, etc. He noted that the chart showing US EPA secondary drinking water standards. Total dissolved solids same kind of thing, 500 parts per million is guideline and we had samples ranging from 1300 to 33,000 and very high total dissolved solids, very high salt content. Another constituent - they test for many constituents and metals - arsenic is type of metal and they had a number of accidences of the 10 part per billion that is guideline for max. contaminable level for US EPA drinking water standards and had 51 in one sample, 120 parts per billion - variable but high enough to make the water non-potable. He stated this is not a drinking water opt that would be at risk - cattle can use chlorides up to 3,000 parts per billion but have numbers that exceed even what cattle would tolerate.

The water table is typically 8 to 10 ft. below ground, water table is zoned below which all the port faces filled with water and that is the level that controls the direction that groundwater flows and causes bit of challenge to landfill design because the State does not allow the landfill refuse to go below the water table, and the landfill has to be less than 8 to 10 ft. deep at this site and engineers will probably keep it shallower than that to put a buffer in.

Permeability is very low (ability of a material to transmit water), extremely slow groundwater flow rates like the current landfill, and the site has a high silt content in the soils and more fracturing than the existing landfill and groundwater velocity is a little higher but is still extremely low number, groundwater velocity is flowing horizontally through these soils at somewhere between a fraction of a foot per year and two and a half feet per year; and that if there were to be a leachate experience you would have plenty of time to catch it - would be easy to remediate if have such an experience. Based on the preliminary results nothing has changed from our last assessment, appears very well suited, very low permeability soils, very slow groundwater flow rate and very poor natural groundwater quality - no surprises and with what we have now it looks like a favorable site.

Kreun stated that this is a better site from geological standpoint than Turtle River site. Mr. Shefchek stated they are comparable, believes Department of Health will share your assessment because the Turtle River site permeability was so low they were facing dilemma how do you monitor something that the groundwater is moving an inch per year and harder to design - that site had less silt so more of a design challenge of foundation type, and believes Dept. of Health will share your assessment; but our design engineers could design it at Turtle River or design it here, because the design is going to be more simple and not have to do some complicated design analyses - but hydrogeologically from his perspective they are comparable.

A resident of Rye Twp. stated that they are telling him that the water is not suitable to drink, that he lives in Section 12 and has had a well for past 15-20 years and water tested the first week in June and is suitable for drinking - that his well is down 211 ft.; that they stated that the water table is 8 to 10 ft. and that he was out there at different times measuring the water and the water from the top of the hole was 31 to 37 inches and long ways from 8 to 10 ft.; that this is a dry year, and didn't feel information was accurate. Mr. Shefchek stated they would take that into account in the design, they won't build a liner below the seasonal high water table; and engineers may not dig any excavation at all, they may set the landfill right on the ground and that is part of the design process, information that he has is important to them to do that design. He stated at the time they measured, these are the depths and know there are seasonal fluctuations and glad to hear that number. He stated because the soils are so low in permeability that they don't let the rainwater seep down too well and possible reasons of why. Mr. Shefchek stated they were going out to recheck tomorrow and agreed that reps. could go out with them; that whatever information they have, would want that so that they can put that in the report to the State, they don't make design errors and would be glad to put into the mix.

Kreun stated Burns & McDonnell reps aren't making the final decision, this information goes to the State Health Department and they will give the permit or not, we have to collect the data and not making up the rules - that they are providing the information that the State requires, we have zero control over that, following the guidelines that the State has set out.

Feland stated that they are giving updates every two weeks and providing information and anybody is welcome any time and are informing them. Comm. stated reps of Twp. need to get permission from the landowner to go on the land and to go with reps of Burns & McDonnell. Mr. Shefchek stated they have meeting with the State all morning and would make arrangements to let them know of the time.

Reps. of the Twp. stated there are 104 houses within a mile of proposed landfill site, and affect those people anywhere from kids that are 6 months old to elderly people, affect them financially, price of their property. One of the reps. stated that the City had taken part of his property in the 4-mile ET zoning, that they want to preserve farmland and only section in Rye Twp. that all 640 acres is farmed is the one the City wants to put the landfill on, that there is a lot of land that is grass and in Grand Forks County and places where there aren't 104 houses within a mile of the landfill and that is something the Board should consider. Bjerke stated that he has lived within 2 miles of the current landfill for 30 years and no problems with rodents, trash or traffic, that 2 miles is generally accepted discussion point of the landfill and there is a portion of the city, his ward, and where he lives is within the 2 miles, and if have to find a piece of land that won't affect anybody, not going to find a landfill. He stated he isn't in favor of the 4 mile ET and disagrees with it but landfill has to go somewhere and will do everything they can to accommodate to make sure they get valid information, etc. and that the new landfill will be much better than what currently have, putting trash in bales, plastic bags and gets covered everyday, technology changed and far superior landfill than what currently have. ET zone will be solved by the Legislature.

Kreun stated he has explained numerous times why that has taken place and how it took place and under what circumstances; that the 4-mile jurisdiction requirement was through the study of the 2035 Land Use Plan. He stated they will meet with individuals from the Township next week to hear what the concerns are. He stated we are the larger component in the region and we take the garbage, and not ship to Gwinner but build one here as best we can, that it is not the city council doing this, this is East Grand Forks, all the other cities in the region incl. Grafton, Mayville, Cavalier, Thief River, etc. are part of this, that we get zero help from them or from the State of ND, the County of Grand Forks, or from townships and we have to do this within the confines that we have the capabilities of, have to have a landfill and where is it going to go - we will do the best we can with what we have and work with you as best we can - we don't get moral support from the people using the existing landfill - that this is a long drawn out process.

Adjourn

The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk