Print VersionStay Informed
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
Monday, January 29, 2001 - 7:00 p.m.------_______

Members present: Kreun, Klave, Stevens. (Glassheim absent)

1. Plans and specifications for Proj. 5200 - 2001 Flood Preparation.
Al Grasser, acting city engineer, stated these are not specifically budgeted; that they would not bid but call for quotes (manpower, equipment and perhaps material) to help in the flood fight and activate only if becomes necessary. It was stated funding from emergency line item, otherwise sell additional bonds and comes back in mill rate; est. cost $195,000, unit cost contract. Moved by Klave and Stevens to approve plans and specifications for 2001 flood preparation. Motion carried.

2. Plans and specifications for Project No. 5196 - 2001 City Sidewalks.
Mr. Grasser stated this is for repair but also includes sidewalks that were not installed when new structure/building built and if not installed within one year, will include on listing; letters are mailed to property owners to allow them either to do the work themselves or have City do and if City installs, either pay total or put on a special assessment; that actual listing of sidewalk repair will be brought in at later dates.

Moved by Stevens and Klave to approve plans and specifications for 2001 city sidewalks. Motion carried.

3. Amendment No. 14 to engineering services agreement with WFW for Project No. 4719 -
Sewer Restoration._______________________________________________________
Tom Hanson, WFW, stated that this amendment will authorize the 2001 rates to be applied to finish this project, doesn’t affect the max. of the contract but implements the 2001 rate structure. Moved by Stevens and Klave to approve Amendment No 14 to approve the 2001 rate structure. Motion carried.

4. Amendment No. 2 to engineering services agreement with WFW for Project No. 5064 -
Phase III Landfill Closure._________________________________________________
5. Amendment No. 1 to engineering services agreement with WFR for Project No. 5140
Upgrade Lift Station.____________________________________________________
6. Amendment No. 2 to engineering services agreement with WFR for Project No. 5124 -
Lagoon Outfall Restoration._________________________________________________
Mr. Hanson stated these three items are basically the same as the above item - to implement the 2001 rate structure. It was noted that the agreement includes clause if contract runs beyond year end. Moved by Klave and Stevens to approve the amendments to adjust the hourly rates - 2001 rate structure, charged by the consultant but does not increase the not to exceed contract price. Motion carried.

7. Part-time assistance for the Engineering Department.
Mr. Grasser stated that they need approval prior to hiring any part-time workers that might be beyond a specific line item in their department budget, that within their department budget they have line items for data input, sidewalk inspector, cable locator and some surveying assistants - that they are missing a lot of people and will be a while until they are able to fill them and will try to utilize some part-time help and is asking for additional help in clerical area for 20 hours/week through 2001 construction season which would end about November (that position would require about $11,000 total - have $4,000 of that in their part-time budget under data input person which are some of the other duties this person would do); and the other position is to keep Mark Anderson (who managed all the CDBG budgets and projects) and has been off CDBG budget since October and is on our part-time budget now closing out contracts and that has been approved to February 25 or 28, but asking to extend that until June - 5 to 7 hours/week so he can take care of the miscellaneous questions/problems that come up on outstanding projects - that because he
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 2

has the background he can handle those very efficiently. He stated of the 25-30 projects have 10 or 15 that won’t be done including the ones that are contractually complete and will be getting calls in the spring and need people to follow up on them. He asked for authorization to extend the employment of Mark Anderson and to hire part-time clerical staff person. These are turning into seasonal positions.

Mr. Grasser stated that some of the projects where used only CDBG money will have to rely on the two-year warranty from the contractor, and on other projects where have CDBG and FEMA combinations, FEMA money may still be available so will make the final payments based on the FEMA dollars. He stated another category of projects where they funded some projects at 100% and funded some projects at 90%, was to cover ourselves in case we ran out of money - the extra 10% that isn’t CDBG is being taken care of through utility rates, lot are water related projects and payments beyond the February deadline technically are not going to be CDBG payment - the CDBG portion of it will be closed out but the contract will still be open and payments will be made based off of our utility funds; and that’s why we are pushing beyond the supposed drop dead date and fixing funding sources.

Moved by Klave and Stevens to authorize the engineering department to continue the part-time employment of Mark Anderson and hire a part-time clerical staff person. Motion carried.

8. Consideration of engineering services agreement on City Project No. 5229 - Upgrade Lift
Stations 19 and 25.________________________________________________________
Mr. Hanson, WFW, reported these projects were budgeted for this year and this contract goes through the design, bid phase for those two lift stations, and uses the 2001 rates, with an hourly rate not to exceed contract of $56,897.00. It was noted that the construction cost for each of the lift stations is approx. $300,000 and includes the engineering costs.

Mr. Grasser reported that Lift Sta. 19 is the sanitary station that serves Richard’s West area and Lift Sta. 25 serves Industrial Park area. It was also noted that this is part of our routine maintenance - try to do couple every year (have 41 lift stations and need to do 2 or 3 every year so don’t have obsolete equipment, etc.) Mr. Grasser stated this contract only goes through the bidding and if decide to hire WFW to inspect, there will be another contract amendment that will come through to take care of the construction services.

Moved by Klave and Stevens to approve entering into agreement with Webster Foster & Weston for engineering services not to exceed contract of $56,897.00 for Lift Stations 19 and 25. Motion carried.

9. Consideration of engineering services agreement on City Project No. 5230 - 2001
Telemetry Upgrade.__________________________________________________
Mr. Hanson, WFW, stated this was budgeted this year and looks at bringing 13 additional pump stations up to the new telemetry system, under old system boards no longer available, the communications between the stations and the monitoring point and will provide much better information for the operators and assist engineers in making better design decisions about what’s happening with flows - be able to log long term and know what’s happening when things are peaking to deal with storm water, which station peaks, which ones are worst ones involved with storm water issues after rain storms, etc. He stated the project consists of 13 small projects from concept through construction installation, based on idea where negotiating a contract with instrument control systems who are sole source provider for the control systems for the stations.

He stated there hasn’t been an issue at present where demands have been placed not to exceed the pumping capacity. Mr. Grasser stated they run into those on rare occasions and some of the problems
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 3

they’re having is when it gets into a private distribution (ie., townhouse association or if somebody knocks off a casting, etc. and it rains and getting water straight down into the manhole) Mr. Hanson stated there’s one station that’s hydraulically challenged, Lift Sta. 5, and City had authorized them to do the design work in 1997, barely started when flood happened, and was placed on hold, but now under construction to replace that one. Mr. Hanson stated there are still about 14 stations to be converted after finishing this one but should be more economical to convert than the present ones. He stated they will prepare their bid documents and define a scope and negotiate the rest of the $350,000 with instrument control systems and will actually install al those control system modifications to make the system work.

Mr. Grasser informed committee that they may need to reserve some land in that area on the west side of 40th Street at 11th Avenue if we get a large motel complex in there and start to get that kind of density and concentration of sewage demand, there is a potential that lift station may start to run behind.

Moved by Klave and Stevens to approve entering into agreement with Webster, Foster & Weston for engineering services on Project No. 5230. Motion carried.

10. Authorize two-way agreements with P.D. Sproule and the Park District for Project No.
5234 - Sanitary Sewer at 2375 Bacon Road.__________________________________
Mr. Grasser reported that Mr. Sproule owns some property on the southside of Bacon Road and currently has a pump station which is tied into the city’s forcemain, that lift station has been giving him some problems, leaking, and that they’ve been working with Mr. Sproule to try to find some alternatives, and have preliminarily worked out with him and the Park District that rather than putting in two service lines would put in regular gravity maintenance which the City would own and maintain and tie their services off to that in the normal fashion and asked for authorization to enter into two-way agreement with appropriate staff to sign the agreement, City will do the design and they will pay the City fees and construction costs and that by giving engineering this authorization that they are authorized to work out any other small irregularities that may come up

Moved by Stevens and Klave to authorize entering into the two-way agreement for Project No. 5234, with proper City officials to sign the agreement. Motion carried.

11. Change Order No. 1 for the General Construction Contract, Project No. 4784 - Southend
Water Tower.____________________________________________________________
Charlie Vein, Advanced Engineering, reviewed the change order, Wanzek Construction, contractor, in the amount of $18,047.59, which involves about five additions to the project: due to poor drainage re-graded 900 ft. of ditch along Columbia Road, and seeded the ditch, added a 16” gate valve on the main line that wasn’t originally on the plans and tied into an existing tee that required additional work and to handle a vertical adjustment in the pipe because of the various depths that contractor was not aware of and requested approval.

Klave asked how long ago original project was done (within couple years) and whether the City can go back to the original contractor if it’s definite that it was not properly done (existing tee not thrust blocked) and cost an additional $5500 for corrections. Mr. Vein stated they would go back and check on that.

Moved by Klave and Stevens to approve Change Order No. 1 for the general construction contract in the amount of $18,047.59. Motion carried.

12. Change Order No. 5, 2000 Forcemain and Watermain, City Project Nos. 4814 and 4816.

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 4

Mr. Hanson, WFW, stated that these projects relocate the forcemains for the English Coulee Diversion Project, initially the project was to lower the forcemain at two locations where the forcemain crosses the widening diversion, and found when started plans and specs. needed to do work at Simplot location where they tie in just to accomplish this project, that when they reviewed budget with Mr. Goetz, Wastewater Department, money was allocated for forcemain valves (and this project was to be done this year but found could piggy back onto this project and using funds from the Sewerage Utility Fund) and as long as have forcemain dewatered while Simplot is shut down over Easter vacation so their service is not interrupted and not taken out of production, that the dollar amount is a little high, $47,250.00, but if didn’t do now, would cost $30,000 to dewater that forcemain. Contractor is Industrial Contract Services, Inc. to install the additional valve. Moved by Stevens and Klave to approve the Change Order in the amount of $47,250.00. Motion carried.

13. Request from NDDOT for reimbursement to MPO for Concept Report at 32nd Avenue
South and Columbia Road._______________________________________________
Mr. Grasser stated that the MPO hired a consultant to do some intersection evaluations at 32nd and Columbia and part way through the report they were informed by DOT that concept reports are not eligible for reimbursement to the MPO but there were some costs that were incurred by the consultant to accomplish that work; that the DOT asked the City to make that payment for them, $10,866.96 and in exchange for that they will credit our Urban Funds Program in the amount of $12,000.

Moved by Klave and Stevens to approve paying MPO the amount of $10,866.96 for the NDDOT in return for credit in the amount of $12,000 in the city Urban Fund account. Motion carried.

14. Greater Forks Engineering Group (GFEG) in-kind services engineering agreement
Amendment No. 12.__________________________________________________
Mr. Hanson, GFEG, stated this involves all the additions relating to the project relocating the water and forcemain for the Coulee Diversion Project, dollar amounts are detailed on the front sheet of the Amendment: $6,311.76 for design services for Site C, which is Simplot and all the coordination with them; $6,979.86 for Site E, Change Order No. 5, design and negotiating efforts; $4,194.24, design and negotiating services for Change Order No. 4; $6,171.00, construction phase effort for Site E; and $2,199.12 for additional services/negotiate easement for watermain and this was effort spent by CPS in negotiating the easement with Westgate Marine; for total of $25,855.98, which brings them up to date with all of the additions and engineering services that have been requested and done. Mr. Grotte stated there are three parts that are related to the utilities requested, that 1) 2) and 4) will be paid by the wastewater department and comes out of the forcemain maintenance fund they have.

Moved by Klave and Stevens to approve Amendment No. 1 in the amount of $25,855.98. Motion carried.

15. Greater Forks Engineering Group (GFEG) 2001 rates for basic services.
Mr. Hanson, GFEG, coordinator for the in-kind services that deal with the Corps dike project, stated this is an update of the rates for the open contracts they have, same rates as on previous projects. Moved by Klave and Stevens to approve the 2001 rates to be applied to all existing agreements. Motion carried.

16. Declare surplus and authorize the disposal of flood protection project properties.
Mike Yavarow, senior project engineer, stated they are in the midst of acquisition for the first phase, have authorization at the present time to purchase property that they need for the project, and intend to start on the acquisitions for the second phase, that they have been authorized to purchase the properties they need for the project and authorized by the council to cause vacation notices to be given to people, whether previous owners or renters, and next step is to ask for authorization to declare surplus the
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 5

properties they need for the project that we own - that this is to get rid of them. He stated that the properties will be disposed of by sale to be moved and for some, demolition; Corps handles demolition of properties that economically cannot be moved or timelines that they can’t be moved . Mr. Grotte stated this would also include what the City buys in the future for the project where buildings need to be removed, that it’s a blanket surplusing of anything that’s in the way of the levee so don’t have to come back. Properties would be turned over to Urban Development to be sold or disposed of by the Corps. Mr. Yavarow stated they intend to start in Phase II but because the council has decided to accelerate the schedule and hopefully the Corps can keep up, know that R/W and property acquisitions is perhaps the weakest link in the system, have problems on the Coulee, etc. and want to make sure to decrease these problems and intend to go after some properties that know are going to be problems, require long lead times (St. Anne’s (acquiring parts of it), and that as acquire properties that we need, there are other people come in from other phases and problem starting to solve itself in some of the subsequent phases. Mr. Grotte stated another prime example in Phase III that need to start dealing with soon is RDO Foods, need to do something with the wastewater treatment plant.

Mr. Yavarow stated that the council might not be able to declare as surplus properties until we do own them - Terry Hanson stated he wasn’t sure whether the City Code or Century Code will allow the city council to declare surplus property that is not yet owned, and suggested that it be subject to city attorney’s review.

Moved by Klave and Stevens to declare all structures that need to be removed from the flood protection project surplus and authorize City staff to dispose of property, via sale or demolition as deemed appropriate; and to include al structures currently owned by the City and those to be acquired for the project, as they become City property, with ruling from the city attorney as to the language of when surplus property can be declared.

COMMITTEE RECESSED FOR 5-MINUTES AND RECONVENED AT 8:05 P.M.

17. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) @ Turtle River Township Landfill Site.
Mr. Feland stated this is follow up from November 28 meeting, that we had some questions on some costs, letter sent to Waste Management asking for some direct costs - estimated quota costs; first quote for us to bale and transport and for them to landfill our solid wastes at $20/ton; second quote is for them to transport bales from our baling facility to the Gwinner landfill and to landfill at $35/ton. He stated that if you look at the Burns & McDonnell estimate the $20/ton is same as Burns & McDonnell’s estimate but if include the transportation costs cut $5 off Burns & McDonnell estimate; and if include the total cost of bale transport and dispose of solid waste bales that reduces estimate down from $51.74/ton to $46.40/ton. He stated that the Burns & McDonnell estimate for the Turtle River Twp. or Manvel site with two-bale transfer and dispose of the solid waste bales would be $40.20/ton. He stated he also talked to Art Bakken of ProTransport to get an independent transport cost and that the Burns & McDonnell estimate was $20.34/ton and a cost from Mr. Bakken based on his estimates was $20.63/ton and feel have some good numbers and Waste Management if include transportation costs can lower their tipping fees. It was noted that estimates were based on a 5-year contract assumption negotiable every year on increases, and with fuel costs would have a built in index. Mr. Feland stated that the last time he talked with the Health Dept. Waste Mgmt. has not submitted an application for expansion, and if we assumed that they went ahead with their expansion were still looking at 20 years of life in their landfill with putting in the region’s garbage; they admitted they would have to increase costs if they got the expansion go ahead. It was noted that Mr. Hanson was here and had helped with the siting and if any questions he would review.

Jay Fieldler stated that last summer the council authorized him to negotiate a contract for an
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 6

environmental impact statement with Burns & McDonnell who had been our long time solid waste consultant; however, the council also resolved to look at other alternatives - most specifically remote landfills, commercial landfills that we could haul our municipal solid waste to, consequently, Burns & McDonnell gave him a detailed proposal on an EIS last August in which they estimated a cost of $195,000 and depending on whether we do the publication and distribution of the reports themselves, up to $216,000 (about $20,000 for reproduction and distribution of reports). They estimated that because of the work that had been done to date the EIS could be completed in 14 months; in November two things happened: Burns & McDonnell completed its review of the alternatives and made a presentation of their proposal for the EIS. He stated his impression of the alternatives was that you say that the costs are relatively similar but there are certain issues that indicate that it’s better to have your landfill which we are already referenced here this evening; and it also made a greater presentation on what the EIS process is and what the costs are - at the same time he had a conversation with reps. of Burns & McDonnell re. a conflict of interest issue - that he corresponded with the council a couple of times about concerns that Burns & McDonnell have been involved in this project since the beginning and are likely to be involved in this project pretty much to the end, and it had been suggested to him for that reason their objectivity as an engineering firm doing an EIS might be questioned, and was told by Burns & McDonnell that if that objection were made it may be prudent to use a different firm to do the EIS, and as a result of that he spoke with a number of environmental engineering firms and asked them to prepare and provide to him correspondence indicating their interest and ability to do the EIS. He stated he was primarily interested in was if they have the capacity to do it, when they could do it and on our timeline, and whether could do it within the financial projects that Burn & McDonnell had provided. He stated that engineering firms that provide EIS tend on one end of the spectrum to be small firms that essentially subcontract with people in different disciplines, and on the other end they are large firms that do everything in-house, and in the middle have more moderately sized engineering firms that do a lot in-house but contract with expert consultants in other areas. He stated he has proposals from engineering firms that fit each of those three descriptions, a couple of the proposals are very detailed, in each case the firms tell him they can do the project for the costs as proposed by Burns & McDonnell plus or minus about 4%, and that they can do it within the time frame proposed by Burns & McDonnell, which is fairly aggressive time frame. He stated he has talked with Francis Schwindt of the State Health Department asking if the Department would be available to do some oversight and review of the process to help us demonstrate objectivity, and although there’s no commitment from the Department it sounds like they are willing to do that so long as we don’t go so far as to intrude upon their permitting process. He stated he had also spoken with Howard Swanson about the process of selecting the firm and has been told that since there is no federal money involved that we can negotiate directly with the firms rather than going through a formal request for proposals process and have been told that there’s a ND Attorney General’s opinion that says that.


Mr. Fieldler stated that now rather than negotiate with Burns & McDonnell there are three firms that he has targeted to assist us in the project. He stated that the procedures that are, if approved, asking for authorization to select an appropriate engineering firm and to negotiate a contract to bring to the council in a form that is ready for approval in March, the target date is to have a contract prepared by March 7 so it can be considered at the March 17 council meeting. He stated he would anticipate doing in two weeks from now having a meeting at which he would participate, along with Chuck Grotte, Todd Feland and Howard Swanson to look at the three firms and select firm which they would like to negotiate first; and that it makes sense to invite the Twp. Zoning Administrator to participate in that meeting, not to dictate any choices but at least to give input and comment. He stated if they follow that schedule the firms would be in a position to hold the initial scoping meeting, public meeting at which people bring their concerns around the first of April; would have a preliminary draft EIS by late summer and sometime next spring

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 7

have a final EIS. He stated that’s a time line that they can live with in terms of how much time they have left on our landfill and the administrative and legal procedures that are almost certain to follow.

Mr. Fiedler stated that last June he recommended to the council that they follow this course for a couple reasons: 1) if we don’t do an EIS now, may have to do one later, and if do an EIS and if it justifies the site, it seems to him that it would be very difficult if this ends up in court for a judge to say that the Twp. acted reasonably in denying the site location. so far we have dotted every I, crossed every T and have done everything that can be asked of us and believes that if we complete the EIS, and assuming that it indicates that this is an appropriate site, he as the lawyer who would ultimately end up defending the site, feel that this is a good case and most likely procedure to take us where we want to go. He stated the request is to authorize himself, Todd Feland , public works, Charles Grotte of the engineering department and Howard Swanson to meet as a committee to prioritize firms to negotiate with and to negotiate a contract bringing it back to council in March for approval.

He stated that to him it is indisputable that the firms are capable of doing the work, they’ve been through EIS’s before, been through environmental assessments, many of the people involved have been specifically involved with landfills, containment, ground water, surface water, all of those things, they’ve been involved with controversial projects (one firm did specifically an EIS on the landfill adjacent to the San Francisco Bay, which would be a very ticklish project), and another of the firms is currently involved in the St. Louis Airport EIS, which is probably the hottest EIS going today; that these are people that are capable of doing it, immobilized to get it done and know where they are going, they gave us timelines and told us where they expect to be on given dates. He stated with respect to all three of these firms he’s had multiple phone calls with their principals making sure he understands what they are going to do, some given very detailed proposals and seem to be mobilizing for it. He stated that is summary of a long process.

Chairman Kreun stated that he feels after going through this process more comfortable and at ease with what we are doing, that we utilize all the information and technology available to us today and be responsible to the citizens of our whole county; good procedure to go forward with.

Klave stated that he feels that Burns & McDonnell are qualified to do the EIS, and glad to hear that they understand. Mr. Fieldler stated he asked the question of them and they took the initiative and said yes, it is something to be concerned with, and given their background one could make the argument that they are the most qualified, but the point isn’t whether they are qualified, the point maybe more perception.

Mr. Fiedler stated he sent out voluminous materials, but distributed another set of papers - Water and Earth Technologies Cost Proposal to the committee, which contains some of the issues that need to be negotiated.

Klave stated that when issue of looking at an EIS some direction given that the Township give input as to what they expected to see in it, and asked if we received anything from the Township as to what they wanted looked at. Mr. Fiedler stated he hadn’t heard anything from them, and didn’t think there had been a formal request that they give us a checklist, but when you look at the scope of work proposal, doesn’t know what else they would come up with. He said when they have the scoping meeting the public is invited to share their concerns, in theory it’s possible there may be a concern that falls outside of the areas that we’re looking at, what happens at that point is that the consulting firm has to take into consideration that citizen’s concerns and make a determination whether they need to follow up on it, have to give each comment attention.

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 8

Mr. Fiedler stated that historically they have developed out of federal projects where there has been an agency involved (EPA, Bureau of Land Management, Corps of Engineers), and that lead agency reviews processes and procedures, and here we don’t have a lead agency and are trying to develop a procedure that is a functional equivalent of federal procedure, and that’s why asked the Health Department if they would be willing to review our processes and procedures and comment if they are fair on their face, appear objective on their face, addressing appropriate issues and don’t envision designating a specific lead agency, optimistic that the Health Department will provide us with some of that oversight; that typically the lead agency is a third party without a vested interest; and have to be careful because the Health Department ultimately does the permitting too and can’t put them in a position where they pre-judge the project.

Tom Hanson suggested that as alternatives are developed, particularly mitigating options, that they be reviewed by Burns & McDonnell who have the contract to do the final design and make sure that they agree they are feasible workable mitigation. Mr. Fiedler stated they could put in the negotiated contract that with respect to mitigation there shall be consultation with the design engineer.

Moved by Klave to authorize that Mr. Fiedler, representing the City of Grand Forks, Howard Swanson, city attorney, Charles Grotte, engineering department, and Todd Feland, public works department, review, evaluate and rank engineering firms and enter into negotiations with the firms in order to bring back a contract to the City of Grand Forks in March of 2001. Stevens seconded the motion. Motion carried.

Mr. Feland stated he was not going to make copies of the entire package for the council; and he would note on the staff report that if any of the council members wanted to review entire package he would make that available.

18. Committee Member comments:
Klave stated this is last meeting of this committee, that he enjoyed working with committee members and staff, and thanked engineering firms that he’s worked with over the years as they’ve been very knowledgeable with information they bring to the table.

19. Information.
Mr. Feland reported that at the last CIP meeting Hazel Fetters-Sletten, Water Supt., made presentation related to the intake - the Almonte pump station where have two Flyght pumps we weren’t getting the pumping capacity, that a rep. from Flyght was in town last week and worked with the water distribution and electrical department and those pumps and motors have water inside of them because not sealed well, and are going to rehab both of those pumps as their emergency intake where can hook up to a generator for emergency power outage, etc. in order to get water from the river to the water plant. Est. rehab cost $17,000 plus some additional costs and wanted to inform committee and want to get this done before the spring season in case we have any difficulties there as need that up and running. He stated they have money in the line item but will transfer money internally within the budget from contingencies. Kreun stated that won’t be wasted down the road, that it’s actually a permanent repair and will be able to utilize them for parts. Information.

It was moved by Stevens and seconded by Klave to adjourn; the meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk

Dated: 1/31/01