Print VersionStay Informed
Grand Forks City Council Service/Safety Standby Committee
Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 4:00 p.m.__________________________________

The city council of the city of Grand Forks sitting as the Service/Safety Standby Committee met in the council chambers in City Hall on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. Present at roll call were Council Members Kreun, chair; Bakken.

Others present were Chief Packett, Mark Walker, Dean Wieland and Mike Korman from CPS, Jane Williams, Chief O'Neill, Byron Seiber, Don Shields, Al Grasser, Sgt. Pohlman, Roxanne Fiala.

Chair Kreun called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m., there were 7 items on the agenda, that Council Member Gershman was at another meeting.

1. Sole source request for controlled access devices (continuation of an ongoing project.
Chief Packett reported they changed the title to add budget amendments that will be coming before the COW on the 25th for additions to the project.

Lt. Byron Seiber reported that 2 years ago received some Homeland Security funding that allowed them to do a controlled card access system similar to cards that allow access into buildings and had Ellert & Assoc. do request for proposal, 75 page proposal, wanted something that would protect not only the police department but a lot of the infrastructure in the city of Grand Forks - public works, fire department, etc. and wanted system to have software capabilities to do multiple buildings and not be going to bid for different kinds of systems over the years, and worked with IT department on this and came up with RFP, and knowing that they were going to add to the system, and now because of Public Safety Center they received some additional Homeland Security funding to put controlled access at that building, they talked to Stone's who got the original bid. He presented copies of the original RFP under general requirements and highlighted certain areas re. access controlled system must be expandable to allow an additional 25 city buildings as needs are determined and funds become available, and that was requirement of the bidder and subject to that requirement. He stated that the letter from Stone's dated February 20, 2008 and they are extending and guaranteeing the discount pricing that they had in this equipment at the original bid time for 5 years which goes out to December, 2013, and advantage to the City is that we have the same pricing of original bid, and if went out for bid could end up with another new system, different cards, software, etc. but want to continue with the same system so want to sole source this with available funding and to continue as they had in the RFP request.

Council Member McNamara reported present.

Motion by Bakken and Kreun to authorize sole source with continuation of contract with Stone's Security Systems, Inc. and prices to stay at that level for 5 years, December 2013. Motion carried.

Chief Packett reviewed staff report for COW on February 25, that they received COPS 2006 Technology grant and a 2007 JAG grant, totaling approx. $299,800.00 and budget amendment that explains bringing that money into the 2008 budget so it can be expended on the Public Safety project. A document memo from Sgt. Pohlman which explains how the $299,800.00 will be spent on the construction project and includes mostly training devices, software and are things that were not included in the construction budget or the bond issue so non-tax funds going into the center but expenditures that would have to be made long term and good situation for the City where they have obtained grant funds to buy equipment and to furnish classrooms.

Bakken questioned what 4 centers being set up by the State. Chief Packett stated the State Emg. Mgmt. Office has decided to set up a 4 regional response areas of which Grand Forks is designated as one of those and in order to be designated as one of those response areas, there are certain requirements and MOU's, etc. that will periodically come to mayor and council for approval as just how involved want to be in that, but basic concept has been there for several years and have tried to incrementally give money out based on a regional basis but long term will be more of a formalized process and council will have to sign off in the future. Bakken stated that he felt that we should be one of those centers and probably best for the area. Chief O'Neill stated that the city attorney is looking at a memo that is tied to the latest grant funds and whether we want to accept those and council will have to make a commitment, but probably into next year whether we would either like to be a regional responder, is a commitment and some risk involved but believes it would be the best for the State if 4 major response areas along with CRT team from National Guard from Bismarck. Seiber stated that the State is trying to reduce the number of grants they send out to all counties and get it into 4 major regions with regional responders. Chief O'Neill stated with Division of Emergency Services in the State will determine where the funds go across the State.

Motion by McNamara and Bakken to recommend sole source and budget amendment to city council. Carried.

2. Public Safety Center update.
Sgt. Pohlman presented information re. construction of the building, interior of the building includes installing of drywall, painting and electrical work; exterior of the building includes installing of fencing and metal sheeting on front and back of the building, that work will continue in the spring re. trench resource/confined space, the outdoor range and the police/fire training tower; and that schedule 2 weeks behind because of weather conditions. He also reviewed training courses that are scheduled during 2008 re. Defense Technologies, Basic Spanish for Law Enforcement, Crime Prevention training, and Glock Armorer/Instructor Workshop; and that they have had requests for attending these workshops from various cities in ND and northwest MN. It was also noted that because of this training center there will be less travel to other areas for training. There was some discussion as to when a meeting could be held in the training center, and committee stated they would like tour of the building possibly in March.

Don Shields reported they were hoping be operational by May, that May is a busy time for them and do have some latitude with their present building so if May timeframe didn't happen.

Chief O'Neill insured committee that the fire department also has classes scheduled, most activities - fire training, tower training but unable to do some of the other classes - trench rescue where have to get off hard surface - and would like to propose to bid for the State fire school in upcoming years, and if do that would bring in thousands of firefighters across the state

Committee stated that this building is more than what expected, will be benefit for the whole region - this is one more item that we can add that we have a safe, sound well-trained community; however, not utilized by economic development.

3. Perimeter Drainage Study presentation.
Mark Walker, asst. city engineer, reported today have reps. from CPS, consulting engineer who is conducting the study and have them to provide committee with a little more detailed presentation, not looking for any action from committee but intending on giving some background and brief update. At some time in the future will bring to committee of the whole and city council for adoption of the study and approval; but today CPS will provide overview, purpose of the study, effects and findings. Kreun stated that is very costly to the community for this system and is extremely important - is a mandate where there is not much funding or zero, and how we approach this and how we follow through and implement this is very critical esp. to contractors and to the City itself in how handled and developed. Mr. Grasser stated one of the reasons going through the committee is that we want some of these approvals, sounds academic and mundane at this point in time but later need to understand the importance of what is going on and producing this, have a lot of follow-up - we need to be introducing codes, adopting procedures in land development area and lot of subsequent things, and to get this implemented is going to take additional effort.

Mike Korman and Dean Wieland of CPS, distributed presentation slides and stated that they have submitted a working draft of the perimeter drainage study to the engineering department and they have provided their comments - and in near future will be coming up with actual draft of the study. He stated areas they are looking at are undeveloped areas of the city of Grand Forks within the flood protection project, that they broke this into four sub-areas and each of those areas have common characteristics as far as discharge restrictions and ultimate discharge point for storm water drainage.

They reviewed the basic scope of the drainage study which was to review the existing major drainage systems out there - English Coulee Diversion, Southend Drainway, English Coulee. They looked at past studies done by various government entities and consultants and tried to combine all that information into this document. Mr. Korman stated they also did some high altitude conceptual layouts of proposed major stormwater conveyance systems and stormwater best management practices to meet these upcoming rules. New rules that are going to be coming into effect at the end of this year are called Phase II Rules, mandated by EPA, and regulated by the ND Department of Health. As a part of the study they looked at all the recent changes with drainage with the Corps of Engineers project, also looked at any discharge restrictions i.e., English Coulee Diversion, Southend Drainway, etc., and also working with the ND Dept. of Transportation on any restrictions they may have for drainage into Hwy. 2 ditches and into I-29 ditches and also working with the Grand Forks County Water Resource Board on any waterways and drains under their jurisdiction. Mr. Grasser stated that they would be making presentation to County and Water Drainage Boards when get into draft stages.

Mr. Korman reviewed Phase II Stormwater Rules which establishes minimum control measures for operation of drainage systems to protect water quality for all new developments and redevelopments for cities within population greater than 10,000; and requires that any new development or any areas in town that are being redeveloped, and will have to implement water quality best management practices to meet these rules. It was noted that this not just for the physical city but metro areas - targeting metropolitan areas first and other cities will have less push on them initially; and just a matter of time until this moves down to 5,000 pop., 2,000 pop. Kreun stated that we will be incurring some costs and there is not funding for this and wanted to know how wide spread this is, and it was noted that the program started 8-10 years ago for cities with pop. of 100,000 first, but this program keeps evolving into development areas. Rules requires MS4 (Municipal Separate Stormsewer Systems) basically the city's drainage system and will implement ordinances or other regulatory means to control most construction runoff in these areas. Implementation date is 12/31/08 and everything has to be in place by January 1, 2009. The result will be increase in development costs and operation and maintenance costs for the city as well. It was noted that this will improve water quality into streams and rivers.
He reported we have a number of dry detention ponds in town, their primary function is flow attenuation and also a small water quality benefit from these ponds, but not recognized by EPA or by MN, and problem is that when water builds up and is stored in these ponds sediment will drop out and that sediment that is left over and when next storm breaks out and prone to resuspension of that sediment but with new draft regulations of the ND Dept. of Health, they are allowing dry detention pond as a water quality BMP but have certain design requirements re. discharge and size, etc. He stated there are going to be more and more of these ponds being constructed and need to think kidney shaped rather than rectangular, try to make them more of a feature of the development. It was suggested that they talk with the Park Dept. and utilize some of their large areas and how long water sit if use soccer field or playground area; possibly min. of 24 hours into 48 hours - 2 to 3 days - and in this talking major storm. It was stated by the committee that this is something they are going to have to start working with; and also that may want to bring some type of presentation to the Park District so they know what we are trying to accomplish.

Another system that is similar to dry detention pond, are wet sedimentation ponds which have a permanent pool of water, and it was noted by committee that this is something that could be worked out in new park area where holding ponds. Water quality very good in these types of ponds compared to dry detention ponds because don't have sediment issue. Maintenance is an issue on small areas.

Hydrodynamic separator - BMP - is for a small drainage system, i.e., parking lot, etc. and water enters in, separates floatables, oil and grease from affluent water and allows any suspended solids to drop out in the bottom of manhole, and used in commercial and regional type developments but very effective for water quality. Maintenance problem as have to be cleaned routinely.

Underground Detention - BMP - basically primary purpose is flow attenuation, and is series of pipes that store water temporarily so can be released at a slower rate, only one aware of in Grand Forks is Texas Roadhouse - these are used in lieu of detention ponds for flow attenuation and in high cost commercial areas where have expensive property or limited land available - and it was stated that national/international firms that come do this and automatically show up on their plans; and it was noted that most of the states have adopted this already. There were some comments re. filtration system for small to mid-size development projects (5-acre drainage area) and primary function is water quality. There was some discussion re. maintenance, and that this is part of EPA regulation, have to monitor and take water samples for testing as suspended solids, or what is coming through there. Grasser stated they are not proposing a monitoring program at this point in time, but can develop into full blown programs.

Mark Walker, asst. city engineer, stated with the Corps of Engineers projects, some of these ponds have already been constructed and are in a better position than some of the other cities, and will have to sell developers is that this is mechanism and some of these costs can be offset by a smaller storm sewer.

Mr. Korman reviewed the 4 Study Areas, locations and discharge restrictions in each of the Study Areas; and noted that the key points of the study are that the requirements are mandated, that in order to meet these requirements need to implement new policies, ordinances and practices; that the BMP's make an asset to the development; need to work closely with Corps of Engineers, to get Memorandum of Understanding based on discharge restrictions to drainways (lot of people involved with flood protection project still there so everybody understands it and have a document the City can use of what allowed to discharge and what restrictions are) similar with DOT re. highway ditches; and need further discussion with GF County Water Resource Bd. on their jurisdictional drainways.
Kreun asked if they could have an invitational meeting and have contractors, etc. come in and give them overview, and it was noted that most of the major developers and contractors are well aware of this; and also better to take what we have now and put it in writing and try to work with that in the future. Grasser stated that he wanted to get this document approved so have formal approval from the City and that forms a basis for a number of follow-up actions but asked if he should run this back through the committee or directly to a COW, or consider working session, and what is their preference, and also with the MOU's (Memo. of Understanding), whether specific authorization to enter into those agreements with different agencies and if want to come back to this committee. Committee asked that it come back to this committee.

Committee asked that copies of the overview of the Perimeter Drainage Study be sent to the rest of the council members along with copies to Mr. Duquette and Mayor Brown.

4. Federally mandated sign retroreflectivity.
Jane Williams, traffic engineer, reported that the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices which has been approved by the Federal Highway Adm. Agency, and that we must use it on any roads, streets or bikeways that we receive federal funds for; the State of North Dakota has also adopted it and is used on all of our streets and highways. That in the past several years this has been fine-tuned the retroreflectivity guideline and standard which was adopted on January 22, 2008 and that sets the criteria for the retroreflectivity, which is reflectivity of all of the signs that we have on our streets, does not affect signs on the bike trails, it includes stop signs, warning signs, street name signs. This will make it mandatory that we keep up with making sure that all of the signs in the city have a certain reflectivity - there are certain methods that we can use if the Manual has developed that we can adopt to make sure that we have the reflectivity, there is inspection criteria (measure them, keep track of how old the signs are, replace them when required, put up control signs and measure those and then go through and replace them), lots of different methods to do this, that we are not sure of which is going to be the most effective way to keep track of the signs. We have 4 years to develop a plan and that is the point where we are currently at; and are working with Public Works to see which is the most cost effective and best way to do it. This is an information item for the committee to make them aware of the program and that they are working on it.

She stated that even though they have 4 years to develop this issue, have only 7 years to replace every sign in the city, and have 10 years to replace the street markers. This is a big task and they have met with Public Works and are looking at dividing the city into areas and replacing areas, that safety funds are available to do this, but if use for this takes from something else. She stated they will be coming up with a recommendation and bringing it back; and also noted that signs being replaced now are with the new materials (diamond grade and life expectancy of that is 12 years). She noted that the 10 year material costs less than the 12 year material but not sure of how much the cost difference is - and have to look at whether to change everything to 12 year materials and do every 12 years rather than 10. They are looking at number of signs and cost; and that there are signs that do not meet the reflectivity all the time but trying to get it caught up, have 7 years and may have to double up for certain amount of time. A suggestion was made to perhaps do all the stop signs, and use 12 year materials and 10 year material on something else, several things they can do - based on manpower and have to work that into this formula. Grasser stated they want to talk about a sign reduction policy and minimizing how many signs to replace, have a lot of redundant signage. Committee also noted that they won't be replacing signs in the winter and better to do in the summer and hire student help. Records will have to be kept of when signs are installed, have signs in the GIS and will have to be maintained. Some signs can be refaced and Public Works has the ability to do a lot of this, esp. in the wintertime. It was also noted that do a lot of public information and start eliminating a lot of these signs because this will be expensive.

5. Flood Protection flood fight update.
Grasser reviewed copy of the information off the web from the National Weather Service showing what some of the flood potential probabilities are based on existing conditions and what projecting out future conditions, and reviewed some of the limits he looks at when trying to evaluate how to consider this data. This is early snapshot and when get into March do every several weeks and eventually every couple days. He stated they are opening bids for material and equipment on March 3 and have everything in order should they need it.

Mark Walker stated property acquisition was big issue, have 3 easements to obtain, ponding easements along English Coulee and are agreements with the landowner that they are not going to fill that area where we need to store water; will have one agreement with Aggregate Industries who is proposing to use to borrow site on the Campbell property to use fill material to fill on this property and will work an agreement with him that we can use his land for a ponding area and when he wants to fill it, he will use our dirt and create that ponding area so win situation for him, that we don't have to buy the easement and already have the land and will be coming to council in a month or so, Mr. Warcup is preparing the agreement and then forward to Aggregate for their review by their legal counsel.

He stated we still have the transfer of property with the Park District and will be on the March agenda for consideration. He stated as far as Corps of Engineers constriction is concerned, project is ours, we have a number of issues we have to work with the contractors with some manhole defects that when the contractors installed some of the manholes, didn't do them right and will have to do some punch list work on that this summer; and turf establishment in Phase III and IV areas is anticipating by end 2008 will have the turf fully established and turned over completely to the City for maintenance.

Mike Yavarrow has been spending a lot of his time working on the final paperwork, we have to submit credits to prove to the Corps that we have spent appropriate share of the project, 35% of the flood protection costs, we are about 80% done.

He stated re. miscellaneous issues we still have a number of plats to do - 6 or so and ones left are not critical areas and will do those in-house; and have couple remnants they will be selling off, couple that are buildable lots that Urban Development will sell off . Demolition of the Red Lake intake was awarded by council last evening; having report on Riverside Pool next week and will be making some decisions on what going to do with that; and have issue of final Park agreement to work through re. leasing the Park District the parks that were created. He stated they also have to be prepared for annual inspections, that the Corps has indicated that they are going to start their first inspection in 2008, and they will be looking at how we are maintaining the project, whether appropriately, which will affect our future certification to FEMA, show that periodically that we put up stop logs on the gate closures and required to be put up every 5 years, how we maintain the pump stations, road control, maintenance of grass, erosion, etc.; that we are getting those forms and that system of being prepared for those inspections and being able to submit the appropriate paperwork to the Corps on an annual basis.

Walker reported that Todd Feland and Melanie Parvey-Biby have been working on the long term leases and agreements, doesn't know what Park Districts disposition will be on converting that to a lesser agreement than 99 years, and will approach the subject with them; and would have to be mutually agreed upon by council and Park District.

6. LAWA meeting summary.
Grasser reported they were asked to do some brief synopsis of the Lake Agassiz Water Authority Board meetings, at their last meeting they had discussion re. Missouri River water, why not bring full pipeline to all the different communities, and spent last meeting reviewing why the decision they made is in the best interest financially to everybody, that pipeline to each individual community is billion dollar+ project, and the one they are proposing is in the neighborhood of $500 million which is lot of money to pay and Board and everybody is basically on board with the pipeline which brings the water to headworks of Lake Ashtabula and using Lake Ashtabula as a regulating reservoir. Kreun stated that the State is finally starting to realize that this is a State project rather than a City project, and have been getting some comments through the Legislative branch so will see what goes down next year when session in effect.

7. 2008 Projects Summary.
Grasser reviewed some of the 2008 projects, won't go over non-controversial items, some watermain replacements that are in process, will have a meeting next week, have paving request at 16th Avenue North, area behind McDonald's, and request for straightway and finishing off a cul-de-sac, and will open up some discussions with residents. They have some watermain replacements and those are non-controversial as City pays that and not an issue. The ones he wanted to discuss are those putting together a trunk infrastructure fund and putting away money for water, sewer, stormsewer and paving, underground utility - in the interest of utility rates has gone by the wayside, do have some money in there for trunk paving, but problem is when ran those numbers together couple years ago, those construction costs were 2/3rds of what they are today, and don't have enough money to do his typical half mile of collector street. The other issue they have is variety of percentages that we maybe have on collector type streets, some streets in recent past had the developers paid 80% percent of it and the City paid for some over-sizing, have had some on 47th Avenue South where have had State funds involved where State has paid 80% and we have assessed 20%, but don't have full funding to develop a program where we may give somebody a free street when we have these other things in the recent past that have been out there.

Some of the streets he would like to consider doing are 40th Ave.S. from Washington to Clearview, raised rural section and bring that in as an urban section before it gets fully developed because know that our costs are going up by 20-40% if we wait until development has occurred. Another one is University Overpass, would like to look at that one, that they did the University Overpass last year, talking about over the interstate, small piece between 42nd and the overpass that is a rural section and would like to get that urbanized. The third option is an extension of 34th Street to the south, not ready for that one because would like to have more discussions with the Park District to see if can straighten this tail out and make it run straight, but question for the committee is that then would create - 40th primary focus and create that as an assessment district with the City paying 80% and special assessing 20%, that goes against his desires because he would like to eliminate special assessments but with the money we have, doesn't think can consistently develop a program where can deliver a free trunk street. He asked the committee if they have any thoughts on that, that the 80% city participation is closer and will be able to more consistently offer everybody whether it is city money or DOT money, trying to come up with that high level of subsidy on trunk paving, not on residential areas. 40th is a collector street, University is a collector street, and also 34th and those are the types of streets he is talking about. He stated with a funding program would be more challenged. He stated they should have this discussion with Council Member Christensen as that one is in his ward and not expecting a decision tonight but getting to that time of the year when should be creating districts, should do it soon; and if want to offer at 100% city cost, doesn't have a problem with that but doesn't see that we have sufficient funding to offer that on a consistent basis.

Bakken stated they need to discuss this at council, that we can't afford to fund all of these and if we do, need a revenue stream to get to that point, and maybe 80-20% is a stepping stone until we get to whatever point we decide what we want to do, but that every council member is tired of special assessments, and fire storm we get every time we do one, and only way get around it is by finding stream and build funds so do away with it, but that is not a decision the committee is able to make, but 40th Street doing an 80-20% is probably sensible thing to do and get it done this year, and whole council is going to have to discuss where we are going to go and how fund it. Grasser stated if we want to do that, may want to have that discussion before he creates a district, and not sure if want to do this at working session Bakken stated that they may as well do this one and then have discussion. - Kreun stated the discussion isn't going to come to conclusion before we have the answer to that. Grasser stated they should have a discussion with Council Member Christensen, and University overpass - is not sure if even have money to do 80-20% to both of those this year and may have to wait until see how the bids come out. The other project they talked about is a major storm sewer pipe down 34th Street, when Kohl's came in their mandate was that they had to have a 10-year design storm and the City committed to making sure that we accomplished that, but can't accomplish that without an additional pipe down 34th into the drainway. He stated he is working with the Park District and would be in our best interest if we could straighten that leg out rather than make a curve, but everybody so busy right now and hard to get through - he stated they do have money in here for a seal coat project in northend, touching up those areas that they mill and overlaid back in 2000-2001, and those are set up to be 50% special assessed and 50% City. He stated at some point they can bring in a more comprehensive pavement management plan but is a snapshot for this year - quick look at some of the projects for this year. He stated this is going to be a slower year and doesn't see a lot of subdivision work coming through - and right now it appears they have good inventory of unsold lots and until developers see things moving and credit problem starts to straighten itself out - he stated he has not seen any new plats, but on commercial side there is some interest and things that are going to happen but residential will be a bit slower.

Committee asked that they come back with more detail on those issues, and on the 80-20% want to get into more in depth, and is direction should go at this point

Grasser stated he was proponent of putting in trunk infrastructure because that is what people really object to because it's not in their front yard. Kreun stated that if we fund it all it limits the number of projects that we can do and won't keep up with the demand. Grasser stated we are still missing the revenue stream to come up with a full match on our federal funds. Kreun stated we have unfounded mandates coming along so have to fund those as well.

8. Additional item.
Bakken presented the matter of legal issues we are having with some of our alcoholic beverage establishments re. warning citations and other issues, looks like we are going in the wrong direction in liquor establishments as far as i.d.ing people; that this is beginning to get alarming and we need to review this - also concerns licensing and renewals. He also asked for a spreadsheet of violation for the past year.

McNamara stated that in the last few weeks have had a number of violent accidents and would like to hear from the Chief as to 2:00 o'clock curfew, whether that has some effect. He stated they should invite some of the people that have been named in those items to come and give them a chance to respond.

Kreun stated that right now the information that we were given by Chief Packett and Howard Swanson formally be placed on the agenda for next agenda or following agenda, and also an update on report to see if there is more activity, or same, or what is happening. Bakken and McNamara moved approval. Motion carried.

Adjourn

It was moved by Bakken and McNamara to adjourn (at 6:35 p.m.). Motion carried.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk