Print VersionStay Informed
Minutes of the Grand Forks City Council Service/Safety
Committee - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - 5:30 p.m.________

The Service/Safety Committee met on Tuesday, May 11, 2010, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in City Hall with Chairman Kreun presiding. Present at roll call were Kreun, Bjerke, Gershman.

Chairman Kreun reported that the item re. Preliminary CIP discussion was be changed to the last item on the agenda, and that there was one additional item re. Agreement for Project No. 6425.

1. Application for liquor license by Big D's Bar & Grill and a change from a transfer of Class 4 (Food & Beverage) license to Class 1 (General On & Off Sale Liquor and Beer)
Howard Swanson, city attorney, reported that the council had previously approved the transfer of Class 4, restaurant license, to Big D's and they are now requesting that the Class 4 license be changed to a Class 1 license, general on and off sale license. The application appears to be in order, does not have any information as to whether it will be permitted by the State of North Dakota as they will have to give separate license and authorization; the applicant will need to pay the difference in the issuance fee that is in effect which is $67,145 and the fee that was in effect when the Class 4 license was issued. He reviewed differences between the Class 4 and the Class 1 licenses.

Council Member Bjerke stated he doesn't believe in unlimited licenses, and that with the smoking ban going into effect that will create more competition among themselves and means reducing prices, etc. and that he won't be voting for this, thinks there are some things that need to be done differently as far as alcohol licenses but in minority so can only vote no.

Chairman Kreun stated that it is a free market and competition determines who will standing at the end and should transfer the license, and recommend to send to the city council with split vote.

2. Consideration of bids for construction of Project No. 6460, Dist. No. 639, Street reconstruction of 30th Ave.S. from S. 20th St. to S. 25th St., 31st Ave.S. from S. 20th St. to S. 23rd St. and S. 23rd St. from 30th Ave.S. to 32nd Ave.S.
Dean Rau, asst. city engineer, reported bids were opened last Monday and low bidder was Strata Corporation and recommendations is to award contract to the low bidder. To date one protest has been received from Midco Theatres and they have about 18.5% of the project area, and the protest period does not expire until next Thursday, and council will determine sufficiency of protest at the next council meeting and will place information re. protest in the packet. Protest of 51% required to stop the project.

Chairman Kreun stated committee would move this to council with notation that there will be a public hearing and protestor will have opportunity to voice their opinion at that time, and move to council with recommendation for the low bidder with notation of the protest.

3. Plans and specifications for Project No. 6584, Dist. No. 183, street lighting on 6th Ave.N. (N. 53rd to N. 55th St.)
Rau reported they have received several phone calls from residents on the north side of the street, that 6th Ave.N. does have lights but this two block segment doesn't have lights and have requested the lights be put in, looking at installing 3 lights, and are asking for approval of plans and specs. for the project.

Chairman Kreun stated they would move that forward as recommendation to the council.

4. Plans and specifications of Proj. No. 6595, Dist. No. 644, N. 36th St. paving extension.
Rau stated this is near Conte Luna and they are doing a building expansion and would like to have the paving extended, and are asking for approval of plans and specs.

Chairman Kreun stated to move that forward as recommendation to the council.

5. Preliminary Engineering Services Agreement for Project No. 6595, Dist. No. 644, N. 36th St. paving extension.
Rau reported that WFW has done some preliminary work and are requesting they be hired to complete the project, and asking for approval of the agreement with WFW for the preliminary engineering services. Bjerke asked if entire project is to be special assessed to the property owners - noted that 80% assessed and 20% City.

Chairman Kreun reported to move forward with recommendation to the council.

6. Sidewalk Location List #2, Project No. 6514, 2010 Sidewalk Repair and Installation.
Rau reported this is standard sidewalk project that is done every year for damaged areas on sidewalks and sidewalks in new construction areas.

Chairman Kreun reported to move forward with recommendation to the council.

7. Construction Engineering Services Agreement for Project No. 6425, Concrete Panel Replacement, Mill and Overlay and Incidentals on 13th Ave.S. (S. 20th St. to Cherry Street), Federal Proj. No. STM-SU-6-986(097)101.
This is additional item that was received from the State today - Rau reported this is one of the last projects that they are doing with the federal stimulus money, which is panel replacement with mill and overlay with asphalt in this area, looking to have WFW do the engineering inspection on the project and asked for approval of the agreement.

Chairman Kreun reported to move this forward to council as recommendation to use engineering services from WFW.

8. Urban Community Garden - Pilot Project.
Chairman Kreun stated this is a community garden project within the city worked with through Amazing Grains and be a cooperative garden, has not been done in the community before and is pilot project and they appeared at the last Service/Safety Comm. and indicated that they would be extremely good stewards and make sure that everything would be taken care of very properly and neatly.

Todd Feland stated they would like to start as soon as possible and would confer with Mr. Swanson, that this agreement would be less than $30,000, and need mayor's signature. He stated there are some utilities on these locations and wanted to make that info. available; lot is north of the water treatment plant; and there is one item on the lease agreement that says the water service shall be provided by the City of Grand Forks, and in the lease agreement have the tenant pay for the water but doesn't think that will be a deal breaker and could work with Mr. Perkins and Caylan Van Larson and if people don't have lot of money, non-profits, and could still charge them for the water - and that maybe one item they could change in the lease agreement.

Melanie Parvey presented some additional information that was provided in the last few days, that she did receive comments from a resident, Lael Schmidt, 606 S. 5th Street, who had concerns if a communal garden in front of the water intake facility with transients or people not from the neighborhood or area through that neighborhood, that it sets precedent so if allow community gardens on city property and other parts of town might want to do the same, concerned about aesthetics. She stated they sent about 70 letters out the end of April and had 3 comments back - might take away from greenspace. She also attached the community garden lease which is same draft as in the packet, only change was sq. footage of the second lot in front of the water intake, and copy of plats showing the lots. There were also some comments from Caylan Van Larson, Amazing Grains, about small suggested changes to the lease. She stated they might need to have discussion to determine re. water service.

Gershman stated they had a neighborhood meeting April 29 re. vacant property, and some comments made re. community garden and that she should check with Meredith Richards to see minutes, some concerns with the lot across the street from the water plant as this is not a buildable lot - check out Meredith re. comments that were made, people want to make sure it is well kept. Parvey stated Amazing Grains would be managing the site and take care of problems.

Caylan Van Larson and Dr. Perkins, Amazing Grains, stated the communal garden plot would be planted, seeded, weeded and harvested under the direction of Amazing Grains staff, and re. produce do work exchange program where people get their fair share of the harvest after volunteering certain number of hours. They would be responsible for venture and also if sub-lease to other individuals, have rules established for caring for the garden. Area would be fenced with wire mesh. - did not want to put in permanent fence as pilot project and if not continued.

Lael Smith voiced concerns as they are trying to revitalize their neighborhood, other people are opposed as well from safety prospective - concerned about giving people who shouldn't be in that neighborhood reason to go there, that they have had problems with people from the Mission and transients. Also concerned with aesthetics and suggested putting garden on the wet side of the dike - and questioned cost to the City, and whether role of government to provide water to private business. It was noted that if on wet side of the dike, access problem and vandalism, no utilities, and if flooding in the spring and invest money into improving soil and building up garden plot, would have to do over again the following year. (City would provide garbage/recycling, some compost from yard waste containers - possibly water service and there would be $1200 deposit with the City.) It was also noted that the area is grass covered and if do gardens would have black dirt and with wind problem could cause some problem.

Dr. Perkins stated that they want this to work and willing to do whatever it takes to make it work and are paying hefty deposit in case should default on their commitment - trying to maximize the security and checked with others who have worked in community gardens - that transients have never been problem in community gardens and are committed to making this work. The City can always end the project after one year.

Hazel Sletten stated she wanted to test the utility locates, there is a nice curve laid out in the packet and would like to work with the group to avoid being over the top of those locates, those provide the power to the raw water intake and their major concern.

Bjerke stated re. City contributions no problem with compost but shouldn't do the picnic tables and should charge for water; should go with the project for one year and if doesn't work out and that if didn't renew it the next year Amazing Grains would plant grass and pay for that.

Chairman Kreun stated to make recommendation to go ahead with pilot project for one year and that Amazing Grains or cooperative will pay for the water.

9. Public Works Department equipment - Sanitation Division tractor bid #2010-30, Skid Steer loader bid #2010-31, Water Division utility body bid #2020-33
Feland reported reviewed bid tabs and asked for approval - that tractor is a used tractor
from RDO with less than 300,000 miles and less than 5 years; the skid steer loader is at the baling facility and is replacement; and utility body for the electrician; and would like to proceed with.

Chairman Kreun stated to move forward to council as a recommendation to purchase all 3 pcs. of
equipment.

10. Mosquito Control Lab construction.
Don Shields and Todd Hanson reported that the bids were opened last Thursday, JLG
Architects designed the area, that the Public Safety Center was originally designed to have a lab unit, and in 2007 had opportunity to go through grant funding for the equipment, received the grant funding and bought the equipment to do the testing but do need a laboratory place, and have an area that was designed within the confines of that building for a laboratory, recommend awarding to vendor, Innes Construction Co. in the amount of $99,865.00. Todd stated that the West Nile virus testing is part of the proactive programming to reduce West Nile virus. Grand Forks County does have the lowest number of human West Nile virus cases and it is contributed to the program we have in Grand Forks - targeting mosquitoes before they even hatch out of the water. He stated we need an area that has minimal activity throughout it and the way things set up right now, too much activity in the PCR testing. Funding -would be using cash carryover. It was noted when testing was done by the State, it took 2 to 3 weeks before getting results and with this equipment we can pick up the same pool of mosquitoes and if do testing today, can treat it tomorrow. Funding for equipment was federal funding, Center for Disease Control.

Chairman Kreun stated to move forward to council and award bid to Innes Construction Co.

11. Mosquito Control chemicals and equipment bids.
Don Shields reported that under the equipment portion of that, and also see under the
larvicide prices being the same from one vendor to the other, did recommend low bid on all of these but have the ability to buy from the second vendor if the vendor is out, could buy from another vendor at the same price. He noted that couple of the equipment vendors would recommend that we would purchase from the low bidder but also like to have the ability to purchase from the second lowest bidder, that with our short season if we have equipment outages difficult to bring equipment in here between June and August, and would like the ability to go to an alternative vendor if the low bid vendor did not have equipment.

Chairman Kreun stated to make recommend with that caveat and have the ability as a backup
source to use the second lowest bidder as well.

12. Preliminary CIP discussion for 2015 and 2106 Street and Highway Projects.
It was noted that this item is for discussion and possibly a recommendation of what might
go into the CIP budgeting for 2011 and beyond, but not an immediate vote to be taken on this item at this time.

Al Grasser, city engineer, reported that one of our upcoming work sessions is going to have a CIP
on street and highways and what works in the budget is influenced by which projects we decide
to take and in what priority. He reviewed parts of the report and that Grand Forks has about 240 miles of paved streets, and this report focuses on the types that qualify for federal aid to urban money and streets range from Cherry Street on low volume type of classified street to South Columbia Road which is high volume and all fit into that same federal funding category. Under the Urban Program the City expects about $2.9 million annually and the City has high degree of flexibility how we allocate those funds within those qualified streets. The federal funds are usually applied at about 80% level for construction costs, and City has 20% local match and as part of the program the City does the up-front project development cost, those can be fairly extensive and expensive, depending upon the type of the project. We need to do Project Concept Reports (PCR) and those can run up to $150,000 or $200,000 and in addition there might be other work that we have to do up-front. The DOT programs these funds several years in advance and that we made an application for federal funding out through the year 2014 (last fall as a draft request, the State concurred with our request and in his report treating projects out to 2014 - programmed and some flexibility.

He reported that in Year 2011 under Urban Road Programs have the 20th Avenue South street
extension from Red River High School to Columbia Road, making connection to hopefully alleviate some of the congestion on 17th Ave.S.

For 2012 have Columbia Road intersection with Gateway Drive although this may go back and rehab Columbia Road all the way to 8th Avenue, that is tied to a regional project because Gateway Drive is on the regional system but falls into different funding category. Also have Downtown Traffic Signals as trying to upgrade the signals downtown and get those coordinated
Gershman stated that coming out of East Grand Forks and going into East Grand Forks and if
they are backed up and we are coordinated, not going to make much difference - Grassers stated he didn't know what their plan is but can call to find out - and noted that the intersection of 5th Street don't have a way of tying those signals together and a base time clock so 5th Street drives terribly - this project is more than DeMers but also a part of 5th and trying to make that whole system work better.

For 2013 Urban Road Program is Columbia Road reconstruction; and DeMers Avenue overpass to 11th Avenue South; and also have two intersection improvements scheduled for that year - traffic signal at 42nd Street and 11th Avenue near the Alerus and the other one would be 24th Avenue and 34th Street putting in a roundabout.

2014 Projects are focusing on Columbia Road - Knight Drive to 11th or through intersection of 13th Avenue; and have one more intersection approved but unidentified - for a signal by 2014 if not sooner in some location- can anticipate 3 or 4 locations but doesn't want to pinpoint it.

He reviewed some of the funding scenarios - 3 sources of funding besides special assessments - Highway Users funds which is gas tax money that comes back to the City; Infrastructure sales tax money; and our Urban Program money which is federal aid to urban. He stated the Urban Program by 2014, carrying good balance but some of the bigger projects bring those down. Infrastructure Sales Tax Account starts going negative in 2013; Highway Users maintains steady trend. He is giving a 6-year outlook and when request to DOT that will be shorter timeframe.
Gershman asked how much to get all the projects done - and if knew the number would need and taking the amount of money coming in and have pool of money - that if had a 1 cent sales tax for one year could generate $8 million - and if had one year to go for roads, could get a lot done - the roads in Grand Forks are bad - getting worse - and throw that out for consideration but if wrote it in such a way and has to go away and have that much more money for use for streets.
Grasser stated that $8 million or even two years of $16 million is going to bring the whole system up to some high standards - likes idea because addressed the basic problem but doesn't want somebody to come back later to say we needed more than a one year deal. Kreun suggested doing that every 3 to 5 years with one year tax; and in beginning maximize what are the projects that are having the highest traffic and worst roads and spending the most money to patch and put that together for our CIP for the budget.

Grasser stated 3 projects that would be his priorities:
47th Avenue South is minor arterial road, currently two-lane rural section road with no pedestrian access and proposed road would be to widen that to a 3-lane section with a roundabout at 20th and have problem with getting people in and out of South Middle School. - 3300 vehicles per day and projected 2035 is 14,500 vehicles.
Columbia Road which is principal arterial and is two lane rural road with no shoulders, no pedestrian access and looking at widening that to a 4-lane section, maybe with raised median - traffic projections at 6300 vehicle per day, 2035 projected at 25,000.
Minnesota/4th Avenue S. - two-lane granitoid and looking at replacing it within its existing footprint, maintain a two lane road and concept is have roundabout at Belmont and doing some historical issues, current is 6200 and projected at 12,800.
He stated Minnesota and 4th has historical components, 47th Ave.S. and S. Columbia Road have some property acquisition issues depending on big footprint of road we put in, costs may change as get more information.

Grasser stated he has a couple recommendations and possible options - could carry all three of these projects and put them into year 2015, 2016 and 2017 and maybe 2018 to put in some sequence or could put all the projects in 2015 and then start to develop all 3 of them to see if any of them develop with a fatal flaw - something that drives up the cost and may drop them off but hesitancy to do that is we will be spending money doing those project developments. One important thing he left out is if do MN/4th have a very small window to do that project in with the Kennedy Bridge being done in 2016 and Sorlie in 2018 and 2017 would be our only window where not driving a lot of other bridge traffic through that section; and Sorlie might be 2018 and 2019, a multi-year project. Have to hit that window or move beyond that.

Kreun stated we have a lot of up-front costs that we put into this and don't go towards our matching portion - and our up-front costs are ours without being reimbursed by the federal monies, etc. Grasser there are ways of capturing some of those dollars by how you program it, but is giving practical application is that it is not practical to try to capture federal dollars too far up front - the problem is we have to start setting our budget when start spending federal monies and if spend that money up front before having good concept put together might find that our budget is fixed and might be short - so we bring the project development into play until have good scope of project defined and ready to move towards the plans and spec. stage because can put a better handle on the cost est. so don't get caught short. with federal funding once its programmed. The State is programming federal dollars 4 - 5 years in advance and not flexible.
Kreun stated that the projects we choose if spend money efficiently, should be good project and not be protested out.

Grasser stated he is looking at their thoughts and how he should work with Finance to present this to you in CIP, not trying to drive to a decision today but needs to put a basic sense of parameters together for the budget because depending on which project we put where, will drive us into either a budget deficit earlier or may have to skip a year and bank the money - we received a letter from MPO encouraging the City to make MN/4th one of the high priorities - are getting input from number of sources - wants to work with the council and not bring in something that is unacceptable when they talk about in the CIP process and if give some ideas.

Kreun stated if have ideas from this information - that if looking at the 3 projects that are very viable and look at the numbers - the #1 project would be Columbia Road project and not sure for #2 and #3. Grasser stated most of the rehab is captured in 2014 and the one that is missing is the intersection of 17th Ave.S. - could have given you 4 projects - the 6-year CIP from the Mayor's Office will be the next step beyond these 3, and reason didn't do that on as high a priority is when looking at traffic, not in as bad shape - can defer that longer.

Bjerke stated re. MN/4th and if this tight on road money, $1 million of that project was to do extras, and would not vote to spend that money on that - get a regular road at regular price and if talking about raising taxes to pay for special road. Kreun stated up-front costs on MN/4th would be high, engineering.

There was some discussion re. Farm to Market Roads - and as much as able to divert traffic around some areas, DeMers Avenue is still a Farm to Market Road to get sugar beets to the factory - grain, etc. and there are other roads that would qualify for some of that Farm to Market funds. Kreun stated concern on the MN/4th Avenue project are upfront costs that would be put into all of these projects and that if special assess that area and at a high cost and if put in engineering costs, project becomes an issue and is protested out - used funds with no return - but if could get a written understanding ahead of time of what is to be put into that project - standard concrete, cobblestone, etc., would like to know some of that before going into engineering process.

Gershman stated one of their concerns is widening of the street, and if don't do that it alleviates a lot of their concerns, money is another issue, but they would protest it out if widen it. Grasser stated the trees are actually historical too. Kreun stated those are some of our concerns and not sure how Grasser wants to make a priority list and bring to CIP

Earl Haugen, MPO, stated talking federal funds and needed to comment on Columbia Road, that road will be need to be widened and in the report part of the red tape that he has to be a spokesperson for is the timing of that project - that in the Transportation Plan is in the long term and if were to present that to the MPO for consideration for funding in time frame talking about, would not be able to because it would not be consistent with their planning document says. He stated they are just starting the process of updating that document and will take them to the end of 2011. That if come to them today Columbia Road would not be consistent in timing of it, and gets into their financial plans and gets into sequencing of some of the other projects within that so start trading dollars for other projects.

It was suggested that Al and Earl need to get together and review. Grasser stated that he is looking at the fact that would like to get the intersection of 47th and Columbia done with Columbia Road before build 47th, otherwise going to be hard to build that intersection out with 47th Avenue - big wide intersection with turn lanes, etc. and going to have to hold 47th short which means your intersections going to be your big congestion point. Different philosophies in sequencing and something may want, if get strong consensus from the council, is something they will talk about because the Transportation Plan is something that the council staffs and has input on.

Haugen stated since its just a reconstruction and not a specific project with the agreement plan so it needs to be reconstructed if programmed - all of their financial plan reserves some funds for that type of maintenance, so don't list maintenance type projects. He stated they will take that into consideration by the end of 2011 to see how it shapes up.

Kreun stated the problem is with some of the costs is that it would take a lot of our monies and not be able to do the other projects. Haugen stated that talking to MN/4th and what is in the corridor report that was done. Kreun stated don't have enough money to do the project and how do they prioritize and use our funds to maximum is what getting at. Haugen stated they are being pushed by federal agencies to craft some ranking criteria, and how to help you help us identify the priority of projects based on all of the factors that need to be considered. Kreun stated his concern is that the project would be protested out.

Kreun asked if they were to prioritize or if Grasser would give them priority list. Grasser stated he would take the information he has to review, that he has heard from the committee and there is going to be more discussion - that unless have additional funding source have only one project to do.

ADJOURN

The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.

Alice Fontaine, City Clerk