Print VersionStay Informed
Minutes of the Grand Forks City Council/Service-Safety Committee
Tuesday April 10, 2012 – 5:30 p.m._______________________
The Service/Safety Standby Committee met on Tuesday, April 10, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Council Member Kreun presiding. Present at roll call were Bjerke, Grandstrand. Kreun, Gershman. Chairman Kreun called the meeting to order at 5:37 p.m.

Others present included: Chief Packett, Todd Feland, Al Grasser, Chief O’Neill, Ran Brooks, Rick Romness, Maureen Storstad, Mark Walker.

1. Application for taxi license by North Express Taxi, Zayd Mohammed.
Maureen Storstad, city auditor, stated they would recommend approval of the application based on approval by various departments and meeting requirements of the City Code. Motion by Grandstrand and Bjerke to move approval of the application and refer to city council Motion carried.

2. Application for Class 3 (On and/or Off Sale Beer & Wine) license by Cat Blast, Inc. dba Marco’s Pizza, 3901 South Washington Street.___________________________________
Storstad stated recommendation to approve application subject to approval by various departments and meeting requirements of the City Code. Motion by Grandstrand and Kreun to recommend approval of the application subject to meeting Code requirements and refer to city council. Motion carried, Bjerke voted against motion.

Bjerke stated language in the application (page 9) requires liquor licensee to waive constitutional rights, and previously had asked that be removed.

3. Cost Participation and Maintenance Agreement for Project No. 6580, NDDOT Project No. NHU-6-002(062)357 – Gateway Drive Rehabilitation from REA Drive to Columbia Road.__
Mark Walker, asst. city engineer, reported this is standard agreement which involves money from the Federal Highway Adm., it identifies costs of each party and maintenance responsibilities. Gateway Drive is a regional roadway and that our share is paid by federal funds, state funds and City’s portion is zero. Maintenance responsibilities when completed will be same as we currently have. This project involves work similar to what was seen last year on Gateway Drive, and will include grinding of the concrete, putting in dowel bars in joints, replace panels that have failed and includes rehabilitation of the roadway over the English Coulee that has now been patched. The reason this section was excluded last year because unsure as to whether we were to go forward with intersection improvement project at Gateway and Columbia and now that have made decision not to pursue that, the DOT is going to do at least a preventative maintenance on this section of Gateway Drive. He recommended approval of the agreement, and when project is bid will come back to committee and ask for concurrence of the award of the bid. Motion by Bjerke and Grandstrand to approve recommendation and refer to city council. Motion carried.

4. Amendment No. 2 to Engineering Services Agreement for Project no. 6582, Federal Project SU-6-986(102)106 – Reconstruction of S. Columbia Road from DeMers to 11th Avenue S.___
Walker reported that they had made decision to proceed with reconstruction of Columbia Road and to reconstruct in 6 lane roadway configuration, next step is to move into design portion of the project and the amendment is for CPS to continue with the design and to prepare plans and specs. and bidding documents for submittal to the State. The work involves the design of Phase I which is Columbia Road from DeMers to 11th and also some work on Phase II as both projects will overlap each and are going to do some design on Phase II so that next year the sections that overlap each other are in sync with other; also some advance work on design of Phase II so can identify property needed for acquisition and get start on that. He stated they have aggressive timeline in order to capture some federal funds, originally anticipating to bid this project in February, 2013 but to take advantage of some federal monies have moved to November 16, 2012, which means have to have bidding documents to the State by early August, so consultant will run into some expenses with overtime pay and use of other consultants to help finish design. This project will come back periodically as obtain permission for land acquisition purposes, for cost participation and maintenance agreement, awarding bids, etc. Motion by Bjerke and Grandstrand to approve recommendation and refer to city council. Motion carried.

5. Consideration of bids for Project No. 6749, Senior Citizen Center – Parking Lot Improvements.________________________________________________________
Rick Romness, asst. city engineer, reported bids were opened on April 2, received 5 bids, lowest bid at reading was Heston Contracting but found mathematical errors in Tony Anderson Construction’s bid making his bid the low bid, and recommend award to Tony Anderson Construction in the amount of $35,919.50. Motion by Bjerke and Grandstrand to recommend approval and refer to city council. Motion carried.

6. Information and Update on Park Dedication and Open Space requirements in Residential Land Development.____________________________________________________________
Al Grasser, city engineer, stated this is referral from city council comments relative to information on park dedication and open space requirements and additional information as to some of the needs identified for regional stormwater requirements. They tried to capture some of the elements of City Code in relationship to the 8% park and open space, and were some discussions about what they have identified for land needs on the regional stormwater holding pond. They have found out on the holding ponds is that trying to get a level of aesthetic improvement on the ponds have a cookie cutter square box where one side slopes – probably using about 5 to 6% of land dedication for that need, and have identified west of I-29 where have severe restrictions on run-offs, could be up in 10% range. The park and open space is 8% but that is basically on residential type property and doesn’t apply to industrial land.

Grasser stated in the report they talked about possibilities of combinations of where park and open space may be able to co-exist with some stormwater detention – examples shown in the Report, along with pictures of recent ponds, one in Southern Estates, required by the developer to provide that land through the platting process, put together a lot and turned lot over to the City of Grand Forks, and has been outside the park and open space because it was either within an area that there was already agreements on the park and open space dedication or in case Black Gold the other residential areas so the park and open space wouldn’t have applied. Kreun stated the difference is between the commercial and residential developments. Black Gold’s Apt. open space isn’t required in the commercial areas, on in the residential type, basically what doing is looking at situation in residential development areas. Grasser stated that they have also identified the industrial areas even more so than residential, need to address how we’re going to provide the land from industrial – part at the tie-back to a recreational use which tied it back to the residential areas. The original code included industrial and commercial and when that got challenged as to what the benefit to industrial to a park – that got changed over time to take those areas out, the courts ruled that there is not a beneficial link to industrial piece – but on stormwater thinks there will be a link. Kreun stated what has driven that and started the council to take a look at this is federal stormwater regulations – that is what is driving it and what we are doing is asking engineering to take a look at and analyze our stormwater required ponds and are finding out that is that we have to utilize some of that in the commercial areas and are doing that – but in the residential areas potentially developer could get in twice, some for park and open space and some for stormwater regulations. – and what asking them to do and finding a --- years and indicating is that we may have to partner up or have some change in our ordinance in order not to take all of the land and profit from the developer in this respect and that is driving force and what asked to do is City is in control and has the ordinance for park and open space and feel its our responsibility to analyze it and look at it so that we can combine the two or change the ordinance in order to accommodate reasonable development costs to the developer. Grasser stated that if we leave all these things separate and distinct we could end up with 8% park and open space, 6% pond and also when consider the city right of way requirements, which vary quite a bit, but could need 15 to 20 and even 25% of the gross land may end up in right of way also – that on small residential lots, have a higher percentage of right of R/W compared to large lots. – it’s a matter of trying to make sure that we as a community are able to make things affordable and practical for development because need to address that. Kreun stated that at the end the consumer pays for it so the more regulations we put on the higher the cost gets and consumers wind up paying for it in the end and trying to look at that proactively to eliminate some of those concerns. Grasser stated that there is a map that shows locations of various regional ponds and also land that is currently either owned or been dedicated to the Park District.; also a photo showing possible related uses between park and stormwater facilities – some arrangements where that could co-exist. He stated this is a discussion item and looking for some thoughts from the council as to how you want to proceed with this.

Bjerke stated that 8% of the park and 6% of ponds, streets, sidewalks, green space and rights of way and what is left to develop, that the pond procedure of the City is that we are going to own and maintain the ponds and have plan for funding for maintenance – and that he would like to see map at next meeting re. this item of all the Park District land that they own but don’t develop. He stated they need to look at the park dedication ordinance or if they get the 8% should within one year build a park or it goes back to the developer.

Kreun stated the reason that this is becoming more of concern is because of the stormwater regulations, need to see what can do together so can create a park and still have the stormwater retention and either the parks or City maintains it and keeps to high level, then can be used for both. To move this forward, assemble a smaller group including members of Park District, Planning and Zoning, and member from this group or from finance/development – with 4 to 6 people to start this process to see what the needs of the community are – don’t want to eliminate parks but to make more valuable as far as utilization for two purposes so that the developer isn’t stuck with 15 to 18% percent of his land for these two options.
Bjerke suggested that the staffs of the two entities meet, outline plan and bring back to committee after 1st of July for discussion. .

7. Additional money available from Emergency Legislative Session.
Grasser stated that they did get some additional money from the House Bill 1012, Highway Type Distribution money, little over $1.2 million, and recommendation that they have in staff report is use of that money on Columbia Road, south end – from 17th to 22nd Avenue South – have project right now, was out for bid to do the northbound lanes, but because of the expense and our understanding of the desire not to do special assessments on those types of projects, were going to defer the southbound lanes and because of unknowns of Measure 2 – and that with this additional money that was not planned for, would like to recommend using that to finish off the southbound lanes – and have the road in pretty good shape between 17th and 22nd for 10 to 15 years – between time didn’t have it in the staff report but have identified and council has brought up good comments about putting in turn lanes and that is something they also want to look at on that intersection to help improve some of the turning movements. He stated if use local money don’t have to go through quite as much paperwork and more flexibility. The cost to do the southbound lanes is estimated at $250,000, northbound lanes about $300,000. He stated at this point in time thinking with engineering and finance and best thing to do with the remaining funds would be to put it into the carryover for and carry on that discussion when get into budget process about how to spend those funds towards specific projects. That is recommendation and if committee does with to pursue those recommendations, would have some additional language he would like to see added to staff recommended action – that would be to add the words “and corresponding budget amendments” in other words authorize the funds to go towards the Columbia Road and also authorize the budget amendments so that finance can basically take care of the paperwork to amend the budget to put those dollars in the places they are talking about putting into the report or whatever other places the committee or council might desire to put the money.

Kreun stated that money is $1.213 million and if use $300,000 in order to get both sides done in one year rather than split that up into two years might be money well spent and still gives us over $900,000 to utilize in other projects. Motion by Bjerke and Grandstrand to spend $250,000 and adding the words , “and corresponding budget amendments”. Motion carried.

8. Disc golf course addition to Greenway in Riverside Park Informational Update.
Melanie Parvey, public works, stated they are looking at putting in the 9 to 12’ court on the river side of the trail system in the greenway in Riverside Park, and to provide update of what the Park District and the Golf Assn. put in - $4,000 in equipment and our commitment would be that we would keep it maintained – looking at estimate of $2800/year in extra maintenance costs, and benefit is that we bring additional people into that area – that area has had some vandalism and burglaries in the pool area, don’t have any problems in Lincoln Park because lot more activity – small investment for the benefit that it brings in managing and maintaining that area. Motion by Grandstrand and Bjerke to approve. Motion carried.

9. Mosquito Control Bids (chemicals, equipment, aerials services and vehicle).
Todd Hanson reported same procedure as last year, and reviewed bids for larviciding, equipment, and aerial spraying; and very strong on their surveillance program. Motion by Bjerke and Grandstrand
to approve bids and refer to city council. Motion carried.

10. Augusta Drive Wastewater Pump Station Evaluation and Discussion.
Todd Feland, public works, stated they worked with engineering department, WFW, on evaluation report, and Duane Hafner and other reps. of the August Drive neighborhood. He reported they met with the Augusta Drive Townhouse Assn. on several occasions and have unique circumstance where have wastewater pump station that was developed by the developer specifically for this neighborhood and in early 2000 this neighborhood was served with existing infrastructure, and that City policy is that when we develop the City pays for the pump station and associated forcemain – that in this case the nearest pump station and this area was not able to be served, so the developer went ahead with a private pump station and that pump station as evaluation states is in poor condition – and are at point where the developer has sold enough lots to private individuals where the Townhouse Assn. is going to take over the responsibility of the pump station – have met with reps. and that the City does infrastructure well and build things to last and maintain them and this is an example where on the private sector’s side they didn’t share the same value, and have looked at solution of how we could incorporate this neighborhood into the City’s long term vision and moving forward without rehashing a 10-year old story – have asked WFW to look at concepts , and if look at first options which are standard way that we would look at infrastructure to serve section of land, around $3 million to do that, and if look at pump stations 39 and 40 which are in the southend of the city, those are under utilized pump stations and are trying to serve this with a brand new pump lift station after being under utilized for the next 10 yuears and have to look at redeveloping a new pump sation and migrating into new pump station with spending less initial money on it. – looking at option 1 which is to serve the Augusta Drive neighborhood and have talked with WFW at looking at ways where locating that pumpstaton in a more strategic location so can serve adjacent areas and therefore the cost per acre would go down, and have talked with the Augusta Drive people and they are thinking a partnership and would be willing to participate – to rehab the existing pump station would cost up to $50,000 est. and if put in concrete barrel, etc. up to $500,000, and are asking if can move that concept of the $500.000 pump station to move it to a different location and for additional money can serve larger area – that if built to City specs. and Neighborhood Assn. has concurred that they would pay a portion of that, to rehab. $250,000 and if have 50 residential units and 35 are occupied residences – about $5,000 per residential lot – that the Neighborhood had talked about special assessing to all the 50 properties – modified version of what normally do – and asked for feedback from committee and council if on right path to begin to finalize this so don’t create unrealistic expectations with this neighborhood that we can’t fulfill – want to have discussion . Kreun stated optio9ns 2 and 3 are $2 to $3 million - want to match foreseeable future is, that option 1 does expand some of those areas over and above the Augusta Drive area. – and are coming in and trying to retrofit the best can utilizing some of our monies and expanding that area a little and they are going to be spending some of their money to rebuild something that isn’t going to last any longer – appears you have visited with that group and they are in accordance with option 1. Feland stated there is room for them to work together and perhaps get city attorney’s office to make agreement among different groups involved and bring back to committee.

Grasser stated one of the concepts that originally anticipated is to go 20-25 years without having to do much work on it – have aggressive soils in here so benefit to the City and to the owners doesn’t think prudent investment to put in $250,000 to do the temporary fix and be back in another 10-15 years to do another $200,000 worth of repair – best for everybody if put in more money today and have that issue solved so have a long term fix.

Bjerke stated normal policy is that the City would take care of this when development comes up; Grasser stated that the City would put in the trunk lift stations and forcemains at no cost to the development – Bjerke stated that 62nd Ave.S. is city boundary - and that Options 2 and 3, both of those are lift stations and land that is not even in the city limits and need to replace those before actually needing them. Grasser stated what thinking of doling in here is bringing this closer to 62nd Avenue so that if another smaller subdivision comes in on southside, could plumb that into the same lift station rather than triggering the next big lift station – the idea is semi-permanent lift station has ability to serve and if something big comes in, then plumb into this. Bjerke stated that staff work with neighborhood for some type of conclusion and come back to this committee for option 1. Kreun started need more information and work with Assn. and come back with more defined plan that resembles option 1 prior to bringing it to council.

Mr. Hafner stated they are unofficial reps. of the Assn. because the Townhomes is under the control of the developer and we will be in control within a year; did bring this to the attention of the Assn. members last year knowing that there was an event last year with a forcemain being in trouble on Columbia Rd. and were compromised which brought this to their attention, and they are meeting as an Assn. in May and bring them up to date with plans and hope that somebody from the City could give the City’s position to everybody on the same page. Kreun stated that is why recommending to get together before coming back with a specific plan to bring to council - they would have representation at their meeting – either Mr. Walker or WFW rep.; that they are willing to work with Assn. and start the process to hone this down so can get into agreement with the city council but this may not come back until July and if want to get this started by 2013, need some definite answers. Hafner stated they all need to understand the ramifications – and if don’t do this, will have some severe problems in the future; stated they had discussed with the City helping them out and maintaining this lift station until something permanent happens with the understanding that they would be responsible for those expenses but do need that sort of help – Kreun stated that they are giving you consensus that you need to do that and get specs. made so can be done next year.

11 Information on Grand Forks Stormwater Management Standards and Design Manual.
Grasser stated that this is just a draft document for your information and is part of our ordinances, etc. that they have adopted with the city, there has been reference to some stormwater design guideline manual which they do not have – this document is designed to be an on-line tool, and if get into the document will see that there are spots where they have made references to links to the city website – that the intent of this guideline is to provide some shortcuts for the design standards for the engineers when they get into these things and see references where the city will accept 15 minute time to concentration and other alternative is to do a complex set of computations to determine what that time of concentration is and are trying to give somebody and if pick this number , etc. these are defaults for the city and will accept those, and if want to challenge those or come up with a different number, allowed to do that, but means will have to go through the whole development process of how you arrived at and making sure it passes our technical revue – not to limit anybody from being able to exercise their professional judgment on any particular matter but a lot of these are results of different professional opinions and giving defaults and will accept this number, etc. They are using this as an online tool as this will reference several different things – do have actual city ordinances that are going to be attached here – city mpds permit discharge permit from the State, have the full document of the drainage study – all things that go into this design guideline that are inputs into that document – there are two things driving for the city of Grand Forks, for storm sewer one is the mandated water quality analysis and other has to do with runoff restrictions irrespective of water quality to make sure that we don’t flood ourselves from the interior as part of our flood protection project – regulated water surface profiles in the southend drainway and the English Coulee – so lot of these in restricting run off flows is to make sure we don’t exceed those particular interior components of the project. That is technical document.

Kreun stated that they have gone through just about all of these and this is culmination of putting this together as one document, that we have approved all of those documents over a period of years since 2008, and is for information to let everybody know that it will be on the web and have all the documents and information that they need in order to go forward. Grasser stated that at some point will be looking for the city council to approve this document with some provisions to be modified as it will be a living document – there are things they need experience with this and different techniques trying on different ponds and trying to optimize the process.

Bjerke asked if they are satisfied with the ability to maintain it, and confident that can maintain these with way going to be designed. Grasser stated if get into the documents require about 3 or 4 feet above the waterline – and reason for riffraff above the waterline is that experience has shown them that even though there is a part of the pond where dirt above waterline, very saturated because the water is there all the time and hoping that riffraff will get out of the saturation zone.

Grasser stated they would like to bring in for approval at next committee meeting – and approve document with future modifications by city engineer.

12. Presentation of the City of Grand Forks 2009-2011 Sustainability Report.
The committee received and filed this Report.

13. Noise variance and special license to sell alcoholic beverages at designated premises for Springfest 2012 – Rhombus Guys._____________________________________________
Aaron Hendricks, Rhombus Guys, 312 Kittson Avenue, stated they are sponsoring the event, Springfest 2012, for the fourth year – and are asking for approval of 2 items – noise variance and special alcohol permit (special permit) . They will work closely with police department and Park.
Motion by Grandstand and Kreun to approve the request and refer to city council. Motion carried.


The committee adjourned their meeting at 6:45 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk