City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us


	MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE Tuesday, May 30, 2000 - 7:00 p.m.__________ Members present: Hafner, Klave, Lunak. 1. Matter of applications for moving permits: a) Park District to move building from Lincoln Park Golf Course to Ulland Park (cold storage maint. building) Tim Manz, Inspections, reported they received site plan which is under review by the Planning Department and appears to meet all requirements and recommended approval. Moved by Klave and Hafner to approve the application for permit subject to the public hearing. Motion carried. b) Ryan Grinde to move building from Crookston to 5174 Ella Circle (storage shed) Mr. Manz reported that no repairs required to the building and recommended approval. There was some discussion relative to building meeting covenants as covenants do address storage sheds; Mr. Manz stated it wasn’t requirement as City doesn’t have authority to enforce covenants and perhaps need Mr. Swanson to clarify. Owners stated they are aware of covenants and would reside building if required. Moved by Klave and Hafner to approve the application for permit subject to the public hearing. Motion carried. c) Terry D. Anderson to move building from 1816 North 4th Street to 311 North 4th Street (garage) Mr. Manz reported this requires approval of site plan through the Planning Dept. which has been approved, and recommended approval; only repair is to replace broken window and pour concrete slab. Moved by Klave and Hafner to approve the application for permit subject to the public hearing. Motion carried. Lunak reported present. 13. Matter of bikeway easement adjacent to the English Coulee in Birkholz 6th Addition Doug Herzog, CPS, Ltd., stated that when the bikepath was constructed it went over the existing platted easement, that Valley Memorial’s attorney was directed to draw up the easement to save City expense, that he drew up easement, had it signed and recorded, and added pages included acceptance by the City which needs to be done. Moved by Klave and Lunak to approve acceptance of the easement. Motion carried. 10. Matter of alley in the 2600 block between University and 4th Ave. N. Mr. Grasser reported they had received letter from residents, and engineering has researched and come up with some alternatives. Chairman Hafner stated this came to committee from CIP and subject was re. policy on alleys and this seemed to have enough questions about past history esp. with sanitary rehab project (alley repaved after sanitary project in 1987). It was noted that there seems to be a drainage problem that acerbates this problem. Joe Solseng, 2611 4th Ave.N., stated that the alley was dropped from a crowned alley and WFW re-designed the alley, dropping from west to drain to the east MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 2 (from Columbia to 26th) dropping it approx 20” in the block, that after asphalt put in water started to pond and within 2 years there was severe deterioration of the asphalt and when asphalt deteriorated to a point where something had to be done to make it driveable because garbage trucks got buried back there, that the patch was with clay and Class 13 and some recycled material, and they are not getting the alley they paid for (now have dust). (Before dropping alley, 2 yards held water) Evelyn Thomforde, 2615 4th Ave.N., was present. Mr. Solseng stated there was discussion relative to putting storm in off University (across vacant lot - sorority house closed down after the flood) and would be ideal time to run a storm drain if it were to happen; and agreed with engineering that only way to get an alley to stand up is with proper drainage, and asked if they had to pay for improper engineering to begin with. Al Grasser, asst. city engineer, stated there were settlement issued with sewer separation and grade was minimal to start with - that with asphalt they don’t allow inverted crowns because water sits in the invert, drains into subgrade and doesn’t last very long without good drainage. He stated alternatives: could put in to meet current Code requirements of a new alley would be 6” inverted crown at est. cost of $49,000, and in addition the storm sewer would be est. at $20,000, (construction costs with no special assessment markups), and would need to obtain easement (property owned by fraternity/sorority association, not by UND). He stated they looked at alley and seems to have a solid base, and other options would be rehab. at est. cost of $11,000 to do leveling with asphalt and put another 2” asphalt crown section back in, problem with storm sewer is that $20,000 is lot of money assessed against few lots. It was noted that the Special Assessment Commission determines assessment but any storm sewer would benefit entire alley, but their tendency is to assess areas that drainage affects. Mr. Solseng stated they don’t feel that they are obligated to the total special assessment, when they received inferior product to begin with. Hafner stated he felt it was the City’s responsibility to repair the asphalt (est. cost $11,000) with extra fill but to make it a permanent long lasting alley, it would seem that the neighborhood would need to pay for the drainage or concrete section, the $11,000 could go towards that. There were questions as to whether project would be protested out by adj. property owners. It was noted that storm sewer cannot be protested, however, the City would not force that in. Engineering stated that if go with special assessment project would have to be bid, or another alternative would be to add change order to current asphalt repair projects but would look at unit prices. Mr. Vein stated that if they go with asphalt repair it’s not going to drain adequately and still have problems, and important residents recognize this; and suggested that the neighborhood concur on what going to do. It was noted that the City had suggested the offer of $11,000 and with the potential to put the storm sewer in, need decision back from property owners on how they would like to pursue, that the committee would hold this until they hear from the property owners. Held in committee. 2. Matter of engineering services agreement, Schupack Suarez Engineers, Inc., 7 mg reservoir improvements, Project No. 5042 (See Atch) Charlie Vein, A/E, reported that the work was done to re-design the repair at the reservoir and are in touch with the contractor as far as getting materials to get work MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 3 underway; that the engineering work has been done and the cost from the engineering company is $16,720.38, that this is a City cost and this comes back to the City until all of this is worked out with the contractor. It was noted that the design plans of that original tank did not show those wires in that location and that was intention of why the cut was there and not found until after the cut was made. C.Vein stated they went back to the original designer and constructor who gave them the drawings saying that should be clear area to go through. Actual repairs will be a change order to the construction work and no prices back on that. It was noted that there is some urgency in this as they want this tank up and running. Hafner questioned if there was opportunity to get any of that money back from the contractor; C.Vein stated there may be, that as they look at it that if he had known that the strands were where they were cut, would have gone this approach anyway, not much opportunity to do anything different. It was suggested that they make this a not to exceed in case there were some additional costs over the $16,720.38, and would not have to bring back to committee. Hafner expressed some concern that design and drawings as builts not filed and that company has no obligation, while City paying costs. (It was also noted that this project constructed 25+ years ago). Moved by Klave and Lunak to authorize entering into an agreement with Schupack Suarez Engineers, Inc. for design work in an amount not to exceed $19,000. Motion carried. 3. Matter of public vs. private operations, Wastewater Treatment Plan, Proj. No. 5014. Steve Burian, A/E, subconsultant to Malcolm Pirney, Inc., White Plains, NY and Columbus, Ohio, presented analysis of public vs. private operations for the City’s new wastewater treatment plant. He stated that the City concluded that this was good time to assess whether privatization made sense when there was no staff for the wastewater plant, and Malcolm Pirney, in association with A/E, was to identify the main issues for public vs. private operations, evaluated potential differences in operation and maintenance costs, evaluated the non-cost factors and provided a comprehensive information for the policy making decision. He reviewed some of the issues that were made; they felt that with the contingencies and assumptions that were made that there wasn’t going to be a real difference in cost, no real distinct cost advantage, and at that point became decision on factors other than costs, such as control, plant performance risks, budget certainty, employment, etc., that those issues were reviewed and the key factors in the decision were to go to public operations in the near term because there is not an obvious application for private operations, trying a technology that’s been proven in Europe but not in the U.S. so some technology risks that need to be ironed out that could result in higher private sector bids, and did conclude that there is always the opportunity for future private operations; and the recommendation was to go initially to public operations, to revisit the private operations in several years once have initial challenges overcome as well as some operating data for the facility, determine private need if technological and/or operation challenges MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 4 exist; will get more comprehensive and competitive bids in the future once have operational data, and that if make that transition from public to private that those public people could be transferred to the private company as a part of the contract terms. He stated that the City’s intent is to ask for a motion to pursue the public operations - write job descriptions following the budget that you have for this year and next year, and take to the council next Monday for that request. Mr. Burian stated that Mr. Carpenter indicated that one of the benefits of the study even if you do revert to public operations is that using the private operations as a model, they can strive to imitate that model as you put budgets and train people, etc. Klave stated he sat on committee and that it was probably in the best interest of the City at this time to continue public operations of the facility, and some concerns were addressed - hiring 2 or 3 key people, contracts can be written in such a manner that those key people is their field of expertise can continue to move on in private sector. It was noted that they can go private at any time, that they looked at a five-year window because of the new technology with this plant, do have a five-year warranty from the people putting the plant up. There was some discussion re. qualified people to operate this facility - Mr. Burian stated that in the report that private operator would have an easier time in this tight labor market staffing the plant, bringing their manager and other key person in from an outside location and then try to staff up less sophisticated position secondly, that they don’t have Civil Service salary constraints - and if needed to make adjustments for this labor market would be more flexible than public utilities. K.Vein stated his concern with ability for us to recruit qualified people unless increase salaries, difficult to do in civil service system. Mr. Burian stated that in ND there are 29 Class 4’s. Moved by Klave and Lunak that we operate the wastewater treatment plant publicly. Motion carried. 4. Matter of Change Order #1, Swanberg Construction, Inc., Distribution System Tie- Back, Proj. No. 4648.1 (See Atch) C.Vein, A/E, reviewed change order for Project No. 4648.1, Swanberg Construction, Inc. in the amount of $54,263.00, to lower 30 ft. of pipe approx. 7 ft. to provide space for future storm sewer, main cost item is fittings; this is along S. 52nd St., along 17th Ave. S., west of I-29 and east of RR tracks, that there is a section of street being planned in the future on S. 52nd where storm sewer lines would have to be run to Legal Drain 9 on south side of 17th Moved by Klave and Lunak to approve the change order. Motion carried. 9. Matter of water treatment plant (WTP) control system. (See Atch) Hazel Sletten, water plant superintendent, stated this is a surface water treatment rule plant modifications that have been going on since 1995 and because of delays (death of employee, flood) contracts elongated, have been working with EMA on the controls, that had hired ICS (Instrument Control System) in 1998 to assist, that since that time ICS has done some filter control work and recommending to start over on filter controls, and would like to hire ICS to complete this work, have talked with EMA and they feel they have met the basic part of their contract and to pursue EMA for further dollars would involve lawyers, etc. and cost City more money; have money in the existing budget so won’t be MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 5 asking for an amendment and will do it through transfers, that this is a max. amount and should be a not to exceed. Moved by Lunak and Klave to authorize entering into a contract with Instrument Control System to complete the controls and automation at the Grand Forks Water Treatment Plant in an amount not to exceed $55,920.00. Motion carried. 5. Matter of engineering services agreement, KBM, Inc., Wastewater Treatment Plant, Proj. No. 4371 (See Atch.)_________________________________________________ Hugh Veit, KBM, Inc., distributed copies of excerpt of current engineering agreement and stated that the City was filed suit by one of the contractors, John T. Jones Construc-tion Company, last week and been working with the city attorney on this issue for over a year and now that it’s gone to litigation, this is identified in their contract as an additional service that needs to be authorized by the City. Mr. Veit stated that John T. Jones was constructing one of the original phases of the project for reactor tanks that had 140 ft. diameters, that what their suit alleges is that along the edges of the trenches for the four tanks, their trench wall sloughed in and they are claiming that the soil reacted differently than anticipated; when KBM initially notified of this went out and reviewed and denied the claim saying that putting a load right on top of the trench and failure occurred because of the construction method, not because soils reacted any differently than anticipated; they came back and asked KBM to re-assess their determination, that they had experts saying differently and KBM asked for information so could re-assess this, but they have never given their expert opinion in writing, so never re-assessed their denial of the claim. He stated that the contract is clear that the construction methods are the responsibility of the contractor. Mr. Veit stated he didn’t know amount of claim - they are suing in excess of $50,000; that he had heard they are being sued by their subcontractor for the amount of $250,000. He stated that this has been turned over to the City’s insurance company and they have turned it over to Ron Fischer to be the attorney for the City and his understanding is that through the insurance policy that your costs will be covering that. Klave expressed concern that this matter had been going on for some time and City being sued and that committee was not aware of it, and that received letter from the city attorney stating that he couldn’t respond to it; (it was noted that Al Warcup was working on this.) Mr. Veit stated they informed the City immediately after the claim was made - last March. Mr. Veit stated he wasn’t sure if KBM’s costs were covered by insurance, and committee asked for further information. Moved by Klave and Lunak to authorize the additional services for Project No. 4371.1 in an amount not to exceed $10,000. Motion carried. (Comm. only) Mr. Veit stated all of their time would be separated so if an insurance issue, it can be applied; that the City does have some leverage here and it’s going to apply leverage. MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 6 6. Matter of approval of bids: a) Front load packers Dick Newman, solid waste manager, reported that McNeilus Truck was low bid but do not meet specs., and would recommend the second low bid, Sanitation Products, in the amount of $124,316 and asked for authorization to purchase spare parts within the budget. b) Side load packers Mr. Newman recommended award of the low bid, Sanitation Products, in the amount of $55,581.00 and to purchase spare parts within the budget. (would compare spare parts listed against spare parts on hand). Mr. Newman stated he would provide a listing of spare parts needed and what’s in the budget by next Monday nights. c) Skidsteer loaders Mr. Newman recommended award to low bidder, Bobcat of Grand Forks, for 2 loaders, plus options as follows: concrete breaker, industrial grapple with a fork rather than a bucket, 2 utility grapples and a snow blower, at total price of $59,720.22; that funding is as follows: $30,000 from bale fill budget, $15,217 from Sanitation budget, $8,503 from Highway Users, and $6,000 from Bikeway Fund. Equipment is for the baling facility and one for use by Streets and Sanitation Depts. in town. d) New Class 8 highway tractor e) Used Class 8 highway tractor Mr. Newman reported they received only one bid for the used tractor at $50,000 with mileage of 311,827, and that he would like to purchase 2 new tractors at $63,859.00 ea., would fall within budget. He stated that the price that the City gets on new trucks is lot less than what an operator can buy on the lot; City gets significant fleet discount. f) Used force feed loader Mr. Newman reported they received only one bid, from ABM Equipment & Supply, Inc. in the amount of $75,275.00. Moved by Klave and Lunak to approve award of bids as submitted, including rejection of the bid for the used highway tractor, and authorization for 2 new highway tractors with spare parts, number to follow prior to council meeting. Motion carried. g) Floor sweeper Jim Weisenberger, Street Department. reported they sent out bid proposals to 5 firms and received 2 back, 1 with no quote, and quote from Tennant Company in the amount of $20,964.65 is within budget. Moved by Lunak and Klave to accept the bid from Tennant Company in the amount of $20,964.65. Motion carried. h) Plotter for engineering Mr. Grasser reported 2 bidders, one bid from Engineering Repro Systems, Minneapolis, was a non-performing quote as missing some of the required material (take- MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 7 up reel), and reject bid, and to accept the low bid of Computerland in the amount of $12,052.08. Moved by Klave and Lunak to accept the bid of Computerland in the amount of $12,052.08, and to reject the bid of Engineering Repro Systems as it did not meet bid specs. Motion carried. 14. Matter of creating special assessment districts for various projects: a) Proj. 5156, Dist. 135, Street Lights in Kannowski Addition Mr. Grasser stated this was listed as creating the district, but is more discussion of City’s policy on payments for street light improvements upgrades over and above the standard fixture, that the last time the committee met their recommendation was that the developer pay 100% of the additional cost over and above a standard fixture, and Mr. Lamb submitted a letter and would like to discuss that policy issue to see if they would consider something different. Tim Lamb, The Red River Foundation, presented request to upgrade the street lighting for their development on the Arnold Palmer golf course (Deacon’s Greens),that they want to create a distinctive development out there and want to work with the City in some upgrades on street lighting, that they are putting in $2 million worth of infrastructure, that the $100,000+ they would put in for the street lights is proportionately very small and that the land owners would welcome this addition, that they have 5 lots sold. He stated they are trying to work with the City in some kind of cost sharing or if the City was willing to go 100% on Option 5, which is totally special assessed, that as developers they've put $1 million into the project and the other $1 million is special assessed on the infrastructure. Mr. Grasser stated that their recommendation to contain City costs is to stay with the standard fixture, that each year they receive requests asking for different lighting and if did all of those would end up with large stocking charges to maintain stock for replacement, and normally tell developer the City’s policy is to stay with standard fixtures; that Mr. Lamb has some special emphasis he wants to put into this development and is thinking about using same type of fixture and pole on the whole 200+ acres and would help to minimize how many different types of poles we need to carry and there’s in cost to the City every time they have to develop a different inventory for poles. K.Vein stated there are two issues here, one is for change in policy to add an additional street light, and how to cover the cost if we allow this one. Mr. Lamb stated there was no cost to the City, that what they are saying is spare parts costs or in-costs, and in residential areas, the maintenance on street lights is minimal. Klave stated that there is an up-front cost to the City, that if we have to carry 50% of the cost of that light above and beyond what we normally put in, that’s an additional cost to the City that the City doesn’t recoup for x amount of years for special assessments, and that he has concern that we have policies set to do basic things, any amenities above and beyond that should fall into the developer’s criteria of what they want to do (add to cost of lot), but he is asking the City to recoup it over a long term period on a special assessment. Mr. Lamb stated that they’ve already established their cost of the lots, and infrastructure is being special assessed to the lot buyers. Klave stated that if it’s an amenity going into a project, the developer should pay MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 8 the difference of what’s normal city policy, and it’s his choice how he wants to collect it. Mr. Grasser stated there is an impact on the operations in the City’s budget to maintain and operate these different types. Hafner asked Mr. Lamb if the City would ask him to pay the difference up-front , would he do it. Mr. Lamb said no they would not. Mr. Lamb stated they are trying to do something special and to work with the City, and it is a cost that they didn’t factor in from the beginning as it’s an infrastructure cost, that they thought they could add it to the property costs through special assessments as is normally done, but only asking for an up-grade and feel that this is the type of development that would be complimentary and that this is a large development and would like these street lights throughout the entire development; that they have 100 units in the first parcel, single-family and multi-family so would be about $100,000 divided by 100 spread over 15 years and is pretty palatable assessment under those conditions, under a $50,000/80,000 whack to the developer, that’s why say they wouldn’t do it. He stated they priced their lots and are selling them before the infrastructure is in, to increase the price of the lots; lots average $50,000 - He stated they wouldn’t want the upgrade if the City isn’t willing to go along with putting that into a special assessment. Klave stated that the City also needs to look at too, is that this is $100,000 now and for 40 acres of 240 acres, will continue through the whole development and have a $1 million in additional costs in street lighting. It was noted that the City bonds for that, but that could affect City’s bonding. Committee stated they felt there should be some additional investment upfront by the developer when doing upgrades. Mr. Lamb stated that since they are so far along is to special assess the whole amount and the next time the developer would pay the difference upfront. Mr. Lamb stated they didn’t anticipate this expense upfront and next time would anticipate it and incorporate it into the cost of the lot. After further discussion it was moved by Klave and Lunak to create policy that any upgrades on street lighting, and/or pavement and/or utilities, the additional cost above and beyond standard practices of the City of Grand Forks, the additional cost would be paid 100% by the developer. Motion carried. Moved by Klave and Hafner that we make an exception to the policy and special assess 100% of the street lighting cost to the project. Motion carried; Lunak voted against the motion. 7. Matter of plans and specifications for: a) bale trailers Mr. Newman stated that the 4 flatbed trailers have to be new and would add that to the specs. before being sent out. b) baling facility payloader Mr. Newman reviewed specs. for a tool-carrier type payloader, which has a coupler for attachment of pieces of equipment, and they have to supply a listing of attachments that MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 9 are available for their machines and prices. Moved by Lunak and Klave to approve the plans and specs. for this equipment a) and b). Motion carried. (Comm. only) 8. Budget amendments. a) Street Department - $35,000 Mr. Newman reviewed amendment to pay their portion of the force-feed loader. Moved by Klave and Lunak to approve the budget amendment. Motion carried. b) Public Transportation - $3,000 Roger Foster reviewed amendment to pay for cost of conducting audit by Brady Martz of the taxicab companies in town as recommended by the Federal Transit Adm., funds from cash carryover. Moved by Klave and Lunak to approve the budget amendment. Motion carried. (Copies of the audit report will be sent to the council members) 11. Matter of Cost Participation, Construction, and Maintenance Agreement for Proj. 4901, Lighting the English Coulee Bikepath from 6th Ave. N. to Gateway Drive Mark Anderson, engineering department, presented cover sheet of agreement with the NDDOT to participate in construction cost of bikepath in the University Village area, max. participation by DOT as 80.93% of const. costs with max of $70,000, construction costs would be around $75,000 and their share approx. $60,000, and UND would participate in matters of maintenance of the site, and City’s share approx. $15,000 plus eng. fees. Moved by Klave and Lunak to authorize entering into the agreement with the North Dakota Department of Transportation. Motion carried. 12. Matter of Project Concept Report for Proj. 5089, Paving N. Washington St. from 8th Ave. to Gateway Dr._______________________________________________________ Lon Aune, CPS, reported that when looking at preliminary concept report they were looking at two alternatives: 1) having 5-lane situation with no concrete or raised median, 2) having raised median; and have received a final decision from the NDDOT and that is going with the raised median arrangement similar to South Washington Street, pathway on the west side of the road and curve at 8th made into easier traveled curve, project will come just short of Gateway Drive area. Mr. Aune exhibited map which shows the lane alignments and where turn lanes installed, that they will be modifying the storm sewer slightly to accommodate this arrangement but minor adjustment and part of the project cost; that there will be standard street lighting, City is responsible for 100% of the 10% share (Project 80-10-10 split). He stated that the DOT staff would not sign any decision document until the public hearing was held, that they held a public hearing and had a synopsis of public hearing, received good response from the people, that there were some questions re. right of way, some right of way purchased for adjusting of the curve at 8th and North Washington, that Ye Olde Painters owns two houses and use R/W area as parking at 9th but have met with those property owners and they have attended public meetings and it’s in a cooperative effort and doesn’t see major issues coming up; that this will be a good improvement, and after approval would continue proceeding with the design. Moved by Klave and Lunak for approval of the final concept report for Proj. 5089. Motion carried. MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 10 14. Matter of creating special assessment districts for various projects: b) Proj. 5171, Dist. 432, Storm Sewer on 40th Ave. from Columbia to Ruemmele Road This item was pulled. 15. Matter of Plans and Specifications for various projects: a) Proj. 5173, Temporary Paving N. 48th St. from Gateway Drive to Strata Park Mr. Anderson reviewed plans and specs. - 32’ wide 8” thick asphalt surfacing laid on grade as it exists, those costs incurred for the construction by Strata. Moved by Klave and Lunak to approve the plans and specifications and authorize call for bids. Motion carried. b) Proj. 5155, Dist. 134, Street Lights in Rivers Edge Phase II Mr. Anderson reviewed plans and specs. for standard street lighting. Moved by Klave and Lunak to pass a resolution approving the plans and specifications for this construction and further that the city auditor be directed to advertise for bids on the project. Motion carried. c) Proj. 5154, Dist. 133, Street Lights in Country View 1st Addition Mr. Anderson reviewed plans and specs. for standard street lighting. Moved by Klave and Lunak to pass a resolution approving the plans and specifications for this construction and further that the city auditor be directed to advertise for bids on the project. Motion carried. 16. Matter of consideration of construction bids for Proj. 5048, Dist. 563, Paving 42nd St. (Phase II) from University Ave. to 29th Ave. S., 17th Ave. S. from 35th to 42nd St., and 11th Ave. S. from 40th to 42nd St._____________________________________________ Mark Lambrecht, CPS, Ltd., reported bids were opened by NDDOT in Bismarck on May 19 for the second phase of the 42nd Street project (southerly portion that begins at south entrance to the Aurora to where pavement ends by Amundson’s Funeral Home and includes the connecting portion of 17th Ave. S. from 35th St. to 42nd St. and includes replacing the bridge over the English Coulee on 17th with box culvert, and standard City style of street lights, concrete paving with heavy base of gravel; bids were very competitive and were below the Engineer’s estimate. He stated the only question that arose was that Strata Corporation, with potentially being awarded this contract, now has under contract both phases of this project, which is a substantial amount of work and also the site work contractor for the Aurora as well, and there were some concerns voiced with one contractor having this amount of work, that they researched and met with NDDOT for their opinion and met with reps. of Strata, City staff and reps. of CPS and were satisfied that they have the capabilities of doing the job and was their recommendation to award to Strata. Mr. Vein stated that they have good bids, total bids appear to be under the engineer’s estimate, and to acknowledge that the numbers aren’t as bad as the people had envisioned. Hafner stated that the total cost of the two bids along with the change order on the intersection of DeMers, are about $1.5 or $1.6 million less than estimated. Completion of project will be done this construction season, completion date 11-01-00 except for certain things that can’t be done during the cold weather, and will be carried over to spring. MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 11 Moved by Lunak and Klave to accept the low bid of Strata Corporation in the amount of $2,737,917.28. Motion carried. 17. Matter of Change Orders for various projects: a) Proj. 4225.1, Paving S. Washington St. from Hammerling to 26th Ave. S., C.O. No. 11 Mr. Anderson reviewed change order in the amount of $900.00, Strata Corporation, for culvert. Moved by Lunak and Klave to approve the change order. Motion carried. b) Proj. 4655.1, Paving S. Washington St. from 26th to 34th Ave. S., C.O. No. 4 Mr. Anderson reviewed change order for re-routing of traffic during the demolition of the mainline and took asphalt to create a detour route, $86,010, costs participating (cost increased because of lack of quality of the frontage road); Strata Corporation, contractor. Moved by Klave and Lunak to approve the change order. Motion carried. c) Proj. 4655.1, Paving S. Washington St. from 26th to 34th Ave. S., C.O. No. 5 Mr. Anderson stated this was for an adjustment for material put under a sidewalk, $3,947.12, participating costs; Strata Corporation, contractor. Moved by Lunak and Klave to approve the change order. Motion carried. d) Proj. 4807, Dist. 564, Paving S. Washington St. from 40th to 47th Ave. S., C.O. No. 3 This item was pulled. e) Proj. 5105, 2000 Asphalt Street Repair, C.O. No. 3 (for bikeway on S. 20th St.) Mr. Anderson reviewed change order to provide for the construction of a bikepath or bikeway starting at south end of the new Hansen Ford, running across the drainway to 47th Avenue S., costs will not exceed $60,000, and engineer asked that this be approved change order contingent upon City Engineer’s approval. Mr. Grasser reported this was originated as request that came out of the Mayor’s Office, after joint meetings of the City, County, Park District, and School System. K.Vein reported that the School System stressed the need for giving pedestrian access out to the new South Middle School. Mr. Grasser reported that in discussing funding with Mr. Schmisek, that agreement so far is that the City will pay $40,000 out of Infrastructure Acct., School District will contribute $20 or $25,000. This will address a safe pedestrian route to the school - there will be a bikepath by itself, no street (projection of 20th Street) It was noted that the School District stressed this was important safety project. There was discussion re. cost participation (why City picking up 2/3rds of the cost), maintenance, use by students -expected traffic; and that this bikepath is in the road right of way and if that area is developed and have to install street, bikepath would be torn out. After further discussion the committee asked for more information. Mr. Grasser stated that perhaps the Park Dist. may want to connect path from this bikepath to the golf course. Moved by Klave and Lunak to hold this item for 2 weeks and have appropriate reps. in attendance to justify need (School District, and Mayor’s Office can notify others involved). MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 12 Motion carried. (Comm.only) f) Proj. 4854, 1999 Forcemain on Columbia Road from 17th to 24th Ave. S., C.O.#4 Tom Hanson, WFW, reviewed change order in the amount of addition of $5,380.30, Molstad Excavating, Inc., for replanting of trees and additional storage; and claim will be filed with U.S. West for cost of the additional storage and cost of replacing trees which may die due to the extended storage, funded with CDBG money, will deduct the removing and replacing of the trees now and close out the project, and when replaced, the City would pay out of the local portion of the project. Moved by Lunak and Klave to approve the change order. Motion carried. Mr. Grasser stated that this brings up an issue, that once construction projects slow down, have some major issues have to deal with on utilities - way cables run in rights of way which are causing City more problems, esp. fiber optic, and not successful in getting utility companies to pay; and need to look at franchise agreements, ordinance changes. Klave stated that the property purchased by Premium Homes, are having problem with street lights - that lighting should be about a ft. off curb and when plumber went in to do water hookup, street lighting lined directly on top of the watermain, and now when have to do a hookup to the main for water service, have line there with excavator charging additional funds; that the City came out and cut the lines and said don’t worry about it, and are going to address this, so means going to have to move that entire lighting from on top of the waterlines. Information. Informational Items: 18. Matter of amendment to cost participation and maintenance agreement with BNSF RR for crossings on 42nd St. (north of Demers Ave.) and on University Ave. (east of 42nd St.) for Proj. 5048___________________________________________________________ Mr. Lambrecht, CPS, stated they have agreements in place with BN/SF for the new signals at University and 42nd and DeMers and 42nd , that there was an item that was omitted from their quotation, the preemption for the signals (that when a train is approaching the crossing, get a signal when train reaches certain distance so can cycle the traffic signals through a sequence to get all the pedestrians and vehicles out of the intersection before the train arrives); and to install these into their RR work that they would do on the signals at those locations, they didn’t give cost estimate, but they assured that it would be their standard cost for such an item. Information. 19. Matter of temporary truck traffic on Columbia Road Overpass. Mr. Anderson reported that Lafarge Dakota, Inc. has asked permission to re-route their hauling of cement to their northern customers, that he spoke with traffic engineer and DOT bridge people in Bismarck and no problem with trucks going over the Columbia Road bridge as long as within their legal load limit as licensed per axle. UND Plant Services pointed that out as well as our traffic engineer but both agreed for the summer MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 13 and don’t see as a big problem (number of trucks would vary from 5 to 20 per day). Info. 20. Matter of Engineering Agreement with KLM for Proj. 5160, Water Tower Inspections and Proj. 5031, Repaint Minnesota Ave. Bridge___________________________________ Mr. Grasser reported they have been working with the city attorney’s office; that KLM wants to limit their liability to cost of their professional fees, that time is starting to get critical - because of the nature of the work not too far from accepting their contract and getting this moved on. Info. 21. Matter of claims. Mr. Grasser stated that with comments on the claims - difficult because of potential with so many claims at any one time - and one that you may want to be aware of now is the mill and overlay project, have a claim from Valley Contracting at est. of $60,000, that they ran into some rebar with their milling operation and making claims for slower progress, having to cut steel, etc. , that Nodak is running into some similar situations but have not made a claim. That Valley’s claim has been evaluated and have denied Valley’s request for a claim based on fact that if they had done the visual site inspection as supposed to do, could see some of that rebar as pavement worn down so much over the years; and they are only about 60-70% done with the project so claim has potential of being $100,000 on a million dollar contract, other problem is that what got the bid for them was the low prices for milling portion (and price between Valley and Nodak was very close), and now if award a significant change in the milling price, that raises some concerns about getting the best contractor for the price. That this is a claim that’s been submitted and denied and not sure where it will end up. Mr. Grasser stated that they’ve been trying to hire an engineer to handle water treatment, wastewater treatment type of issues, but have been unsuccessful in hiring that individual; and this is one of the problems that develop when they don’t have staff or good on-going flow of communication, that he doesn’t have a staff individual monitoring or reviewing plans, progress, and reporting back, and he would be aware and would report in weekly meetings which committee receives. He stated that this is one of those hidden costs that you sometimes incur when looking at hiring engineers, most of the time don’t really see what saving the city, and this is an area where potentially they could have saved money or made them more informed. He stated that right now they don’t have an engineer that’s reviewing any of those plans or any of that project. Mr. Vein stated that costs have increased and staff didn’t have the time to monitor that as closely as should have. Klave stated that committees need to be aware of what’s going on. Information Meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Alice Fontaine City Clerk Dated: 5/31/00