Committee Minutes

Grand Forks City Council Service/Safety Standby Committee
Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - 4:30 p.m.__________________________________

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, December 2, 2008 at 4:37 p.m. Present at roll call were Council Members Kreun, chair; Bjerke.

Others present were Al Grasser, Mark Walker, Todd Feland, Melanie Biby-Parvey, Kim Greendahl, Dan Rau.

1. Landfill Services Planning Update.
Todd Feland, public works director, presented copies of public notice from ND Dept. of Health of opportunity to comment on draft permit for municipal solid waste landfill, notice had been published on November 29, 2008, and draft permit will be available for public review and comment for 30 days following publication of the notice, with hearing to be held at the Alerus Center (Room 3), on Thursday, December 18, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. Written comments would be taken by Dept. of Health as well as oral comments. The committee decided that Chairman Kreun would present comments at the hearing.

Feland stated that our goal is final permit with all the comments that are provided, and that by early January could have a landfill permit where they could start proceeding with design; that appraisals are done and are in possession of owners and their attorneys; that he has notified Mr. Shaft and is waiting for his clients to get back to him - that they were interested in discussing an option and that we would propose to buy the land at what it is appraised, which was between $1300/1400/per acre (640 acres). He stated they have proposed to get an option on the property and are offering to settle on a proposal so when get the permit, would be ready to provide full payment - he stated he will call Mr. Shaft again this week; and that they would have Mr. Kreun and staff and city attorney's office to reach settlement and come back to committee in January. Kreun stated that he didn't think there was a necessity at this point to make any offers to anybody, but Feland stated he wanted to be far enough along so they are in the ground - that he has talked to Mr. Homstad who owns building on Mr. Klien's property and that he wants to be bought out and is willing to wait - but that he thinks his property is worth much more than the appraised value. That in talking to Mr. Scott, he is also willing to take a wait and see approach - but would prefer to be bought out but didn't feel the appraisal appreciates the value of his property. He noted he has not heard from Jose's nor Wixo's and has not contacted them.

He stated he is working on landfill design and construction contract for city council approval and may need to amend the existing site agreement because of additional work by the consultant; that they spent approx. $650,000 on getting permitting in the last year and would ask for concurrence in amending that agreement and would like to bring in the agreement for design and construction so that once they hear word in January can start designing based upon the permits.

Kreun stated the comments for the public hearing should be put together with one of the committee members to present the written comments/information. Sometimes verbal presentations seem to have more potential behind it than just the written comments. Bjerke stated he thought it would be important if some of the business communities would make statements as to the necessity for this - Airport or Chamber of Commerce. Kreun stated that he would give verbal testimony at the hearing on December 18.

Feland stated that they are now in the possession of the Klien house as of end of October, paying utilities and checking on the property, that he has received several calls from people who are interested in purchasing the property and also request for rental of the property but informed them it is City's intent to do something with it in the future but haven't set any timeframes. It was stated once the City gets the permit and if interest to put property up for bid.

Feland stated at the next council meeting he is planning a budget amendment as have spent $650,000 for permitting and $336,000 in buying property, either from Sanitation or Wastewater Utility Funds cash to fund those activities as opposed to using Water Funds.

2. Greenway Services Planning Update.
Melanie Biby-Parvey, environmental manager, made presentation re. greenway update, that the managing agencies and departments for the city of Grand Forks greenway includes many different departments, and the Grand Forks Park District helps maintain a lot of the greenway. The City owns all the land and the Park District leases portions of it and that was their desire many years ago after the flood. City departments, Street, Sanitation and Stormwater Departments help maintain the trail system within the greenway - pedestrian bridges, signs, utilities, boat ramps, riverbanks and the Park District maintains and operates four of the main parks (Riverside Park, Kannowski Park, Lincoln Drive Park (disc golf and dog park), Lincoln Golf Course). Also have East Grand Forks Parks & Rec. Department and the Red River State Recreation area of Minnesota DNR. There are about 2200 acres between the two cities, and both entities provide
maintenance of landscaping, mowing, spraying weeds, flower beds, in all areas of the park and provide park maintenance - trash removal, vandalism, repairs, street and parking lot maintenance, and also provide visitor services and coordinate events together, kiosk updates and information to the public. The Park District takes care of all the playground equipment, picnic shelters and tables, benches, weeding flowerbeds, tree maintenance and cleaning restrooms. She stated they have had some problems in the past with the trailhead facility in the southend in Sunbeam area, that they are looking at putting up security cameras.

Reorganization within the Public Works Department last year led to developing staff that would continue to coordinate efforts within the city, that her position works with the environmental compliance and about 25% of her time on the greenway project. Kim Greendahl is the greenway specialist, that position was approved as a permanent position and is in the 2009 budget with position to be filled the first of the year and works 100% on the greenway.

She reviewed upcoming projects for 2009: Capital Projects: winter park or festival; Lincoln Dr. road overlay; trail connections to the community trails; signage, 911 marking system for trail identification; and rain garden. Maintenance Projects: vegetation management park; maintenance contracts for mowing, spraying, graffiti repair, flower bed maintenance and overlay sections of trail. Mr. Feland stated as they have the same contractor, Greenway will be doing the maintenance (mowing) using greenway monies and Urban Development concentrate their efforts on downtown - Town Square, parking, etc.

Budget: Anticipated revenue for 2009 is $524,599 with Expenditures of $153,820 flood stations; $146,709 for flood Gates/Levee Walls, and $299,582 for greenway, totaling $530,111. User fees are $1.15 per residential unit and non-residential properties are $0.10 per 1,000 ft. Expenditures are for operation and maintenance and small capital items, but not setting aside enough money to do major projects. Feland stated the mowing they contract out in Public Works, that greenway/flood protection mowing was approx. $50,000 and did lagoons, and water utility mowing and Southend drainway mowing, and spending about $71,000 on contracted mowing in Public Works.

Ms. Parvey reviewed projects they are exploring and have been discussed over several years: Unpaved trail system, enhancement for fishing (shore bank fishing and boat docks); canoe portages around dam; economic impact study/trail counting; partner projects with East Grand Forks; tree plantings along trail and riverbank and were able to do quite a bit of that this year with Xcel Energy project; lighting of trails and pedestrian bridges; improvements to downtown parking lots; art work/pieces along the greenway; medicine wheel park. The Greenway User Group was established to get input from people using the greenway and trail users and have added some individuals interested in bike committee to this group, and others that want to be hearing interests of the public and how enhance or better maintain. Interests and comments are brought to the Greenway Technical Comm. once a month to talk through issues.

Greenway ordinance re. motorized vehicles - This is something the Tech. Comm. talked about and would like to bring this to council - the change is to allow mobility devices i.e., scooters, motorized wheelchairs, etc. but not include golf carts, lawn tractor, mower, all-terrain vehicle, snowmobiles, etc. There was a motion by Bjerke to approve the ordinance and to bring it to the council for introduction; seconded by Kreun. Motion carried.

Council Member Bjerke raised a number of questions relating to the greenway:
1) Various contracts with the Park District. Al Grasser, city engineer, stated their intention re. leases going to the next Comm. of the Whole meeting, then to the Park District, and thinks have verbiage they are looking for. Feland stated that the Street Dept. does the plowing on bikepaths including greenway, that some people ride their bikes year round and there are some issues about clearing paths, as clear streets first and plow paths the day after snow. It was noted re. mowing that there are levels of service for different areas, going to have riparian type area which requires minimal amounts, rougher area and area mowed once week or as needed. Some areas do a management plan and somewhat policy set.

2) Bjerke asked re. events in the greenway, if there is fees for payment of costs beyond normal work; Kim Greendahl stated they did some of that through special events program if needed police, etc. would have to pay extra fee - Bjerke stated he would like to consider that in the future for above and beyond. Feland stated that most of the events are either Park District territory or Town Square and that there are fees - that there is a system in place for monitoring those hours and billing people back and a lot of interdepartmental cooperation.

3) Bjerke questioned type of security cameras in at Sunbeam trailhead facility - cameras would record to DVR system.

4) Bjerke stated that when property annexed get put into special assessments and should look at using those funds making up a capital fund, and use interest off that money to do improvements in the future - this is 4th special assessment. Feland stated that Wastewater and Water Utility are set to fund major infrastructure projects through rates and Stormwater is set up to special assess major infrastructure so that is why have $1.15 charge as stormwater rehabs are special assessed to neighborhood that it serves. Bjerke stated should have discussion in this time frame and have policy - either save for it or special assess it - that he would put that on his list for future discussion.

5) Bjerke stated another discussion they should have is that the City is getting more into recreation, that we have a separate taxing entity that does parks and recreation and that they do that. That if we continue to develop these events on the greenway, it is recreation and not our budget. Ms. Parvey stated that after the flood the City had the riverbank to deal with and as part of the Corps project they looked at what do we do with this area, could leave undeveloped or could add recreational component which is part of the flood protection project. In order to do that they had to go through a number of steps to see if there was an economic impact to the community, and Park District was brought forward and said they wanted to do this but that it was a lot of park for them and that if City built it would help maintain it. That is how the City got involved with recreation with the greenway project - was a joint decision between the two bodies - City helped with capital costs and Park District stepped in and said they would maintain the high recreation areas as long as City can help with ongoing operations and maintenance - whether or not they continue with future projects is another discussion. Bjerke stated they have their agenda but we are also doing some of their agenda. Ms. Parvey stated it is not really the Park District's agenda that we are discussing but the community's agenda.
Feland stated what they would see for City is maintenance on the bikepath, existing infrastructure, signage and maybe events that are co-sponsored by the City and other entities in the greenway, but doesn't think that any of the projects are really huge capital. Kreun stated that the lease agreement with the Park District and the system that was set up was influenced by city council and if can get that lease agreement set up the Park District will work with us to take over more of the maintenance; that with some of these projects there is a lot of grant writing, special event money that comes from Xcel, Knight Foundation, etc. and some with tax payers dollars as well and capital expenditures doesn't come from local taxpayer dollars. Bjerke stated that once you built it, have to maintain it and get complaints if not maintained.

6) Bjerke stated that in general we hear from people that want something, and that there are a lot more people that don't than those that have their particular special interests. That is where he is at with the greenway, concerned that this will never stop.

Bjerke suggested using prisoners in work programs - to utilize that labor - that in the past were not conducive to making it work and perhaps there is a change now asked how request should be made to the County Commissioners - if he should present that to them or if staff should do that. Kreun suggested that he and Mr. Bjerke should make request from the Service/Safety Comm. and see if we can do it under their guidelines - should we do it if we can and potential cost savings and come back with report. Feland stated he would like to assist in providing report back to this committee and to the city council.

3. Draft Project Concept Report and executive summary for North 51st Street.
Mark Walker, asst. city engineer, reviewed summary of proposed project - North 51st Street from 10th Avenue to Gateway Drive, and stated that the street is in very poor condition, street was installed in 1973, no street lights and no sidewalks on the west side of the street. He stated they are working on the Project Concept Report which is required by federal government to be done for all projects where federal aid is used; and to describe the need for the general plan and public comments on the project. Project scope of work is from 10th to Gateway, removing existing street pavement. installing new aggregate base and new pavement which is concrete and 8" thick, installing new street lights and signs and finishing the berm. Optional work will be installing new sidewalks on the west side, DOT requires that to be decision in the Project Concept Report because it has been a controversial issue, had numerous comments from people wanting the sidewalks, had comments from west side businesses requesting that sidewalks not be put in. This matter will be brought to the next committee of the whole meeting for informational purposes on the Report, bring in design engineering agreement so they can proceed with the design of the project, having a public hearing on December 23 and following public hearing will bring in the Project Concept Report the middle of January. Engineer's recommendation is that sidewalks be installed and where have conflict of traffic patterns, pedestrians and vehicles, always a concern of safety, but their opinion is that of having the sidewalks there and a defined path where pedestrians are supposed to go.

Bjerke stated that sidewalk installation in Code and is time as they have had 10 years without sidewalks, and if it would be appropriate for this committee to vote to install sidewalks, now or later. Grasser stated that now is too soon because this hadn't been advertised to the public and not hearing both sides of the issue, and that is the purpose of the public hearing; then could be brought back to committee and will give more credibility to the recommendation, go through process. There was some discussion that if they don't put sidewalks in, if it would affect our federal funding. Grasser stated that the DOT is allowing it to be a City decision and that they would respect the local opinion; however Walker stated that when they were at the public meeting there was a rep. from the DOT and made comment that federal Hwy. wants you to protect your right of way and has ability to withdraw funds if you are not doing that. It was noted that if sidewalks were installed it would protect the berms.

Kreun suggested that they hold the public hearing and bring it back to this committee. There was some concern by Mr. Walker is that he is not sure he can fit coming back to Service/Safety Comm. after the public hearing as they are required by DOT rules to allow 15 days for public comment to come to us, and then required to have a local meeting to discuss the comments and make final revisions to the Project Concept Report, that he was planning on preparing a staff report to committee of the whole with the idea that he might have to bring any late coming public comments as an item he may have to lay on their desks.

Walker reviewed cost estimates - preliminary engineering and design engineering are local costs, that construction engineering and construction are split 80-20%, the total cost shakes out not as an 80-20% but more like a 70-30% - right now the cap is below what we feel federal costs to be. He stated relating to time schedule that his schedule is little bit tight, and is somewhat dependent upon prompt approval by the DOT and Federal Highway and may end up having to push the bid opening from April to May but try best to keep on schedule.

ADJOURN

The meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk