Others present included: Al Grasser, Todd Feland, Dean Rau, Mark Walker, Chief Packett, Chief O’Neill, Emily Fossen, Jane Williams, Don Shields, Council Member Bjerke, Howard Swanson, Bev Collings, Dave Kresl.

1. Application for Class II (Off Sale Alcoholic Beverage) license and Sunday Beverage license
from Ozark Spirits, LLC, 2551 32^nd Avenue Sl. (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.), Grand Forks, ND
Howard Swanson, city attorney, reported he had opportunity to discuss the matter with various representatives of Wal-Mart and they have answered questions to his satisfaction about ownership of Ozark Spirits, LLC and physical layout of the facility being proposed and appears to meet all the requirements of the Code for an off-sale premise, will have a completely separate exterior entrance and no entrance into the Wal-Mart Store, is a separate corporate entity. At this point have not started construction and will not occur for some time but appears that the application is in order and recommended approval subject to final approval by city attorney, police, finance, inspections, health and fire. They will be providing information at a later date as to their manager, etc. and that is preliminary approval at this stage. Kreun moved approval of the application and to refer to city council, Grandstrand seconded motion; motion carried 2 to 1, Bjerke voted no.

2.. Noise variance and special license to sell alcoholic beverages at designated premises for
Springfest 2011 – Rhombus Guys._____________________________________________
Chief Packett reported the 2011 application from Rhombus Guys who would like to do Springfest event this year, that they have had staff working with the applicant and the Park District going over the application and this year’s plan, only change over previous years is hours of operation – been changed to 12:00 noon to 6:00 p.m., previously was 11:00 to 5:00 p.m.; and staff comfortable with that change. Footprint appears to be the same and had submitted their current and past action plan and cost to committee. Motion by Grandstrand to approve and refer to city council. Kreun seconded motion; motion carried 2 to 1, Bjerke voted no.

3. Consideration of bids for Project No. 6631, Dist. 471, sanitary sewer on S. 11^th St. (40^th to
44^th Ave.S., Project No. 6689, Dist. 304, watermain on S. 11^th St. (40^th to 44^th Ave.S.) and
Project No. 6712, Dist. 472, storm sewer on S. 11^th St. (40^th to 44^th Ave.S.)_____________
Dean Rau, asst. city engineer, reported bids were opened on April 4 for the above utilities,6 bids received and opened, 2 with math corrections as noted); low bid by Soberski, Inc. of $253,024.00 and was combined bid of sanitary and storm sewers and watermain, with lump sum bid for all 3 items. Staff stated that contractor qualified to do the work and recommended award of the bid to Soberaski, Inc. Motion by Grandstrand and seconded by Kreun to approve and to refer to city council; motion carried.

4. Create special assessment district for Project No. 6632, Dist. No. 474, storm sewer/pond for
S. 11^th St. (40^th to 47^th Ave.S.)_____________________________________________________
Rau reported the storm water retention pond will be constructed under new regulations put out by the Health Department, pending conjunction with the street work that is needed to be done on S. 11^th Street, that the assessment district map includes all the Park District property and an unplatted section; staff recommended that the engineer’s report be approved and create the special assessment district for this project. He reported this will create the pond and over to S. Washington, there was a large pipe going to the Southend drainway and this pond will eliminate the need for that pipe. Motion by Grandstrand with second by Kreun to approve the recommendation and refer to the city council. Motion carried.

5. Design, Bidding and Construction Administration Engineering Services Agreement for
Project No. 6632, Dist. 474, storm sewer/pond for S. 11^th St. (40^th to 47^th Ave.S.)________
Rau stated that the technical nature of the pond designed and size of the pond, looking at an engineering agreement with Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services (AE2S) to design the pond and once designed, bid and do the construction/inspection for the pond. Included is the cover sheet of the agreement and cost for the design and construction inspections ($177,600 and $69,500 for a total of $247,100.00); staff recommending approval of the agreement. Bjerke questioned if this is included in the $1.7 million – and that it is. Motion by Kreun to approve recommendation and move forward to the city council, Grandstrand seconded the motion. Motion carried.

6. Plans and Specs. For Project no. 6700, construction of citywide quiet zone.
Rau stated that this is continuation of project Jane Williams has started for the past two months, and shortly have the plans sent out to consultants, bid opening scheduled for May 2 and project completion date is July 15, 2011; 21 days prior to that will send out letters to federal government, BN and those required to begin the quiet zone on July 16, however, could be some flexibility to that date. Current est. for construction is $380,000 and out of that there is $160,000 that will be for the 55^th Street re-design by BN, and do have the grant from the DOT in the amount of $225,000 of which we have to match10% - all told the project will be $280,000. Kreun stated there is another $1.2 million in the DOT budget for quiet zone work and if we need to, get our application in as quick as possible. Gershman stated that since he has been on the council this has been an issue with the citizens all over the city and finally bringing this to fruition; that a few years ago this was a $7 million project and speaks very highly of staff going after this, our MPO and city council but asked where City’s share of $155,000 will come from. Funds are budgeted under Highway Users. Motion by Grandstrand Kreun to approve recommendation and refer to city council. Motion carried.

7. Amendment to Federal Transportation Funding request.
Mark Walker, asset, city engineer, presented request to amend the Federal Transportation funding request and are requesting to add the 42ⁿ Street underpass/overpass project; that in January brought that information to you and our project at this time is to make selection of what the future roadway alignment might be and sole purpose is to identify the right of way needs so that they can preserve the right of way for future project and let development occur in areas where it isn’t going to hinder future project. He stated they are moving forward with an environmental assessment which is similar to a project concept report (environmental impact statement); and that they recently found out that in order for Federal Highway to consider our project and sign off on the environmental assessment, our project needs to be listed on the STIP (State Transportation Improvement Program). The first step in listing the project on the STIP is to include it and get approval from the city council to include on our federal project funding request and after that take to MPO for their consideration/approval, and forward to the DOT where they will include on the list. Funding needs – include line item in 2014 for purchase of some property, that there is a parcel of property in that corner that was purchased some time ago by the State using advanced Federal Highway R/W acquisition money and that they would borrow the money for 20 years, and after 20 years has passed, have to pay it back and is proposing to utilize federal funds to pay for that land, not sure if that is an allowable expense but our goal is to get the project listed on the future STIP project. He stated that once we get the environmental assessment that we need to have an expenditure every 3 years using federal monies to keep the environmental assessment document valid and that whether we let it expire or not will depend upon which option we choose, what the rules are at the time and not looking for decision on that aspect at this point in time but wanted to make you aware that is a decision will have to make in the future.
His suggestion would be is that we include the project on the list, approve it and forward to MPO and DOT and go forward with identifying what project we want to go with in the future, if any, and then decide if want to keep the environmental assessment document valid or not, He stated his recommenda-tion is approve the list and authorize staff to forward that request to MPO.
Kreun stated this is good timing as there is in conference committee of legislature taking place today and next week, some of the issues that would help develop that land to the south of that intersection (southwest corner) and good idea to follow through with this and include in the STIP. Motion by Grandstrand and Kreun to approve recommendation and refer to city council.
Bjerke stated that $395,000, whether they do the project or not, will have to be paid back and if that is correct; Walker stated that was his understanding; and Bjerke stated that if this goes down the road do have an out, even though it is on the list, and that if creates more problems than it fixes then let this die, not opposed but in the future when get to this, lot of questions that need to be addressed before we do this - that this is technical move that we are required to make and not an endorsement of the project as doesn’t have enough information to decide yes or no on the project. Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried.

Gershman stated he has two questions often asked – 1) when repair Minnesota Avenue; and 2) that Columbia Road is in 2013. Walker stated he wasn’t sure what repair would be made to MN Avenue – but Columbia Road plans are to do something in 2013, are working on that project now, and will be seeing some public meetings in the near future re. that project and also see Project Concept Report coming with request for decision to move forward with that project – will be constructed in two phases, first phase from overpass to 11^th and next phase to 14^th and there is a section between 14^th and 17^th and several years delay in that section. Walker stated that to do all of the design work and to get funding from the Federal Govt. takes time - been planned to do it in 2013 and there are a lot of things that have to happen before that.

Relating to MN Avenue and 4th, Mr. Grasser stated they had changes last year when they ended up de-listing a number of granitoid streets but still have an agreement with the Historical Society as to what to do. There is one segment on 4^th Avenue that is still on the list, and means that still need to do quite a bit of coordination with Historical Society, both local and State, but best plan they came up with so far is that planning to do a mill and overlay tentatively targeted at 2012 and that depends on getting agreements, etc. signed and that takes time, planning to fund the actual mill and overlay at 100% city cost so don’t end up with special assessment issues that had in the past, however, there is still some interest in putting lighting and various amenities and would special assess those amenities and if people wanted to support that financially, that part would be special assessed but to make sure have the paving surface done, would do mill and overlay, some curb and gutter replacement in bad areas, but way for us not damaging the trees, minimizing impacts on some of the sandstone surfaces, etc. and hope this will be a doable compromise.

Grandstrand stated constituent asked about the Point Bridge, increasing the height by building a ramp up to it and what that would take and if feasible. Grasser stated the challenges on that with all the federal regulations as to what you can do, would have to have environmental issues done, hydraulics of the structure would not impact the river elevations, and means we can’t take the run-in ends of the roads and build them up because if built them up would impact the ability of that area to pass water – and probably would have to extend the bridge – and if got into that much of a rehab of the bridge would start it over again – and if start getting into that area, are probably in the $30 million range for bridge and that could be plus or minus. Problem is regulatory issues and physical constraints that we are dealing with out there.

8. Appointment of W.F. Hastings to Mechanical Board.
Motion by Kreun and Grandstrand to approve the recommendation for appointment and refer to the city council. Motion carried.

9. Grand Forks Baling Facility door retrofit and replacement bid.
Todd Feland, director of public works, reported this bid is to replace 2 doors at the baling facility with standard commercial overhead door with four fold doors and would like to go to the two doors as being more efficient and better maintenance esp. for more used doors, this will get 3 of 8 doors renewed.
He stated they received one bid which was slightly over the engineer’s estimate but ICS is qualified and that PS Doors is the door manufacturing installer in this case and well qualified to do the work and recommend moving forward with this bid. Motion by Kreun and Grandstrand to approve recommendation and refer to city council; motion carried.

Council Member Kreun excused.

10. 2011 Wastewater Forcemain capital improvement projects and associated engineering
services amendments and agreement and budget amendment.______________________
Feland stated that in 2007 did a wastewater collection system master plan and tried to identify some of the infrastructure expansion issues that they have, from that study and at that time the City was looking at expanding the forcemain system off of Columbia Road so would have a significant capital improvement in the order of $10 to $13 or $15 million on the southwest end of Grand Forks heading west to the treatment plant. As part of the collection system master plan one of the things that was discussed was to look at the existing forcemain system and try some technology and some sense of what the infrastructure was like - one of the most critical parts of this system was part that had never been renovated or examined – and that in 2008 did an evaluation with the smart fall technology and it did detect some air pockets and some potential breaks in the pipe and have come back to some of those areas. One area is on 10^th Avenue North to Gateway Drive in one of the older sections of forcemain that dates back to the late 1950’s or early 1960’s and as went farther south in the system Gateway Drive/Columbia Road is going to be part of Columbia Road that is going to be redone in the future, and also the underpass/overpass through the Altru campus which is going to be repaved so there is additional work in that area. Finally as part of the smart fall technology evaluation there were some air pockets near the Buffalo Wings/Vaaler Insurance location and this spring discovered that we had a problem there – earlier this year our intent was to try to do some strategic digging up of some of the assets to see what it looked like, but didn’t need to do that because it disintegrated and that is why spent a lot of time and effort.
The condition of the forcemain in these areas is worse than what anticipated and are recommending to go through smart fall and would have to do some minor rehabilitation activities, but discovered at South Columbia Road near Vaaler Insurance/Buffalo Wild Wings is that pipe was disintegrated and as part of this evaluation will be to renew the asset with new pipe, new fixtures, to reline from 10^th Avenue North to Gateway Drive and as part of South Columbia Road (Buffalo Wild Wings/Vaaler area); there is also some redundancy built in on S. Washington too.
They had intended as part of our CIP that we would invest $450,000 over a few years to do some minor repairs. Because of Columbia Road and because of this asset thinks needs to be renovated renewed in a quicker fashion, that lump all these projects together and get them done under one project and get out of the way of all the paving projects that are coming down and also to avoid any further issues with that pipe. He reported that he did confer with Saroj Jerath in Finance Dept. and talked about debt service in this project and that we have several special assessment projects and other projects and thinking around $10 million or less that we would place this as part of the debt service projects that we have, would finance it through our revenue fund, Wastewater Enterprise Fund, and repay that. This year’s budget has $450,000 in the project for forcemain rehabilitation, used a portion of that or less than $50,000 for the emergency repairs, and wouldn’t go ahead with spending $400,000 on the rehab but would go ahead with the debt service project that we would presumably debt service over 20 years and this would be something we were going to renew the asset for 20 years and beyond.

Tom Hanson, WFW, reviewed the condition of pipe in each segment in detail so committee could get sense of what is going to happen in each section:
1) Forcemain Repair Columbia Road, 10^th Avenue N. to Hwy 2, est. cost, $708,000; Eng. Cost $88,721.
2) Columbia Road – DeMers Avenue to 17^th Ave.S., est. cost $400,000; Eng. Cost $77,522
3) FM Repair – Columbia Road, 16^th Ave.S. to 28^th Ave.S., with Wash. Buried Bypass; est. cost $1,486,000; Eng. Cost $108,461 Note: engineering costs are included in the est. total cost for each project. Feland stated they have a 35% overhead which includes engineering.

Gershman asked if time schedule for construction or impact on traffic on Columbia Road 10^th Ave.N. to Hwy 2, and impact to businesses’ and asked what start date is on Columbia. Hanson stated would start on Washington and S. Columbia and then next section – don’t have dates as yet but in the process of getting it put together and have dates shortly. Feland stated this is high impact area and try to get this done during summer when there is lighter traffic with University out, and will have several meetings, but would like to keep the committee informed on particulars and get WFW going on design, etc. this year.

Bjerke stated getting this project started in 2011, saving 2012 for Columbia and keep 2012 open for anything that you might have to do in addition so don’t have to interfere with paving in 2013. Feland stated biggest concern is when start to camera and have better information – do design over the winter so can start first thing in the spring and make sure get that project done in 2012 – can do a lot in 2011 and see what 2012 looks like – biggest concern is if there real significant issues other than what we already know, will be telling the committee as go through the process

Motion by Grandstrand and Bjerke to approve recommendation and move to city council. Motion carried.

11. Additional item:
Teri Kouba from Grand Forks/East Grand Forks MPO stated that they are doing a transportation development plan and she has a request as part of that plan on behalf of the committee – that they are putting together a steering committee to help guide this project through to the end – are getting council members from Grand Forks as well as East Grand Forks and major stakeholders, people who already ride the bus, who take paratransit, from the University and the college, and would like to have a member of the Grand Forks council to be part of that steering committee. Bjerke stated that he would be able to do it as long as his schedule allows (on his day off or after 5:00 p.m.) or what Mr. Grandstrand’s schedule is so that between the two of them, can work something out, that he was on committee with Mr. Haugen, or whoever they would want and to give them the information and discuss it themselves and that one of the two will do it as long as can make the meetings. Ms. Kouba stated she would get the information to them.

12. Additional item:
Grandstrand stated he had received survey in his mail from the Knight Foundation – and wondered if could have an agenda item either here or at finance comm. to talk about some of the things in the survey and some of the things they could do to strengthen our weaknesses and take advantage of our strengths. (Survey is completed) Bjerke asked Mr. Gershman if he could look at that and put on the appropriate agenda.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Bjerke and seconded by Grandstrand to adjourn, motion carried; meeting adjourned at 6;25 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk.