City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us


	MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE Monday, January 25, 1999 - 7:00 p.m. Members present: Hafner, Klave, Lucke, Lunak. 1. Matter of landfill siting update, City Proj. No. 4306. Chuck Grotte, asst. dir. of public works, reported that letter had been included in the packet re. brief history of the process, conclusions and some questions brought up at Manvel and schedule for remainder of the project. Linda Kingery, Red River Regional Council in Grafton, reviewed the selection criteria that they used and that she has been working with City staff over last three years and narrowed down which sites would be suitable for the landfill, and distributed papers on landfill site evaluation criteria and evaluation of 11 sites. She stated they used scoring system they applied to each parcel in the county that made it past their first screening and basically eliminated parts of the county that have a lot of sand in the soils, etc. She reported that the report they received from Burns & McDonnell who did the evaluation and were left with an area in the northeast portion of the county and in the south-west portion of the county, and it was to those parcels of land in those areas that they applied this scoring criteria. She reported that the spread sheet has the 11 parcels that ended up at the top after applying the evaluation criteria and ranked the parcels. She stated they selected the top four sections of land out of the evaluation process and economic criteria they used to evaluate those: site location, capacity cost, land cost, road improvements, wetland mitigation and transport cost. She stated that Turtle River Twp, Section 19, ranked at top and Section 25, Levant Twp. second. Tom Hanson, WFW, updated committee on permitting process, that at present the hydrogeogology study, field work done, draft probably day or two from having report finished, and they intend to have that ready to submit to Health Department by mid-February, and within next two weeks scheduling a meeting with City staff to work on design criteria report which will be part of the permit application process. He stated that the intention is that the permit application would be ready to submit to the Health Department by the end of March and State Health Depart-ment has indicated that they intend that their review process where they are anticipating about a mid-May completion of the permitting process which could leave to about middle of June having construction documents ready for bidding and maybe able Page 2 January 25, 1999 to start construction about the first of August. Because the material underneath the cells would have to be compacted to a high density to meet requirements and covered with waste before frost gets into material unlikely to have cell operational and all in place and ready to start actual cell construction in the spring of 2000, and accept waste at the end and have full layer of waste over the bottom of the whole cell by freeze-up of 2000. Mr. Grotte reviewed matter of baling study, that they hired Burns & McDonnell to do study to determine whether baling a good thing for City to do, and they looked at project without baling, baling at existing landfill and hauling to the site and baling at the site and included in report of August, 1998. He stated that on August 11 they had an informational meeting for council and those who weren’t present received package in the mail. He stated that on August 28 they received correction from Burns & McDonnell which they sent out, that when they did study they overlooked one person and adjusted everything for that person. He stated that the planning process they did not include anything in the 1999 budget, but went through CIP process and included $400,000 for 1999 to finish up design, etc. and $4.5 million for 2000, and if were to pursue this would need to get budget amendment to cover costs for 1999. He stated that the recommendation from the report and staff is that they do pursue developing the baling system with off-site baling which would be at the current landfill and hauled as would have lower life-cycle cost ($29.40/ton vs. $31.60 or $32.50 with other method). He stated there is significant reduction in amount of litter both at landfill and haul route, more efficient use of the space because can get lot more garbage into the same area so can extend life of the landfill, reduction in attraction of birds and rats, etc. and reduced amount of leachate coming out of the garbage because squeezing it out at the baling facility rather than letting it run out. He stated only thing tonight is that have had presentation, had update and only question is what additional information you might want to help make the decision on whether to bale or not, to let him know and can discuss it and come up with recommendation. Mr. Grotte reported that on the landfill zoning they went through lengthy process in selecting site, Turtle River, Section 19, and on October 19 the council approved purchasing that land for $551,000, which was $16,000 more than the appraised value; Page 3 January 25, 1999 that on December 11 they closed on the property; on December 28 Turtle River Two adopted a Rural Development Plan and amended their Land Development Code, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. Basically prior to that time they were working with and looking at the County to handle the zoning issues but now it appears they will be dealing with Turtle River Twp on that issue. He stated they originally placed on the agenda that they would ask for approval to submit the zoning permits but after talking with the city attorney, don’t need approval to do that so no action required; that they will be working with the County to verify who has jurisdiction in the area and when get resolutions working with appropriate agency to make sure it’s zoned properly and keep committee informed. Hafner suggested that perhaps they should have review of the plan for the council. Mr. Grotte stated that Burns & McDonnell are coming to town to talk about design issues and could set something up on that. Hafner stated that the formal presentation by the City is over but if there is anyone from the public wishes to speak to this item are welcome to do that. Clayton Kvasager, Levant Township, stated they are against this in Lakeville Twp., Levant Twp and Turtle River Twp., that they can’t understand why people in Grand Forks can figure they can move in on them and dump garbage in their front yards, don’t appreciate that, were never really notified about it or never given any opportunity to fight it or anything else; that it’s really disgusting when wake up and see garbage truck in your yard and unloading garbage. He stated his house is half mile from the site, is worth $125,000 and when start dumping garbage in there, will probably be worth $25,000 and doesn’t think they deserve that. He stated they are citizens and pay taxes to this town and helping build Aurora, but that’s another question, and asked what they had to say. Hafner stated that there were public hearings held in Manvel; Mr. Kvasager stated they had already bought the land then. Mr. Grotte stated that as far as public participation, sent out seven different news letters to people, including township supervisors in various townships throughout the county, held three meetings in Manvel and also been mentioned in the Herald at several times. Page 4 January 25, 1999 Hafner asked how much of the landfill is exposed at any one time when in operation, that it’s understand that with baling it’s hauled there and stacked and covered up. Mr. Grotte stated there is daily cover every night before they shut down, have to put cover over the face of the landfill. Mr. Grotte stated there would be fences around the area, and trees, etc. Mr. Grotte stated they have had at least 6 or 7 public meetings, 3 in Manvel, 1 in Grand Forks, 1 in Northwood, Niagara, tried to notify and had 7 news letters that went out to various people and did go to township supervisors and those people were aware of it. He stated that the last was on December 1 and land closed on December 11, and two previous and one in Manvel prior to selecting the site and one after site was selected. He stated this is more than what normally do when purchase land. Bernice Kvasager asked if Turtle River Township has their zoning in place, and can these people still move in and take over. Hafner stated they have to abide by whatever the zoning is. Mrs. Kvasager stated that the Township does have the jurisdic-tion; Hafner stated first they heard of Twp. zoning was a few weeks. Mr. Grotte reported they received letter on 4th of January. Mrs. Kvasager stated that if zoning in place the City can’t do anything out there. Mr. Grotte stated they are assuming that the Township will cooperate and work with them. Mrs. Kvasager stated that if they don’t, then what happens; that the City can’t move in there. Mr. Grotte stated as far as he understands right now. Donald Ebertowski stated that the landfill will go in approx. one-half mile north of his yard, that they should have been given information about the landfill, that they never received notice until the meeting the City never showed at. Mr. Ebertowski stated that now they are talking about the County, how about Township, that the County has nothing to do with their zoning. Hafner reported that Mr. Grotte checked with the County to find out if townships had zoning, the County indicated that there weren’t and City was to do business with the County Planning & Zoning, that’s how staff proceeded with it, and it wasn’t until received letter from the Township that knew they had indicated they were going to be in zoning, staff has tried their best to do this as good a process as they could, have gone through exhaustive meetings and studies on siting the landfill Page 5 January 25, 1999 so don’t think there’s any harm meant here and thinks landfill designed in such matter that they probably won’t even notice it’s there. Mr. Ebertowski stated that fence and trees won’t cover site area, and asked what would happen with runoff, and then told there’s going to be a lagoon with aeraters, chemically treated, that City should check it’s own lagoon which still has odor. He stated that this is not a Grand Forks landfill, will service 40 communities, have 140,000 people involved, big dollars made at their expense, and suggested they move landfill to some other area. Ray Gowan, Chairman of Turtle River Township, Oslo, MN stated there was question earlier about zoning, that they have facts and figures; May 25, 1988 were fully zoned and at that time not qualified to register zoning in the Court House but at the present time that’s why they updated and zoned and paid the Court House to get it registered. Richard Kinney, Manvel, lives 1½ miles north on Hwy. 81 and within about 3 miles of this proposed site, that they heard a lot from Mr. Grotte re. meetings, but only heard it through hearsay and was at the last meeting and asked what purpose of meeting was, they said nothing, just want to tell us what they want to do, and that has set really hard in the community; that he definitely is not going to put anything between us and Grand Forks, lives in town, went to UND, etc. supports Aurora, but that he has $140,000 house which he can’t get the taxes reduced on, developed some properties there where he has sold two lots and proposing to sell another one now because has development approved by the County (lives in Ferry Twp.), and when he went to do that he didn’t have anyone buying any land before he had this zoned and can’t believe they would buy that without knowing they would get a permit because every time he has gone to County zoning he had to write to everyone in a two-mile radius, and if there was any opposition to that for residential zoning, they could raise that and come to the meeting, and to think that the Commission could drive this through, thinks you’re short sighted; and that he’s not very happy about that being on Highway 81 and that he has 11 more lots to sell in that area which he is getting good price for, and questions what’s going to happen with this because it’s been more appealing to be south of town than north of town and fighting an argument there anyway, but some of what’s been said here is true and have not really known what’s happened until after it happened. Page 6 January 25, 1999 Hafner thanked people for their comments. 2. Matter of authorization to file application for landfill zoning, City Proj. No. 4306. This item pulled from agenda. 3. Matter of C.O. #1, reactor tanks and distribution structure, Wastewater Treatment Plant, City Proj. No. 4371. This item held at request of KBM. 4. Appeal hearing on violation of discharging hauled waste into City’s sanitary sewer - P.D.Q. Sanitary Services, Inc. Mike Shea, Environmental Coordinator, reported documentation had been sent to committee relative to this item plus history of what led up to the fine, that PDQ is here to make an appeal and make a recommendation to the council. Ken Vein, city engineer, stated he would ask Mr. Shea to explain the ordinance and charge that has been brought forward and then go into discussion and for information they might want on ordinance, permit process and general background information. Mr. Shea reported there were three different violations: 1) no legal connection to the sewer, 2) an illegal discharge to the sewer and 3) discharge without a permit. The City Code cited each section, and each violation is subject to a fine of up to $1,000 per violation/per day. He stated there’s a history on the front of his report re. dealings with PDQ starting in 1996, and is pertaining to the discharge of septage to the city sanitary sewer. He stated that back in 1996 it was discovered that they were discharging to the sewer at that time, that City approached them, discussed with them and they asked City to accommodate them during times they were unable to get into the fields and discharge septage, fall before ground freezes, spring when the ground’s too soft, they worked up a system where they could do that on a limited time basis, and in October 1997 Mr. Larson again contacted the City wishing us to accommodate them with a manifest system and charge so that he could discharge until the ground froze. He stated they started accepting septage in November of 1997 and terminated May 8, 1998, and at that time they discharged a load of grease to us and the manifest stated that it came from some place other than where they had gotten it so terminated at that time (letter of May 21 Page 7 January 25, 1999 stating that), and pointed out they could no longer accommodate them and that discharges to the sewer were subject to fines and were illegal. On November 23, 1998 the owner of the building at 2105 13th Avenue North called the City Inspections and wanted to know nature of a manhole that was put in his building (in section of building being rented by PDQ); that Joe LaBelle, Brandon Bartholomew and he went out to investigate the manhole, and in trying to locate the manhole, noticed the connection to the sewer, asked what purpose of that was and it was stated that was for the septage truck; that they located the manhole and determined that it was a grid interceptor so didn’t have a problem with that; that when he got back to the office he called Dale Larson, told him what they had found, why they were there and asked what the purpose of that connection was, and he stated it was for discharging porta-john waste down the city sewer and that he informed Mr. Larson that was illegal also. He told Mr. Larson that he wanted that disconnected, waited two days and went back and investigated and it had not been disconnected, called him and told him to disconnect it immediately. At that time determined what the violations were and sent him a cer-tified letter proposing fines. This is federal and city ordinance, set this up according to City ordinance and according to federal regulations so could accommodate them. Dale Larson, PDQ, stated that the City has no place to dump septic trucks and is something someone should look at and see if can’t design a way where would get right into the lagoon and dump these. He stated that one point in time when told they couldn’t dump septic trucks but was okay to dump portable toilets, that then they quit dumping septic trucks and dumped portable toilets, and that’s what connection was for was the portable toilets. He stated he didn’t see problem with dumping toilets down the sewer when he’s buying the water that he’s putting in them from the City. Mr. Shea stated that in the documentation that they were accommodating Sanitary Systems which were discharging porta-john waste under the same manifest system that these people were operating under and there was no recollection on his part of ever, didn’t even know they were in the porta-john business until he discovered it out there on November 23. He stated Forx Rental has inside their shop an elevated discharge point, they filled out a permit application for the City, informed City what they would be discharging, this is Forx Rental and discharging 30 gal./day four days a week is Page 8 January 25, 1999 what they estimated their whole discharge would be, the reason they would be accepting the larger shipments of porta-john waste out at a lift station because need quite a bit of flow to take 250 to 500 gal., and that’s why taking it there, and when Forx Rental was discharging 30 gal./day, didn’t have a problem with that. He stated that PDQ was not paying for that discharge and never approached to accommodate PDQ on hauling porta-john waste. Mr. Larson asked if there was going to be a facility in the new lagoon treatment center; Mr. Shea stated it’s been discussed but when start accepting septage it’s going to be expensive. Mr. Larson stated that the first thing to take care of is having a place to put it; pass on to customer. Mr. Shea stated that what he needs to know over the months, what did they do with the septage picked up, called his customers and they informed him PDQ was picking it up. Mr. Larson stated that they’ve had different farmers that have allowed them to dump for a period of time. Mr. Shea asked for documentation to support that, and that according to federal regulations you need to document every load, Mr. Larson stated he was aware of that now. Mr. Shea asked if they could give him something that would convince him that he wasn’t taking it down the sewer, and stated that in his letter that they would reevaluate the fine. Mr. Shea stated that PDQ has land they are going to be dumping on and up to him to secure documentation. It was noted that other operators in city or surrounding area that do this; Roto-Rooter is dumping in East Grand Forks. Mr. Larson stated that the City has no place to dump and it’s problem that should be approached and should be taken care of when they do the treatment center at the lagoon. Klave asked if it was legal to take a load out into a farmer’s field and dump it onto the field; and it was stated they could if it was spread out. Klave also asked if manifest was a federal requirement that there be a manifest on all loads; Mr. Shea stated that according to City ordinance they have to permit it, manifest system meets the definition of a permit, that according to federal regulations you cannot dump septage to a municipal wastewater treatment plant without permission or designated spot designated by the municipality, and that has happened. Klave stated that many businesses have to be licensed and it was noted that business was a non-licensed business. Mr. Vein reported that about five years ago that the City looked at potentially building a site to discharge at and cost was Page 9 February 25, 1999 about $190,000 and at that time if City were going to supply that, the cost for usage was significantly high and decision of the council was not to proceed. Gary Goetz, wastewater supt., stated they sent letters out and no one responded, and no need for it. Mr. Larson stated that there is definite need for it. as laws over the last five years have changed dramatically, and getting more restrictive all the time. It was noted that there are two septic haulers in Grand Forks (Oslo, Mayville). It was noted that Mayville picks up one load in Grand Forks and worked this system with them and charge them $50 to discharge it. Mr. Shea stated that if they read documentation they did set up a system but system isn’t long term, only to accommodate people for a month, group from Mayville gives him a load once every 3 months, and can do that, but were taking 6 a week from PDQ and not set up to do that (picking up loads at night, weekends, etc.) and weren’t set up to accommodate that. He stated that when build new treatment plant, if decide to go that direction, could do something like that, but now can’t take it out at the lagoons, have to take someplace inside the city. He stated that if they accept hauled waste at treatment facility, you’re looked at as a hazardous waste disposal site, and don’t even want to discuss that; that if accepted there would be an isolated pond to dump into and from that would take and put into the treatment plant but not going to be cheap. There was discussion relative to May 8, 1998, Lift Station #23, manifest stated load domestic and from Simplot Soil Builders, and asked what “domestic” was. Mr. Shea stated that domestic is things that would come from toilets, kitchen sinks, etc. nothing industrial or commercial. It was noted the load came from China King Restaurant, and Mr. Larson stated they would blame that on his driver and not supposed to be disposed back into the city’s sewer system. It was noted that restaurant’s are not required to have grease container unless determined by City personnel that you need one, and City is looking at changing that, and everything gone in last 2 or 3 years required to have grease container. Mr. Shea stated if build discharge site, cost prohibitive for these people to use it; PDQ stated cost would be passed onto customer. Page 10 February 25, 1999 Lucke asked how much revenue City lost by PDQ not filling out proper forms and giving right information; Mr. Shea stated that on 6 loads per week in 26 weeks from May 8 to November 23 would be approx. $8,000 or in that area. Lucke stated that he’s heard of cities getting into trouble with EPA because don’t comply with their rules, and if we know there are violations, City could be in big trouble with EPA. Mr. Shea stated they can because we have pre-treatment program and have a responsibility to enforce that program. Mr. Shea reported that PDQ did not pay any fees because City terminated them on May 8 and when dis-covered connection and mechanic told him it was receptage, made assumption they were hauling septage and discharging it, called some of their customers, and PDQ was picking up loads regularly. Klave stated he would give them the 10 days to produce the documentation that hauled that elsewhere. Mr. Larson stated as far as the septage, yes, but as far as portable toilets, no, because when told to quit dumping septage, they did; and that after Mr. Shea came in to look at the drain, he said no you can’t, been told by one person can and by another that no he can’t, and ever since he said they can’t, PDQ hasn’t. Mr. Shea stated he would never have allowed discharge of portage on waste down a clean-out because very thick, small lines, would take where have flow at a lift station, and never have given permis-sion to discharge down that clean-out. He stated if they had approached him and said had had portage on waste, and can discharge that in Lift #23, would have accommodated them but never approached on that. PDQ stated that on May 8 Mr. Shea told them it was not right to be dumping there, that they didn’t, but okay to be dumping portable toilets in shop that day. Mr. Shea stated he has no recollection of that. Mr. Shea stated that porta-john waste would have substantiated a $25 permit per dump (dep. on volume), anything under 500 gal. took $25 for and anything over 500 gal. $50. PDQ stated their trucks are 200 gal. and asked when those fees went up; Mr. Shea stated they didn’t and PDQ paying $50 for almost every discharge. Lucke stated that EPA regulations are going to force some kind of fine and a real aggressive person could say, May 8 had violation and November 23 had another violation and not informing us about way doing this, fine you $1,000/day for 6 months and break you in court costs, and not proposing to do that, and asked if $4,000 might be a fair compromise and if not, Page 11 January 25, 1999 what amount did they think should be looking at. PDQ stated that since came in and took pictures etc. haven’t dumped since; PDQ stated $500 would be fair and doesn’t happen any more. PDQ stated they will be moving to Oscarville and no city sewer system out there. Mr. Shea stated he based fine on $1,000 per violation and didn’t enforce all of it, kept it under what max. were, saw three violations at 2 days, or $6,000, and need to remember there were past violations that were overlooked, and would feel better if had documentation that supported where the domestic septage was dumped. Klave stated he would rather give these people time to present documentation and hold this in committee. Held in committee for a month - February 22 meeting. 5. Matter of resubmitted bids for chemicals (Phosphate) for water plant for 1999. Held for two weeks. 6. Matter of notice regarding non-protestable projects. Hafner stated he referred this to committee, that there is a situation with the southend drainway that is a non-protestable project as it’s a stormwater project, and some of the citizens out there are unhappy because they weren’t notified in direct letter of this particular proposed assessment, and it was sug-gested at one point that there’s some legislation to go in the legislature and seems to be better solution for us if need to amend our own ordinances. He stated that for the fact it’s not protestable may or may not mean someone should or shouldn’t be notified of it. Mr. Vein stated that without Mr. Swanson here, he wasn’t sure of what the exact law would be on this, but City is required to do legal notices in the paper, but typically City goes beyond the legal notice and actually do the notification of the individual properties, and do that specifically on the pro-testable ones as a policy and not as a legal requirement, and request here is to also do that on the non-protestable projects. Hafner stated that if it’s not a legal requirement on the part of the City, it’s a policy and maybe could apply same policy to non-protestables. Mr. Grasser stated he didn’t have any problem with it, and was under the impression they were doing that, and would seem to be consistent with what doing on other projects. He stated his only concern might be, where getting into more and Page 12 January 25, 1999 more tapping areas and gets hard to identify properties outside and suggested maintaining to those actually being assessed. Hafner agreed with that because not going to assess them until it’s annexed and that could be 20 years down the road. Mr. Vein stated this is just creating policy, city attorney perhaps doesn’t need to be involved in it, but only one concern would be one significant project that is now before us, and that would be flood protection project. He stated that the notices that would be sent out on that city-wide would be significant. Hafner suggested sending out on water bills, but Mr. Vein stated if going to do it this way, be sent to their legal address and not through a water bill. Klave stated it probably wouldn’t be bad idea when it comes to the flood protection plan that everybody understands in the community what’s going on. He stated that the areas outside the city limits would be difficult to inform the property owners, but most of those parcels fairly large and perhaps only dealing with one property owner, and shouldn’t be too difficult for them to be informed even though only a tapping zone. He stated that for the person buying that property, have informed the original owner so when he’s going to sell that he knows and should be disclosing to the next buyer that there is a possibility of additional fees upon that that are going to be incurred by that owner if his intention is to bring it into the city limits. Mr. Vein stated that not all property outside city limits are platted, and can have some metes and bounds descriptions that they may not be aware of unless go through entire title search or record search in the Court House on these areas outside the city limits, where inside city limits as they are platted they’re required to be recorded, and as annex can run into some of those but does have potential to create some unknowns out there, and if any responsibility to the City for not having done proper notification. He stated that the more requirements put on it the more potential create for problems to develop down the road, and it’s not that don’t want to keep people informed but problem is that it takes considerable amount of time. Klave stated that everything that platted or owned in Grand Forks County is registered with Grand Forks County and shouldn’t be any problem finding legal ownership of a parcel of land. Hafner asked if policy in notifying those that are protestable was a written policy; Mr. Grasser stated probably written Page 13 January 25, 1999 somewhere but not sure where and possibly just a policy issue created. Hafner asked if going to change policy, how get done; Mr. Grasser stated to write up as a policy from the mayor and council can direct mayor to adopt as policy; notice actually come out of the auditor’s office as they work with the property descriptions and we have good data base of the properties within the city of Grand Forks, but not sure what effort take for the auditor’s to track down that information outside the city limits. Klave stated that residents of the county seem to want to be totally informed on what we’re doing and is part of our obligation as moving out into the county to inform them whether it be a non-protestable item that they don’t have a choice on that they understand what it is, perhaps farmer wants to develop it. Moved by Klave and Lunak that we establish policy of informing all parties on protestable and non-protestable projects., including tapping areas, effective February 2, 1999. Motion carried. 7. Matter of right of way purchase for future 42nd Ave. S. west of Washington Street. John Thompson, engineer, reported that two weeks ago Vincent Brey had concerns about right of way next to his home, and distributed maps of the area to the committee showing area of 47th Ave. S. and 42nd Ave. and offered Mr. Brey couple alternatives north of his house and south of his house, he chose the one south, and his asking price was $20,000, City negotiated with Mr. Brey and he accepted half of his asking price this morning; and in order to resolve the remaining issue on the Washington Street project, recommended to accept his $10,000 offer for that strip of land, within reasonable price, per sq. ft. based on assessing department and R/W officer. Moved by Klave and Lunak to approve purchase of right of way from Vincent Brey (20’ x by 140’ strip along the northerly boundary of Lot 5, Curran’s 1st Subdivision) in the amount of $10,000.00 Motion carried. 8. Matter of reconstruction/rehabilitation options for Mill Rd. Mr. Thompson distributed copy of what was presented last Wednesday, KBM presented to about 50 residents along Mill Road, and heard comments, most concerned about cost of the assessment. Page 14 January 25, 1999 He stated that the money for Alt. 1 is based on Emergency Relief Funds from Federal Hwy. Adm. to restore road from damage that occurred during flooding and hauling activities afterwards, that the engineering department thought should give the businesses and landowners along Mill Road the opportunity to use that money for improvement if they so desired, that they presented two other alternatives: an overlay with concrete from Gateway Drive to Bacon Road at same width, and Alt. 3 was a wider section with curb and gutter and stormsewer. He stated that the consensus at the meeting was to go with rehab, there were few businesses interested in details of improvements but majority spoke against any type of improvement over and above Alt. 1, and request to the committee is to proceed with rehab project on Mill Road, using 80% Emg. Relief Funds and remainder CDBG funds, which are already budgeted. He stated this would be in area between Gateway Drive and Bacon Road, mill and overlay of concrete, and from Bacon Road over to North Washington Street removal of asphalt and replacement of the same depth asphalt. Mr. Vein stated they have $733,000 of ER and CDBG funds available for it, and this is excellent time to leverage those funds because can put them toward a permanent project, rather than an overlay; that from purely an engineering and technical standpoint going with the permanent solution, this is oppor-tunity you probably won’t ever get again. He stated there is this other input into it and that is have a lot of properties in the Riverside Park area that would be assessed and that’s going to be an additional cost, streets assessed over 20 years, and many of these properties in Riverside Park area are in some degree a considerable distance away from Mill Road and not a lot of benefit from doing this construction project that they’re paying for on an assessment basis, and that’s what seeing and hearing from the neighborhood, don’t want to pay any more and not seeing a clear benefit for doing this project. He stated that on the same token $733,000 that making the highest and best use of, but that’s going to be a significant improvement to that road system. Beth Bouley stated she attended the meeting and thinks it’s safe to say that if was unanimous as far as resident of neighborhood go, that they didn’t want to have this project go ahead; the feeling being is that there’s too much financial uncertainty in their lives right now, don’t feel they can handle any further Page 15 January 25, 1999 assessments until know where they’re headed for the next few years. She stated it was explained to them about the $700,000 and nobody misunderstood it, and chance they have to take, but really uncertain with their lives right now, and part of the assessment area is lower income area as well. Tom Hanson, WFW, stated that if going to do Alt. 1, would like City to do some investigation of drainage improvements and talk with businesses directly affected by that, esp. on west side of Mill Road where water stands in ponds between road and RR tracks. He stated that businesses there all would be willing to contribute something to address the drainage issue. Mr. Vein asked if go to different pavement section, be interested in paying an additional cost or larger fee to get that section because they would benefit the most. Mr. Hanson suggested holding another meeting with people close there and discuss with them, not sure what interest would be. Klave asked how overlay would stand up, because have Minnkota Power, Border States Electric, Northern Plumbing; that he is in favor of doing this but do something that will sustain load limits of the traffic using it. Mr. Thompson stated that some of the concerns about truck traffic, and told residents best could get out of it, 7 to 10 years and is highest grade asphalt. Mr. Vein stated they were willing to accept the overlay but so committee is aware of loss of ability to leverage those funds and if interested in still doing more of a permanent solution, there are other options that could be looked at: would City be willing to put in more money (CDGG funds), would they be interested in doing an assessment or some other location for it, storm sewer has to happen anyway and maybe has to be separated from pavement. Hafner stated if some thing from businesses who really use that to do more and be willing to share the expense, but would go with rehab as it sits now. Mr. Thompson stated that some of the cost cutting measures, figure out assessments for residents and came out to about $500, by taking storm sewer out of the project and assessing just to the benefiting properties along Mill Road, save about $400,000, and narrowing roadway section to 31 ft. and would be two lanes; Mr. Vein stated he didn’t think they could pass on narrowing roadway, and maybe some things they could do but too much truck traffic. It was also noted that semis parking along shoulder of the road for long periods of time. Page 16 January 25, 1999 Mr. Grasser reported they included the storm sewer as part of the total project cost that tends to drive up what could be special assessments and could pull those costs out and treat storm sewer separately but affect of the $400,000 against those property owners along the Road will be real significant cost to those property owners. He stated they asked for residents’ opinions and thoughts and they gave them to us, and if look at from engineering standpoint should be trying to leverage these dollars but when start factoring in political and social and economic situation everybody is in, that’s where get down to the points that on this project, that maybe rehab is way to go. He stated they would do the rehab that would probably last 7-10 years, and in the meantime someone along the line should still address the stormsewer issue but most logical time is with some form with the Corps of Engrs. because Corps going to make some substantial changes through that area also, and in the next 4 to 5 years would try to address stormsewer issue and then 10 years out probably apply some of Urban monies and reconstruct in correct manner using Urban funds at an 80-20% split, and put road in permanent configuration at 41 ft. wide. He stated that the next time the CIP Committee comes up, one of things he’s evaluating now is as far as City policy is just this specific issue, and when evaluate policies that now getting quite a bit more federal funds than did five years ago when these policies were created, they will probably see a recommendation that rather than special assessing this 10% on collector type streets, it’s not hardly worth the effort from the City’s end to go through the special assessment procedures to pick up that amount of dollars, and put projects at risk of being protested out which means they could potentially lose those federal dollars, and that maybe they should not be special assessing these projects on reconstruction. Moved by Klave and Lunak to approve Alternate 1, rehab of Mill Road between Gateway Drive and Bacon Road, mill and overlay of concrete, and from Bacon Road to North Washington Street, removal of asphalt and replacement of same depth asphalt, using Emergency Relief funds and CDBG funds. Klave stated if go to the extent of resurfacing this road and trying to make look nicer, thinks it’s illegal to park the semi-trailers out there, and don’t know why letting it go, that it’s Page 17 January 25, 1999 on property west of Mill Road between there and the RR tracks, doesn’t know who owns land, and should be reason that semis not left there; he stated he would bring this up on council floor. Lucke asked if they are going to be in the bids that something be looked at in that west side drainage problem; Mr. Thompson stated ER funds are for rehab only of roadway sections. It was suggested they use as alternative to call for the bids. Mr. Grasser stated they could go ahead and do that, but there is no City storm sewer out there, the one line there is owned by Minnkota and other owned by Mill & Elevator, and would have to tie into a private storm sewer system. Mr. Vein stated they could develop their own storm sewer as need be, but would recommend is that instead of going through the process and bidding it, can do a good enough job of estimating those costs and come up with working with the property owners and committee to determine whether it’s worthwhile project to proceed or not and if it is go through time and effort of preparing plans and specs. and bidding it, but that’s an expensive thing. He stated if desire is to pursue that, would do the storm sewer part of it. Klave asked Mr. Hanson if he had better feel as businessman out there what neighbors feel so if come up with some prelim. numbers, that would give then enough to say yes or no they’re interested or beyond means at this time. Mr. Hanson suggested looking at extending ditch system, and several things that need to be looked at. Committee stated that engineering look into some possibilities for drainage. Upon call for the question, the motion carried. 9. Matter of report for downtown watermain replacement project. Charlie Vein, A/E, presented final report and study on the downtown water distribution system, this is part 2 of the study, and that back in April of 1998 they presented the first report where evaluated the condition of the downtown watermain system and in that report they outlined several fairly major problems; one of those being the watermains being undersized and in poor condition, and unable to achieve proper fire flows in the downtown area, and much of the system was put in the late 1800’s and looked at condition of gate valves and found that a number of those valves were in very poor condition and in danger of not being operable, and fire hydrants were in poor condition. He stated as a result of that report, they put together a project Page 18 January 25, 1999 to replace the watermain on 4th Street from Franklin Avenue to University Avenue. He stated that project nearly completed last fall before weather shut them down. He stated that what they have done in this report is to complete the sizing of the water distribution system through the downtown area in light of the fact that the new main has been put down 4th Street and has developed two different cost estimates, and see map showing the area (bounded by Minnesota Avenue on south, 5th Street on the west and University on the north and to the River, and this is called their mill and overlay area, through ER funds and that is scheduled to happen in conj. with some of the other downtown streetscape work, and being planned for this summer and some for next summer. He stated that most of this water distribution system is the 8” size, some 16” as wells as 10”, total cost for mill and overlay is $3,371,861. Mr. C. Vein stated that Exhibit 3 is slightly larger area and takes in what was initially planned as a demonstration project that was not funded by Congress, and is not being proposed as far as street reconstruction, however, did continue to look at cost associated with covering this area, basically same area except cutting off at 1st Avenue South and then coming over to S. 8th Street and up to University Avenue, cost est. at $4,324,162. He stated this would take care of all fire flow problems in the downtown area as well as replace proper number of valves in hydrants to achieve all of the required fire flows. He stated this is final result of report and study of the downtown system. Lunak excused Mr. Vein stated that they defined two different potential projects in the downtown, and next item on the agenda covers the engineering and that is being recommended for only the mill and overlay project and not total project. He stated this was presented to the engineering department for their review and in discussions with them have looked at proceeding only the mill and overlay project. Moved by Klave and Lucke to receive and file the report. Motion carried. 10. Matter of Amendment No. 3 (design), A/E, Proj. No. 4969, Phase II Downtown Watermain Replacement. Page 19 January 25, 1999 C. Vein presented Amendment No. 3 to original engineering contract; (Amend. No. 1 was design, Amend. No. 2 was construc-tion) and this amendment is to provide final design phase services and bidding for the mill and overlay project, and is to be performed on an hourly basis not to exceed $129,944.00. He stated there is documentation following that explains how est. those costs in their schedule. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve Amendment No. 3 to the engineering agreement in an amount not to exceed $129,944.00. Mr. Grasser stated there have been CDBG monies budgeted to do the actual construction of this project, but because of the time frame aren’t able to go through that full blown selection process for CDBG funds, so funding from this is going to come out of the City budget of $2 million budgeted for Downtown Watermain Replacement. Upon call for the question, the motion carried. 11. Matter of CDBG Engineer’s Report for various projects: a) Proj. 4824, overlaying local streets city-wide. David Kildahl, Widseth Smith Nolting & Associates, project engineer, stated project is mill and overlay of some residential streets, milling along edges, along gutter lines and placing 1½” of bituminous overlay along with adjusting manholes, gate valves and survey marker boxes; for Belmont Road from South 5th Street to 13th Avenue South, Park Drive to 32nd Avenue South; 4th Avenue South, one-half block west of Belmont to South 6th Street, streets and avenues between University Avenue and Gateway Drive. He stated est. of cost - construction cost $389,168.25 and engineer’s report includes a 10% construction contingency along with engineering fees, for total project of $443,685.08. He stated this is first phase of CDBG project as this has been identified as being in need of overlay, there was $1.5 million budgeted for street overlay work, but all those streets haven’t been identified so doing in phases; and hardest part of project coordinating with various underground rehab work in this neighborhood (sewer repair and replacement). He noted that area between 32nd and Park where center of the road is inverted and crown gone and center of road is lower than the edges and will require some leveling to bring up to normal crowned road. Page 20 January 25, 1999 Mr. Grasser reported that section from 13th to 17th Avenue S. was rehabbed not that many years ago, and that section in pretty good shape, crown there, panels reasonable, and judgment call as to whether to include that or not. It seemed from eng. end that probably wasn’t cost effective. He stated that there will be several phases of how this is starting to work out, this is first phase, and finding out that many of these areas in the near northend may have to back off of because of overlay work and he is envisioning now is trying to make a concentrated effort this year and do Belmont Road and paving ends up last and may end up doing the bulk of the remainder of this work next year so residents can see some personal standpoints by improving their roads, but too much sewer work going on this year. It was noted he hadn’t looked at Reeves Drive and not down on paper yet, but would try to take care of as many streets in the near northend; that there’s whole bunch of streets south of downtown which would include Reeves Dr. area. He stated they will take another look at area between 13th and 17th Aves. S., and can change through change order, but more overlays put on concrete it’s going to increase City’s maintenance cost because 5 or 10 years out and trying not to overlay anything that doesn’t need it. Lunak reported back. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve engineer’s report. Motion carried. b) Proj. 4875, storm on Columbia from 40th to 51st Ave. S. c) Proj. 4924, storm on Columbia from 36th to 40th Ave. S. d) Proj. 4928, box culvert on southend Drainway at S. 18th Street. e) Proj. 4894, sanitary on 20th St. from 36th to 40th Ave. S. f) Proj. 4929, water on 20th St. from 36th to 40th Ave. S. Lon Aune, GFEG, reported that information he distributed to committee contained specific report and corresponding map for each of the projects. He stated that at the last meeting committee approved the engineering agreements for these projects and now bringing CDBG Engineer’s Report to continue the process with the funding cycles. Mr. Grasser reported that some of these projects may be combined from constructability standpoint. Moved by Lucke and Klave to approve the Engineer’s reports. Motion carried. Page 21 January 25, 1999 12. Matter of plans and specifications for Proj. 4851, sanitary forcemain at PS #39 (CDBG). Tom Hanson, WFW, reported the project starts at 57th Ave. S. and S. 11th Street which is east of Washington Street by new Presbyterian Church and All Seasons, from there south to 62nd St., west to Columbia Road, north cross 47th to 40th Ave. S. to existing forcemain; this is $7 million project and service southend area. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve plans and specifications and authorize call for bids for February 19, 1999. Motion carried. 13. Matter of change orders for Proj. 4746, paving S. Columbia Road, C.O. #4. Mark Anderson, eng., reviewed change order to adjust quantifies on the project (Columbia Road from 36th Ave. S. to 47th Ave. S. and easterly toward the Middle School), to finaling of project, and asked for approval. Moved by Klave and Lunak to approve change order in the amount of $3,768.00. Motion carried. 14. Matter of overlaying granitoid streets in poor condition. This item pulled from agenda. 15. Matter of authorization to request quotes for 1999 flood fight equipment and materials. Mr. Grasser reported this is something they do every year, request quotes for equipment (bulldozers, backhoes, trucks, etc.) from contractors so have mechanism in place in case need to hire them for diking, that on a significant event the Corps of Engineers will do this hiring, but on medium events or small the Corps may not step in but do locally. Mr. Grasser reported they will bring quotes in and have recommendation, will be time and material contract, so can select low bidder but wouldn’t hire unless needed. Moved by Lucke and Lunak to approve process and authorize call for quotes. Motion carried. Lunak excused. 16. Matter of communications dish on S. 38th Street water tower. Page 22 January 25, 1999 Mr. Grasser reported they received request from Wireless North to add a communications dish, that through design process asked them to show us what dish would look like, and no problems with this if grant request. He stated they will take down two antennas and replace with 1 dish, and this is final request. Hafner stated they are going to be using this as a link between the Air Base, City and Thompson. Mr. Grasser stated they won’t be asking anything beyond current lease that we have, trading off couple antennas for one. Moved by Lucke and Klave to approve request. Motion carried. 17. Matter of approval of specifications for used 2.5 ton generator truck. Todd Feland stated he and Gary Fish were at last meeting and received authorization to write specs. on used truck and also the generator, that they handed out specs. and asked to have those authorized. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve specifications and authorize call for bids. Motion carried. (comm. only). 18. Matter of easement for Proj. 4479, relocate Williams Pipe- line on Columbia Road from 40th to 47th Avenue South. This item pulled from agenda. 19. Matter of agreement with Burlington Northern/Santa Fe to replace the railroad crossing at 55th St. north of DeMers. Lon Aune, CPS, Ltd., reported that North 55th Street between DeMers and Gateway put storm sewer in and skirted on east side by the trailer park, on west by Schmaltz property, everything west of Interstate and abutting Congressional Subdivision. He stated that the tracks at N. 55th and DeMers there set of RR tracks that are parallel to the highway, cross over those tracks for this paving project, that crossing arms are set up for narrower street (37’ or less), and have to extend the crossing itself as well as move the crossing arms to accommodate the new street as well as bikepath installed on east side of the road. He stated they have received agreement from BN/Santa Fe to perform these services, that cost is $200/ft. for a total of $12,800 to extend the crossing and another $40,000 to move crossing arms; that there are significant costs but is necessary to get the project underway or completed. He stated that he and Mark Walker, eng., had talked about including in approval that Page 23 January 25, 1999 Burlington Northern does not order the materials until the end of the protest period in the event that something protested out or unable to proceed with the project and that would be April 1 of this year; so include that in the motion and that what they are looking for is authorization to proceed in getting this agreement finalized with BN. Moved by Klave and Lucke to authorize entering into agreement with Burlington Northern/Santa Fe relative to replacement of the RR crossing, and further understand that Burlington Northern does not order materials for the crossing until the protest period has expired. Motion carried. 20. Matter of project concept report, Project No. 4807, paving South Washington Street from 40th Avenue South to 47th Avenue South. John Thompson, eng., reported that at the last meeting they held public hearing and approved concept report and have incorporated results of comments received in 10-day period after the public hearing, and asked that they approve concept report final draft and submit and proceed with the project. He stated that issues addressed today, purchase of Mr. Brey’s property and other issue that exists is installation of traffic signal at Washington and 47th Avenue S., study of traffic and potential for school children crossing there in the near future and indicated a warrant with this design and construction at that intersection for a traffic signal, DOT is still evaluating and will respond back after turning this in. He stated that’s the only item left, as they accepted our storm sewer design. Klave questioned location where 5 ft. sidewalk on the east side of S. Washington is connecting to, from 32nd to 40th, etc. Mr. Thompson reported that sidewalk goes along R/W and comes out near the intersection. It was noted that there is actually a bikepath on one side and sidewalk on the other. Mr. Grasser stated that issue needs to be brought up separate from this document because DOT needs this document approved and mayor needs authorization to sign it but until the traffic signal issue gets resolved there is that unknown thread on the signals, if a signal goes in, the City will need to commit to putting in a sidewalk (based on pedestrian warrants) because even if warranted by pedestrians, don’t have good mechanism of carrying Page 24 January 25, 1999 pedestrians on 47th Ave. because rural section, and don’t want to encourage kids to be walking on that road because it’s fairly narrow but if the signal goes in it will carry with that an additional price tag to run a sidewalk probably down in the ditches to get to the School, maybe asphalt path there to pro-vide hard surface because it’s more unsafe situation if encourage to walk on the road. Mr. Vein stated they would get some bicycle riders going back and forth to school, and so far out there, will ride their bikes on the road (47th Ave. S.). Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve final Concept Report. Motion carried. Moved by Klave and Lucke to pursue signal crossing at 47th and Washington Street and street lighting be included as a cost participating item in the project. Moved by Lucke and Klave to adjourn; meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Alice Fontaine City Clerk Dated: 1/26/99