Print VersionStay Informed
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
Monday, October 9, 2000 - 7:00 p.m.

Members present: Kreun, Glassheim, Hoff, Klave.

1. Applications for moving permits by Easter Seals:
a) to move building from 502 Plum Avenue to 802 Oak Street
b) to move building from 1108 Lanark to 807 South 9th Street
c) to move building from 1105 Lanark to 608 Cherry Street
d) to move building from 1117 Lanark to 905 Oak Street
Bev Collings, Inspections, stated 3 of the 4 buildings have been rental units, acquired by the City and brought up to Code, rented until sold and now being moved; she presented pictures of houses and lots to where being moved and do have site plans; Code updates fairly minor - new foundations, etc. It was noted that there is a time restriction on moving of the buildings and hope to move first week of December, moved prior to next spring. It was also noted that moving routes have been determined and committee stated that all moving expenses are to be borne by individuals and not by the City. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to approve the applications for moving permits for all four buildings, subject to the public hearing. Motion carried.

2. Request for waiver of building permit fee for Red River High School for educational
housing project.__________________________________________________________
Mrs. Collings reported the City has been doing this every year, donate inspections and if move onto lot in city, collect fee; if move out of town, do not. Moved by Glassheim and Klave to approve request for waiver of the fee. Motion carried.

3. Matter of placing concrete on berm at Red Pepper on University Avenue, 1011
University Avenue.___________________________________________________
It was noted that Jeff Telleman was unable to attend meeting tonight. Mr. Grasser stated they are requesting to place concrete (pavers) between sidewalk and street and unclear who has authority to approve or disapprove, discussed with staff and Red Pepper is non-conforming use to the zone, property owner had stated with number of customers, difficult to maintain grass in berm area. Hoff stated location on the edge of the neighbor-hood, next to RR tracks and across street laundromat and consignment store. The question was raised as to whether to change Code or policy - Mr. Grasser stated if develop policy, go to typical uses. After further discussion Committee asked staff to discuss with Mr. Telleman and come up with compromise that’s acceptable to neighbors and handle within department, and give information to committee.

4. Matter of general contractor pre-qualification, Raw Water Intake, City Project 4769.
Wayne Gerszewski, A/E, reported that in August he was given approval to advertise for horizontal directional drilling contractor pre-qualification; that pre-qualification was required and recommended due to the complexity of the horizontal directional drilling portion of the project, that they are putting in 4 30” steel pipelines with substantial length and depth approaching about 80 ft. below grade and want to have experienced contractors. He stated they have advertised and received packets from 5 companies and evaluation team will be reviewing that information in the next week or so. He stated they
MNUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE/Page 2

are at a stage in the project where they would like to pre-qualify the general contractors for the project, stated that the successful contractor will be building a large concrete caisson which has an inside dia. of 60 ft. and built to a depth of 65 ft. below grade, that they have some challenging soil conditions (soft clays) and due to the depth and overall size to get built will take a contractor with some expertise in working in that type of conditions; con-tractor will construct the river inlets portion in Red River and making pipeline connections in Red Lake River to existing river inlets to these newly installed horizontal directionally drilled transmission lines and will also oversee the whole Part I project (building of the caisson, river inlet work and horizontal directional drilling contract), and with that portion of the contract costing est. $8.5 to $9 million. He stated that due to the size of the caisson they were recommending pre-qualifying the general contractors. He stated they would advertise, review packets from interested contractors and based on pre-determined criteria submitted by the contractors, evaluate, and those meeting criteria, pre-qualify for the project. He stated that only pre-qualified contractors could bid this project. He noted that there are a few local contractors that could probably handle this project, some from Fargo and farther away depending on what the advertisement brings in. Mr. Grasser stated that several of his staff have some extensive experience in some of these areas. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to approve documents for pre-qualification of the general construction contractors, and permission to advertise. Motion carried.

5. Plans and specifications for underground piping, Bid Pkg. #9, Wastewater Treatment
Facility, Proj. 4371.________________________________________________________
Casey Hanson, KBM, Inc., stated that this project involves bringing the existing force-main from the pre-aeration ponds, tapping into that and bringing that to the new waste-water treatment facility as well as tapping into the end of the existing watermain that was brought up to the baling facility and then to the wastewater treatment facility; etc. and some smaller shorter lines that go to the lagoons, the waste activated sludge line, etc. and emergency overflow line; that this includes all the underground piping that has not been previously constructed; and this is continuing our design and build project. It was noted that there are 2 or 3 more bid packages coming. Klave moved to approve plans and specifications and authorize appropriate parties to call for bids; Glassheim seconded the motion. Motion carried.

6. Bids for various projects:
a) 2000 Forcemain and watermain relocations, Proj. Nos. 4814 and 4816.
Tom Hanson, WFW, stated when last discussed this they were asked to contact Associated General Contractors of North Dakota, letter from AGC was included in packet
re. this item and indicates that the bid submitted by Wagner Construction was not com-pleted and due to the many omissions in the documents submitted, difficult to determine what the bid is; that it is position of the AGC that the bid process is sacred and must be fair to all parties competing for the work, and that given failure of Wagner Construction to provide certain information, this bid should not be considered.

Reps. of Wagner Construction, Darrel Tweten, Wagner Construction, stated that the
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE/Page 3

person who normally prepared bids was gone and somebody else prepared/submitted bid, that they are short of work and would like to do project.

Mr. Brad Beehler, Morley law firm, representing ICS, stated that disregarding a bid because of its irregularities has been normal city procedure for some time, the same procedures generally follow throughout the industry; reviewed information in bid forms, that this is a matter of precedence and principal; encouraged committee to follow current procedures used by the City and recommendations of AGC; that ICS met bid requirements and specs. and should be awarded project.

Tom Hanson, WFW, stated one thing that’s important in the process is that we have something that would become a legally enforceable documents, these are backed up by bid bonds, and should be complete enough that you can go to the bid bond people and collect a bid bond if you had to, and that should be a minimum standard for acceptability; cannot collect bid bond because not signed. Mr. Grasser stated that the City has traditionally taken a firm line on bidding procedures.

Moved by Klave and Glassheim that we reject the non-responsive bid of Wagner Construc-tion and return their bid package and bond. Motion carried.

Moved by Klave and Hoff to accept the bid of ICS, Inc. in the amount of $593,322.00. Motion carried.

b) Surplus property
Mike Yavarow, engineer, reported they had called for bids for 4 properties: 802 North 69th Street, 101 Euclid Avenue, 1406 Lewis Blvd. and 1017 Lanark Avenue; received bids for 2 properties and recommended award to the two bidders, that the minimum bid price in both cases was $1,000; bids had been advertised for 3 weeks. It was also noted that if more than one person bid on the property, oral bids would be taken to raise the price. Hoff suggested that the web site should be used to advertise our surplus property, could bring in more bidders and more revenue. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to accept the bid of $1,000 for the property at 802 North 69th Street and the bid of $1,500.00 for the property at 101 Euclid Avenue. Motion carried. (Other houses will be demolished).

7. Matter of change orders:
a) C.O. #1, pre-cast concrete, Wastewater Treatment Facility, ICS, Proj. 4371
Casey Hanson, KBM, Inc., reviewed change order in the amount of $13,852.00, ICS, Inc., contractor, which included 3 items (were not included in original contract but were anticipated to be part of the project): masonry wall that was left out to more easily facilitate the installation of large equipment and when removing masonry took out a small area that a precast panel has to bear on, were offered two small pre-cast panels to install in place of that; floor trench grating in distribution building; and 4 polyethylene sampling lines that run under a slab to be poured under this contract. All 3 items will be removed from additional packages; and items are based on cost plus. Moved by Glassheim and
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE/Page 4

Klave to approve the change order in the amount of $13,852.00, and 6 additional days for completion. Motion carried.

b) C.O. #2, reactor basin roofs, Wastewater Treatment Facility, Peterson Construction, Proj. 4371
Casey Hanson reviewed change order - Peterson Construction, contractor, $19,422.39.
There is a band of flashing around the outside of the geodesic domes on top of the reactor basins, that basins are significantly out of round, not built to the specs. and need to install stiffener plates 3/8” that bolt to the top of the concrete wall; and because concrete tanks not built to the specs. this additional amount of money will be included in a counter-claim against the contractor (there is a law suit and City has an on-going counter claim with them). It was noted that they have retained funds on the past project with John T. Jones so they haven’t been paid the full amount, have retainage which is still in excess of their liquidated damages . Moved by Glassheim and Hoff to approve the change order in the amount of $19,422.39. Motion carried.

c) C.O. #6, Schedule B Electrical, Baling Facility Structure, Samson Electric,
Proj. 5086
Tom Hanson, WFW, reported that they were notified by the fire marshal that they have to have a digital communicator to a monitoring system, $975.17. Moved by Glassheim and Hoff to approve the change order. Motion carried.

d) C.O. #11, temporary levees, Nodak Contracting, Proj. No. 5015.
Mike Yavarow, engineer, reported this is a mod onto the block grant project for Nodak to build the levees in town, this change order is for Elks Condos which were demolished last year to fill depression around the building; and is being paid by FEMA as part of the demolition. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to approve the change order in the amount of $28,235.15. Motion carried.

8. Matter of Amend. No. 32 (extra work), GFEG, Proj. 4784, South End Water Tower
Nate Weisenberger, A/E, reviewed amendment for the project which consists of constructing the 500,000 gal. water tower located on South Columbia Road in southwest corner of section containing the new golf course, during construction several problems were encountered and these problems extended the construction work schedule (multiple attempts to complete the site pressure testing, attempts to complete the disinfection of the waterline on the site) and in plan were not required to take in account drainage in the vicinity of the southend water tower which includes the drainage ditches of that area which are not developed; that in June and July when we had heavy rainstorms the work was suspended due to unfavorable working conditions on the site, the substantial completion date for this project was September 1, 2000 and construction has been going on since last winter, that they are approaching their original fee estimate and are asking for com-pensation associated with the expanded construction period of the contract, and est. that it will take an additional $3500 through the end of the construction phase, and have been asked to perform some engineering services associated with improving the drainage of
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE/Page 5

the ditches in the vicinity of the water tower which will aid in future maintenance activities by water department, $2500 - for total engineering request of $6,000. Mr. Grasser stated they are subsidizing these projects with CDBG funds and suggested funding from Project No. 5073, which is the North Columbia Road water system improvements. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to approve the amendment to the engineering contract, with funding for the amendment be taken out of Project No. 5073. Motion carried.

9. Matter of consideration of construction bids for Proj. 5139 and 5141, Rehabilitate Pump Station No. 26 and No. 12___________________________________________
Tom Hanson, WFW, reported bids received last week, good competition, low bid is Smith Construction Co., Inc. on the general work and Bergstrom Electric, Inc. on electrical work, and recommended award. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to accept the low bids and to award contracts to Smith Construction Co., Inc. in the amount of $268,500.00 for Schedule B-General, and to Bergstrom Electric, Inc. in the amount of $218,938.00 for Schedule B-Electrical. Motion carried.

10. Matter of Change Orders for various projects:
a) Proj. 5070, Lift Station 13 Rehabilitation – General Contract, C.O. No. 2 (F)
Tom Hanson, WFW, stated this is a small existing station that has been upgraded to handle the flows that will come out of the Engelstad Arena, ran into some minor conflicts to meet the Code requirements and have $421.06 change order to deal with the minor adjust-ments. Moved by Glassheim and Klave to approve the change order in the amount of $421.06, with payment out of local share of Project No. 4983. Motion carried.

b) Proj. 4866, Storm Sewer Restoration Area 4, C.O. No. 6
Tom Hanson reported there are two areas, storm sewer repairs on Belmont Road and Elks Drive outfall (repair sink holes in the 60” CMP line and fill in the sinkholes), abandoning those fixtures and allow gravity drain; this will allow us to have the ability to defend this until the dike is completed. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to approve the change order in the amount of $19,500.00, with funding out of Project No. 4983. Motion carried.

c) Proj. 5073, Watermain on N. Columbia Rd. from University Ave. to Gateway Dr. C.O. No. 2
Mr. Weisenberger stated this change order serves as final change order for the project, work has been completed - this adjusts the quantities to match the installed quantities; that some of the change order items were at the request of the contractor associated with some unforeseen items encountered during underground construction, and overall change order amount is $18,632.21. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to approve the change order. Motion carried.

d) Proj. 5072, Watermain on Gateway Drive from 42nd to 47th St. and from 53rd to 55th St. C.O. No. 2
Mr. Weisenberger reported this is final change order for the project and adjusts the
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE/Page 6

final contract prices to match quantities, and also some work associated with some field conditions - in vicinity of Mini-Mart gas station did encounter some tainted soil (gas), and contractor was required to remove that soil and backfill with replacement material, and City will go after the State for that cost. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to approve the change order. Motion carried.

12. Matter of authorization to bid:
a) brush/tree chipping services at landfill
Held in committee.

11. Consideration of placing 5% limit on change orders on projects so staff can monitor the project, over 5% back to council_________________________________________
14. Proposed revised city council meeting procedures and approval process.____________
Richard Warne, administrative coordinator, stated they have included in the packet a reduced copy of slides that were presented, copy of ordinance, and with staff have prepared list of items that could potentially be delegated to staff; that he collected lists that had been prepared over the last several years, distributed to department heads and asked them to meet with the people in their department to review and then reviewed in staff meeting, and items on the list are result of that, and were here to discuss how to proceed or any questions, comments or concerns with what has been proposed.

Chairman Kreun stated that in the draft under change orders have a 15% recommenda-tion. Mr. Warne stated Mr. Christensen suggested 5% but engineering staff seemed to think 15% but wouldn’t suggest anything higher than that; whatever the bid price is plus 15% is what can be approved and if the number of change orders is beyond that would have to come back for approval by council. Mr. Grasser stated that 15% would take care of a vast majority of projects, and if over that would probably be a change in scope of the project. Mr. Warne stated any change in the overall scope of a project would have to be approved by council, and this process also envisions that the council approve the major elements of any capital project. It was noted that the 15% would be on an overall project, whether one or more contractors. It was also noted that on projects such as design build projects as wastewater treatment and also for water treatment might have to set up some unique parameters for those projects; change in extending completion date would also be brought back to council.

Mr. Grasser asked how this would work for consultants, that they start without scope, do an amendment for design, amendment for construction, etc. and may have to set that budget up farther up front or set a percentage that they can work with. Mr. Warne stated he was against doing open-ended consulting contracts, should define the scope of the work, take proposals and hold them to the budget; and thinks process will still work even with consultants and if scope of the work changes, have to come back for approval (same with service contracts).

After discussion it was moved by Klave and seconded by Glassheim to set percentages for
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE/Page 7

change orders, contracts under $500,000, 15% and for contracts $500,000 and over, 10%.
Motion carried.

Mr. Warne stated that some items may need ordinance change or policy change, that the items they felt comfortable about changing, indicate to them and they would go back and check with Mr. Swanson, etc.

There was some discussion re. advertising for bids. Mr. Grasser stated that special assessments have requirements and have to refer to the city attorney, that some are local ordinances and some are State requirements. Irregularities in bids will be brought to council.

There was discussion re. various issues on the draft list. There was some discussion re. public comment - committee not wanting to take out the avenue of appeal to the city council for any items; that citizens have the right to be able to carry it through the system after following process.

The committee suggested that on certain items, re. block parties, parades, etc. that adjacent property owners will be notified or including on application that adj. property owners sign it so it is part of the process. It was noted this would be worked out administratively and if a problem make an adjustment.

There was some discussion re. claims - city attorney and coordinator to settle claims under $15,000; Mr. Grasser stated most of those are handled by insurance company. Dan Gordon presented for their information the Driving Review Board, that the city council several years ago gave authority to his office and the Insurance Reserve Fund to conduct such a review of accidents and provide summary to council, and will continue to do that.

Mr. Warne stated that permits are issued for raffles, etc., and asked whether or not they wanted to approve the temporary ones or not. Klave stated most of those are non-profit and not sure council has to give approval on those, but council should give annual approval on the gambling license to those with site locations. Klave stated that raffles, etc. other than gaming sites could be approved by staff as they have State guidelines. Comm. agreed.

Mr. Warne asked about the ordinance and process and items suggesting be handled administratively. Hoff stated that unless language re. “…public comment generally not taken at the second meeting” is eliminated, he would not vote on that. Mr. Warne stated that the council has the right to take public comment whenever they want, were hoping to put in place that at the first meeting could have staff reports, public hearings, public comments, making sure people notified, second meeting make a decision; however, the council has the right to do whatever they want and should they decide to take additional public comment, can do that, and won’t see that codified in an ordinance because want to leave council with flexibility. It was stated that action could be taken at a working session
if needed because of deadlines.
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE/Page 8

There was some discussion re. time frame to enact this, and would like to see items in draft enacted on committee level prior to any change in ordinance, and committees to proceed in reasonable length of time before going into working and action sessions.

Moved by Glassheim and Klave to recommend to delay the introduction of the ordinance
until after adoption of the proposed city decision making authority with a transition period of one week to two months. Motion carried; Hoff and Kreun voted against the motion.

It was moved by Klave that we accept the draft pages that are entitled “Proposed City Decision making Authority” submitted by Richard N. Warne, administrative coordinator, October 6, 2000” inclusive of those changes that were discussed this evening in committee. Glassheim seconded the motion.

Items discussed: 1) block parties - adjacent property owners notified; 2) bonfire and open fire permits, adjacent property owner notified; 3) staff will be allowed to issue temporary gambling licenses for non-profits; and 4) allow 15% for change orders on projects below $500,000, and 10% change orders on projects over $500,000; and 5) all items are appealable to the council. Motion carried.

13. Consideration of determining whether public works director and city engineer should be combined or split position in coordination with administrative coordinator._____
Dan Gordon, Human Resources, stated that it was determined that the position or positions will be contract, and that was referred to this committee whether the position should be split, and is a decision that this body has a decision to make. He stated that whether the position should be split or not, it is his recommendation that they are split, that trying to recruit for a city engineer that has the background of all the public works intricacies is very difficult - there are only two cities in a 5-state region that have dual positions. Mr. Warne recommended that the position be split, have complex operations in public works and in engineering, and that it’s a different set of skills to manage the departments. Both Todd Feland and Al Grasser agreed with the splitting of the position but that it is important to work together. There was some discussion as to assistant public works director, that there is an assistant city engineer - but it was also noted that there are 6 superintendents in public works.

Mr. Gordon stated he will draft separate job descriptions along with a salary range for review by Mr. Warne and the mayor and then to the finance committee and public service; and develop recruitment and advertising strategy, timeline.

Moved by Klave that we request that the public works and city engineer be two separate positions; seconded by Glassheim. Motion carried.

It was moved by Klave and Glassheim to adjourn; meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.

Dated 10/10/00 Alice Fontaine, City Clerk