Committee Minutes

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
Monday, June 12, 2000 - 7:00 p.m. __________

Members present: Hafner, Klave.

5. Matter of alley in the 2600 block between University and 4th Ave. N.
Jay Bushy, engineer, reported there were two alternatives to the alley, either bring up to City standards which is a 6” inverted crown section, costs were est. at $50,000, and other alternative was to do an asphalt repair and bring back to what it was, est. at $11,000; that there was another option for storm sewer to tie it into University Avenue through a vacant lot owned by Pi Kappa Alpha Fraternity, and willing to allow City to acquire an easement if storm sewer were to be installed, at est. cost of $20,000. Joe Solseng, 2611 4th Avenue North, distributed copy of
petition with signatures of property owners on his side of the alley (4 signed, 1 other agreed but wasn’t on the petition), that he had outlined the three options and the residents preferred the asphalt repair but also understand that the City can mandate the sewer in but preference is not to do that because of the accumulated special assessments (will accept if the City mandates) and little concerned about an inverted crown on an asphalt alley (could deteriorate). Mr. Grasser stated their recommendation would be to replicate the crown section of the alley and get back as asphalt. He stated that on asphalt alleys, the water soaks in, wrecks subgrade and don’t perform, and can interpret this as a repair and wanted to emphasize that the opportunity is there to put in the storm sewer as the adjacent lot is vacant. He stated the storm sewer is the best and recommended long term fix and solve backyard drainage problems, help resolve subgrade problems, the best solution and most expensive is storm sewer and concrete but at last meeting did make the recommendation that there were some other alternatives and residents are selecting the asphalt alternative. Hafner stated he was not in favor of forcing the issue of storm sewer, but concerned where water will go and if water destroys that piece of asphalt again, and go through this situation in the future. K.Vein asked if in 5 or 10 years this section does break up again, will neighborhood come back to the City to repair it because of potential problem caused by lack of drainage; Mr. Solseng stated that was something the committee should stipulate that this is a final repair. Mr. Vein stated they also need to make residents aware that even when reconstruct alley it won’t be perfect drainage. Mr. Solseng stated they understand that with the existing conditions, and on the south side where the sorority and fraternity houses are because they have adjusted their grading where they park according to the existing alley and when you put a crown on that, it’s going to change somewhat and their drainage may or may not mesh exactly with what the alley is. He stated he has not talked with sororities or fraternities. Mr. Bushy stated he had talked with the Pi Kappa Alpha people and their general scenario on their property is that they are going to be building sometime this year, and that area going to change within the next 6 months. Mr. Solseng stated that even if everyone on both sides of the alley were to pay their fair share, they would still not prefer to have the storm sewer put in; Mr. Solseng stated that’s not their preference.

It was moved by Klave to approve repair of the alley and that there be notation in the minutes or attachment stating that the recommended drainage was not preferred by the property owners to date in that location and in the event that in the future that alley deteriorates that this is the City’s
final out of pocket repair, and next repair will be an assessment. Hafner seconded the motion.

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 2

Mr. Grasser suggested to accomplish this they do a change order to the asphalt street repair project. Klave and Hafner amended their motion to approve change order No. 4 to Project No. 5105 in an amount not to exceed $12,000. Motion carried.

Original motion, as amended, carried.

9. Matter of Change Orders for various projects:
a) Proj. 5105, 2000 Asphalt Street Repair, C.O. No. 3 (for bikeway on S. 20th St.)
Mr. Bushy reported that preliminary routing from south end of Hansen Ford property to 47th Ave. S., with preliminary cost of $60,000, that they looked at several other alternatives but were more costly and less effective. Mr. Grasser stated that they are going to put Hansen Ford on notice to get the paved sidewalks complete to the end of their development at this point in time; that when they reviewed the site plan they said sidewalk to go in at a future date but will notify them otherwise would have another 400-500 ft. of asphalt to put in. Mr. Vein suggested putting them on the sidewalk list, Mr. Grasser agreed. The matter of crosswalks across 47th Avenue S. would probably just be striped and signed as a crosswalk, and not proposing flashing beacons at this point in time, and the $60,000 does not include any flashing lights, and speed limit signs are 20 mph with children present.

Hafner stated he was in favor of safety but this was presented last week, and with all the criticism that the City gets for spending money, it was his understanding that the City is tapped to pay 2/3rds of this, and the fact that it’s temporary and will be torn up in not too many years, and questioned why the City was paying two-thirds and will kids use it.

Nancy Dutot, 126 Gentle Hills Circle, principal of South Middle School , and Perry Marto, 2001 Oakwood Avenue, director of buildings and grounds for the School District stated this came about at the spring meeting that occurs between City, School District and Park District and there was concern about kids attending summer school at South Middle School, riding their bikes along 47th Ave. S. and Columbia, and every since 47th was paved it’s like a speedway out there and asked City to put up some speed signs, originally 40 mph and still very treacherous and then asked for 20 mph which has helped some but road highly used and it was their feeling it was quite dangerous and asked for temporary bikepath; it was agreed that the City would put up the first $40,000 and asked that the School Dist. would contribute some money, and School Dist. came up with $20,000 from their Building Fund to make the project happen and that they felt it was important to have the bikepath. The number of student using bike path - South’s attendance district is everything west of Washington and bulk of them west of 20th and for them to use the bikepath on Washington would really be out of their way plus you don’t have a very safe route east/west on 47th, right now they’ve been telling their students for the last year and half that they don’t want anyone riding their bikes because it’s too dangerous, that there are kids who will ride their bikes out and they hold the bikes and have parents pick them up, kids miss their rides and walk home , etc. and if there were to be a bikepath that was sanctioned it would be utilized even more; that they’re not a neighborhood school and couldn’t offer summer school programs because they didn’t want to encourage kids to use their rollerblades or bikes to come to the
school when it wasn’t safe, and were also thinking that it would benefit the Park Board too.
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 3

Klave stated concerns about how children getting to the school, and about funding - City is constantly in the public’s eye about how dollars being spent, and even if good project, get chastised for it, and esp. with 2/3rd vs. 1/3 split on a project. K.Vein stated he was at meeting where request was made and Dr. Sanford acknowledged concern with getting students safely out to the school, that this is a problem, and when looking at different alignments, this is probably the best one, and thinks should approve with future funding to be worked out. Hafner stated he would like to ask the School District to assist in explaining it, and would like the full council to be fully aware of this. Klave stated that safety is the issue but what’s going to happen is not when they put the bikepath in, but when development starts and the bikepath is in street right of way and will be tearing the bikepath out.

Grasser stated that when they site schools, there is problem of locating on a major arterial street, need to be aware of those things in the future and try to come up with better location. He stated he talked to Mr. Schmisek who indicated that the $40,000 would come out of the City’s Infrastructure Fund, and suggested that the City would pick up the $40,000 and School picking up the $20,000. Mr. Grasser stated that if lights need to go in on the temporary street, that cost would be borne by the School District, est. cost approx. $8-9,000 and would get close to a 50-50 split if ended up having to do that, and perhaps cost sharing on any maintenance activities - would expect having unauthorized vehicles driving on that. Klave asked how they would stop vehicles from driving on it; Mr. Bushy stated it would be signed, and putting some type of barriers in. Lon Aune noted that there’s a gravel base following the drainway now that was put in and follows all the way to Columbia Road and back to 47th , there’s been two box culverts put in across the drainway and asked if the pathway along the drainway was ever intended to be paved along the drainway. Mr. Grasser stated that it is intended to be paved long term but when they looked at the cost of making those connections now and the biggest thing is when looking at where the kids are going from and to, that’s nice thing about 20th - once you’re there, it’s a straight shot and is most direct route. Ms. Dutot stated they have 530 students now and possibly 50-60 kids use it. Mr. Vein stated if doing it, do it right, and include lights. Hafner asked if this could be constructed where a sidewalk would be in the future - wouldn’t be.

K.Vein stated they are looking at a change order to the Asphalt Street Repair Project, the other part would be to do a lighting project, and not sure of likelihood of Engineering having time to
do this and would prefer Mr. Grasser to work that out with the crews and if not, to contract it out. He stated he was in favor of doing it now and being done with it, that it’s the only bicycle access to the school with 500+ students and wouldn’t wait for a problem to occur but require it to be done and do it up front. On-going maintenance - Mr.Vein suggested that all future maintenance be shared 50-50. He stated that if the School has any objections to that get back to staff so have it resolved before council.

Klave moved to approve Change Order No. 3 for the bikeway on 20th Street from Hansen Ford to the School at a cost not to exceed City’s share of $40,000, that on-going maintenance be 50-50 split between the City and the School District and that the School District fund crossings lights on 47th Avenue South. Hafner seconded the motion. Motion carried.

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 4

1. Matter of negotiating engineering services agreement, Burns & McDonnell, New Landfill Siting Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), City Proj. #5178_______
Mr. Swanson, city attorney, reported he had sent a letter to the entire council, included relatively brief memorandum that he authored followed by a detailed correspondence by Jay Fielder who is representing the City. He stated that following the council’s selection of the site near Manvel, did file an application under their fairly new adopted Zoning Code, got into a dispute as to whether or not the City is required to file an environmental impact statement, our position is that it is not required by State law, federal law and we don’t read their ordinance to require it. They concluded that they would not proceed with the public hearing until such time as we actually filed the EIS and was a 3-0 vote, that leaves us in a position of making some decisions, and tried to outline City’s options: 1) go into court and litigate it; 2) complete EIS and file it; or 3) do nothing and wait to see what happens, or move to different site or different form of disposal. He stated they have had several meetings of staff and discussed, and lawyers are not recommending litigation right now, not because they don’t think they would be successful but because of adding time on the entire process; that if went into court and litigated now all would be litigating is whether or not we are appropriately denied the hearing, and we think we should have been given the hearing, and if won that litigation, it doesn’t get to the merits, and that doesn’t really solve the issue, that we are confident that even with the EIS all of the analysis of
the City has gone through, rating the sites, pre-selection process, communication that has gone
out to the Health Department and consulting firms that are involved in it, we think a lot of the EIS raw data has already collected, been analyzed and options considered, etc. and think that that in some degree will enhance the cost of the time it takes to produce an EIS and we think that presentation of an EIS will deviate some of the concerns the Township appears to have about the facility. Hafner stated he thinks they are overwhelmed with all this and are being influenced by outside environmental groups, and throw in rural vs. urban scenario as well. Mr. Swanson stated we may not avoid litigation on the issue but part of what wanted to do here was publicly say that even though we disagree with your analysis of your zoning code as whether it’s required or not, City will take the time and spend the money to produce that information of an EIS and file it with them. Hafner stated that he tends to agree; that we’ve tried to do the best we can to keep the birds away and to utilize the baling technique to prove to the State Health Department that we can continue to operate at our present site, but if for some reason, that fails, what will we do. Mr. Swanson stated we have two competing interests affecting the present landfill: 1) the FAA requirements and the birds; and 2) capacity issue. Mr. Vein stated we have several years of capacity - Mr. Feland stated 5 years min. including baling. It was noted that with baling material it’s easier to transport to another facility. Mr. Swanson stated we have conferred with the State Health Department and although not officially adopted policy, they are looking at if we are continuing our efforts to establish a new landfill, and they are aware of siting problems and of most recent action of the Township.

Klave stated that there were other issues rather than just the birds, one was leachate factor and that we would have to do something very extravagant with the high ground water and is a problem because of that. Tom Hanson, WFW, stated that one of the reasons selected Burns & McDonnell was because of their ability and previous experience with upgraded landfills but
when looked at the quality of the water coming out of the Dakota sandstone, the chlorides are
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 5

so high in the water that’s coming up and if mix with all the water in the lagoon, we would still potentially exceed discharge permits into the pollution requirements in the Red River and if that became a non-viable option once we released, how dispose of the water because of the minerals can’t discharge that to the Red River. He stated that with the present site that the FAA, Air 21, mandated no new landfills within 6 miles of an airport and that’s an airport regulation and not an landfill regulation.

Mr. Swanson moved from the neighborhood of 200 possible sites down to 1, and this is the highest ranked site, and it was noted that there are 3 others; and if not continue with this site, go to site 3 or 4, and can anticipate that the same types of issues are going to arise regardless of location. He stated they were not unmindful of the cost and time that the EIS may take and think that enhances even more the record that we will be able to establish.

Klave moved to enter into negotiations with Burns & McDonnell to do an EIS on the current
site that’s being looked at; Hafner seconded the motion. Motion carried.

It was noted that Township Board not specifically notified; Mr. Vein stated they will be contacting them on what’s covered in the EIS since there really are no requirements, would need to define the scope of what they are requesting of us and that’s going to have to be determined before actually able to get a price to bring it back to committee, and committee is just giving direction to negotiate and at that time it’s going to come back and make every attempt we can to have a scope of services that meets their requirements, the State’s requirements, our require-ments, etc. Mr. Swanson stated if we agree to get the EIS, and once file it have them respond what didn’t address in this issue, and want to get that out front, and second issue is that the EIS is not required by the State Health Department, we think that will even enhance the permitting process with the State, may spend some time on the EIS but think will pick that up in the permitting process.

2. Matter of Facility Plan Report, Clearwell/Pump Station and Associated Trans-
mission Pipeline, City Proj. #4648._______________________________________
Brian Bergantine, Advanced Eng., briefly reviewed the Facility Plan Report, and a brief overview of the Facility Plan and of map showing what the facility plan entails. He stated that the US EPA established a trihalomethane regulation in 1979 which prompted the City to change to a different disinfection system in the water treatment plant, from there a new regulation came out which they were not able to meet, surface water treatment rule which is a disinfection requirement and again they discussed going into a proposed project to meet simultaneously these disinfection treatments, establish them to the surface water treatment rule plus being able to meet the disinfectant by-product control on the trihalomethane regulation. The original plan did include a 7 mg clearwell which was to be southeast block of the plant but because of the flood the proposed levee alignment interfered with that prompting the City to consider a new location. After the flood of 1997 the City authorized a concept plan to address impacts related to new federal regulations re. water quality, additional capacity, aging infrastructure and impacts of the flood and developed alternatives and City went about direction to move the Industrial Park site for facility if and when move ahead with that. He stated that planning periods and projections
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 6

would support a 20-year design life through 2030, and provisions through 2050. He stated the clearwell will be cast in place , concrete reservoir, most feasible alternative and 7 mg of capacity for that site and will provide storage in the future for the Industrial Park area; that the high service pump station in the near term will be designed with a 24 mgd, existing plant is 16.5 mgd., and built in for 2030. He reported that environmental concerns addressed in the facility plan for the US EPA and for the ND Dept. of Health, compliance statements for federal agencies are attached to the document. He stated they identified the site, into preliminary planning and layout and preparation of facility plan, funding and construction. He reported that the total project cost for the project is $27.75 million, looking at two funding scenarios, have two US EPA grants in the amount of $4.9 million and $2.85 million, that there is a local match for the 3rd Street tank with re. to flood protection levee of $2.35 million, have $17.6 million required to be funded through Drinking Water State Revolving Fund or municipal funds; have $13.2 secured with the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and with the annual Grand Forks water sales in 1999 of est. 3 billion gallons, show increase of about 40/cents per 1,000 gal. He stated that the City is looking at securing two other additional $3 million EPA grants, and comes down to $11.6 million and that projects to water rate increase of 26/cents per 1,000 gal. K.Vein stated that EPA grant #3 is one they were in Washington for earlier this year to try to get commitment from committee structure to support, and acknowledge they would be back next year for another $3 million and there was comment to give the $6 million and be done, or we may not get any of it, and won’t know that until it comes out of committee.

Mr. Bergantine stated they were looking for request for acceptance of the Facility Plan so they can submit it to the ND Department of Health and US EPA to meet their funding requirements.

Moved by Klave and Hafner to receive and file the Facility Plan Report. Motion carried.

3. Matter of plans and specifications for Baling Facility Road Paving, City Proj. #5145.
Tom Hanson, WFW, reviewed plans and specs. for paving N. 69th Street and ready to advertise, and noted that they will have to rebuild the turn lane on Hwy. 2 and that is included in this project. Moved by Klave and Hafner to approve plans and specifications. Motion carried.

4. Matter of change orders for Baling Facility, City Proj. #5086.
Mr. Hanson reviewed change order #3, $6,508.00, Lunseth Plumbing & Heating, contractor, which includes air outlet piping at 8 locations in the facility for filters, regulators, wall mount brackets for heating/cooling unit, to connect equipment drains to floor drains, and air to dust collectors, and recommended change. There was some discussion re. completion date which is June 15; Mr. Hanson stated the latest date for shipping the motor control center is July 7, that they have written contractor that the City will impose liquidated damages and to get it here as quickly as can and are keeping the June 15 date to keep pressure on the contractor; that there are 3 contractors on the project and most of items pretty well worked out by the end of this week; and that after July 7 about 2 weeks before testing the process. Todd Feland reported they had told the Health Department they would have this operational by July 1, 2 to 3 week off that, and will have to notify them; and that our landfill permit runs out on November 1 of this year.
Moved by Klave and Hafner to approve the change order. Motion carried.
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 7

6. Matter of creating special assessment districts for Proj. 5156, Dist. 135, Street Lights in Kannowski Addition_________________________________________________________
Jay Bushy reviewed engineer’s report for this project, that they haven’t heard back from the developer as to the type of pole; and to get this moving picked highest cost pole ($3,000 per pole which is approx. double normal type pole). Klave stated some concern about this project coming back to the City, agreed to upgrading the street lights because thought they were moving forward in this project, but now back-pedaling with the Park District. Mr. Grasser stated he felt the City’s risks were relatively small because they are upfronting the underground costs; and that the
decision was made by the city council and are proceeding on that. He stated that the pole has not been selected, and that they are going to require a base under the pole because of a frost heaving problem, and that they are going to limit the options down to a few types.

Moved by Klave and Hafner that we adopt a resolution creating the assessment district, approving the engineer’s report, including estimate of cost, an assessment district map, and further that we pass a resolution instructing the city engineer to prepare detailed plans and specifications, and that we declare intent to sell bonds to finance these improvements. Motion carried.

7. Matter of Plans and Specifications for various projects:
a) Proj. 5171, Storm Sewer on 40th Ave. S. between Aspen and Pine Circle
This item was held.

b) Proj. 5148, Intersection Improvements at 32nd Ave./S. 34th St. and at 32nd Ave./S. 38th St.
Mr. Bushy reported that both of these projects are part of the agreement for the Oppidan development that the City would provide the signals and any upgrades to 32nd that needed to be accommodated for the development; the portion of 38th Street have budgeted $40,000 and now est. cost to be $85,000, because need to put two turn lanes - right turn lane on eastbound on 32nd to 38th and westbound, 32nd at 38th Street (include additional mast arm on signals and various wiring upgrades). The portion of 34th Street, CIP budget $210,000 and est. cost $176,000, which will be full traffic signal and require a right turn lane on westbound 32nd at 34th , that the eastbound right turn lane on 32nd is being constructed under the 34th Street paving project and cost switched over to that project. Mr. Grasser reported that on 34th Street they are planning on using the video camera vehicle detection equipment, otherwise cut loops in the pavement, and DOT is requiring they bid as alternatives. Mr. Grasser reported that the funding is identified as City costs so overall package is infrastructure funds and Hwy. Users (about $8,000 short), and these are preliminary numbers.

K.Vein stated that these signals make sense collectively but slowing down traffic significantly on 32nd Avenue South; and goes contrary to our long range transportation plan and need to be aware of this as approving this; that dropping our level of service expectations down to a lower level on these major corridors. It was noted that development occurs in spurts over long periods of time and is almost impossible to lay out a plan where have perfect spacing. K. Vein stated he sees this as continuing to happen on Columbia Road going south, and setting ourselves up to do
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 8

this but thinks can do better job of planning - have asked for some conceptual plans because have to look at a whole section at a time for how to alleviate that.

Moved by Klave and Hafner to approve plans and specifications, and authorize call for bids. Motion carried.

8. Matter of consideration of construction bids for various projects:
a) Proj. 5003, Dist. 566, Paving 36th Ave. S. from Columbia Rd. to 30th St.
Mr. Bushy reported bids received, Opp Construction low bidder in the amount of $104,858.45 and recommended award.

b) Proj. 5005, Dist. 567, Paving Balsam Circle and 36th Ave. S. from 34th St. to Balsam Circle
Mr. Bushy reported low bidder Opp Construction in the amount of $107,515.60, and recommended award of the contract.

Mr. Bushy brought up the matter of the up-front money from the developer on these projects, as well as from other developers, on the letter of credit issue. Mr. Grasser reported that letters of credit usually go to the Finance Department, that they are more involved in these projects, and that the letter of credit they received as well as past ones are written for one year or less and renewable at the discretion of the developer, and not of the City; and may want to go back and at least have an awareness of where are with the upfront money. He stated that his recollection is that when they first started doing this 8 or 10 years ago in response to number of lots that came back to the City and at the time it was his understanding that they were going to impose 50% upfront money with the idea that eventually require the developer to do it all; but in the course of that the developer has some options to post bond, in-kind services or cash, and we’ve gone on to interpret that to allow an upfront money letter of credit but actually requiring less and less of the developer cash wise as we go, and as long as that’s the direction of the city council, that’s a policy issue for the council to decide, and want to make you aware that the types of letters of credit they are receiving, and moves to spectrum of developer funding zero to developer funding 100%. Committee stated this is something they should be discussing at meeting, along with method of special assessment. It was noted that perhaps these projects are going beyond a 12-month period and letter has an anniversary date so may need to include language that it is an annual renewable letter of credit until the City were to release it; include somewhere in letter of credit that some period of time before letter of credit expires that something new comes from the bank stating that it will be renewed on its anniversary date and if not, can still collect on it.

Mr. Swanson stated that Mr. Schmisek called him if it was common to have one-year of letter of credit, and he stated no, it would be typical and not exclusive; the ability for the City to accept a letter of credit in lieu of bond or upfront cash, and if unsatisfied with letter of credit, can reject that, and can also require a letter of credit to be for a longer period of time; that would probably mean that the bank is going to take a closer look at the credit of that borrower and is treated as a lending arrangement. He stated that the letter of credit normally is dependent upon some type of breach or non-payment or some omission or act, and one of the things we can do is identify as
MINUTES/PUBIC SERVICE - Page 9

one of the breaches would be failure to give evidence of renewal within 30 days prior to the expiration date; bank will evaluate that loan risk on a regular basis. Mr. Swanson stated if they are proposing a new letter of credit, and 1) is the City taking proper steps to make sure it’s renewed, or 2) what leverage do we have at the end of the one-year period. K.Vein stated we would have the opportunity to correct this one at this time and would have to do that before award of the contract, and any change to the letter of credit would delay awarding of the project. Hafner asked what our period of risk is on this, and it was noted that until the special assessments are paid.

Mr. Bushy reported that on Project 5003 the storm sewer was tied to a CDBG project so gave it to them at no cost, the watermain project was assessed and was done under a letter of credit, and on Project 5005, the sanitary sewer the City used $200,000 of CDBG money and earmarked it for the residential area, and watermain and storm sewer both assessed with letters of credit. It was noted that the developer hasn’t put in any upfront money. Mr. Grasser stated they should look at in the future about what’s going to be acceptable.

Mr. Swanson suggested that perhaps there should be staff time devoted to evaluating what the termination of any letter of credit and prior to that date communicating both to the lender and developer. He stated that each letter of credit can state its own collection terms. It was noted that if the City wants to continue to use letters of credit is to include verbiage in the event it’s not renewed that amount will be due and payable. Mr. Swanson stated that the advantages of a letter of credit to the developer is less money than a bond and ties up less collateral or equity, from the City’s perspective, it’s easier to collect on a letter of credit than a bond, one proviso is that you’ve got to read your letters of credit and they are going to be much more variable in language or verbiage than a performance or payment bond. He stated that his office should be consulted or a joint activity. It was stated that staff needs to come up with a recommendation.

Moved by Klave and Hafner to accept the low bid of Opp Construction, Ltd. in the amount of $104,858.45 for Project No. 5003. Motion carried.

Moved by Klave and Hafner to accept the low bid of Opp Construction, Ltd. in the amount of $107,515.60 for Project No. 5005. Motion carried.

9. Matter of Change Orders for various projects:
b) Proj. 5070, Lift Station 13 Rehabilitation – General Contract, C.O. No. 1
Mr. Hanson reported there are two items of additional work on this project, replace the concrete bases underneath check valves in the checkvalve manhole, and L.S. 13 is very small station, but had to refabricate the fall restraint support system, amount reasonable, $708.98, Hobbs, Inc., contractor. Moved by Klave and Hafner to approve the change order. Motion carried.

c) Proj. 4655.1, Paving S. Washington St. from 26th to 34th Ave. S., C.O. No. 3
Mr. Bushy reported that the Strata Corporation is contractor, $7,750.00 for misc. adds and deducts to the contract, and is a participating change order but cost share on this project is 80-
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 10

20%. Moved by Klave and Hafner to approve the change order. Motion carried.

d) Proj. 4225.3, Paving S. Washington St. Service Roads from Hammerling to 26th Ave. S., C.O. No. 5
Mr. Bushy reported this was to rework drainage in parking lot on 24th and S. Wash., participating costs, funding, 80-10-10%; Strata Corporation, contractor, $6,425.00. Moved by Klave and Hafner to approve the change order. Motion carried.

10. Matter of report for Proj. 4717, North End Storm Sewer Study
Charlie Vein, Advanced Engineering, reported this study was begun in 1997/98 and have delayed completing study until the topographic information was available through the Corps of Engineers and that became available earlier this year. He reported that the area of the drainage study involves approx. 356 acres, and viewed map showing outline of the area as well as areas showing ponding of water; and that when looked at system found it was far from being adequate of handling a two-year storm and expectation is that it isn’t even a one-year storm and when get significant rainfall going to see ponding in those areas. He stated that the study did not entail looking at the piping system south of University Park; he stated they looked at an opportunity to take some of the drainage to the east to Washington Street, which is planned for upgrading and a new storm system is being constructed on Washington. He stated that realizing that and there was significant shortfall in taking all of the water of North Columbia Road to the English Coulee, looked at splitting the drainage area in half - about 180 acres in each half. He stated in the east half drainage area they looked at sizing to handle 5-year storm, and all of that flow would combine at 10th Avenue and connect to Washington Street and once water reached Washington would be directed to 7th Avenue N. and from 7th Avenue to the Red River, that they didn’t look at capacity of system on 7th Avenue and capacity would have to be added to Washington in order to handle that amount of flow. He stated that the est. cost $1,291,350.
He stated that in area from Washington west to 20th Street, north to 13th Avenue North and come back along 13th Avenue North in the vicinity of Hugo’s as interim measure, and est. $753,740 and could be used as a phased approach. He reported that to bring the line up from Washington and connect to the existing storm sewer which runs to 15th Street and act as reliever and doesn’t have est. on that.

C.Vein reported on the west half of the drainage area which covers 176 acres, looked at improvements necessary north of 6th Avenue only, looked at running a new line at north end of University Park to Columbia Road and then to the English Coulee, est. cost of this improvement $1,510,470, and is a costly improvement. He reviewed Drawing #5 where they looked at two construction components, one a new line paralleling the existing line on 10th Avenue North between N. 26th Street and Columbia Road, and when work done on the UND property there was an additional line directly west of intersection of 10th Avenue North and Columbia Road so there is additional outfall capacity, and this line would take more flow to the west, and looked at putting in a gate manhole on the north side of University Park where this gate could be closed off enough to basically backup water into University Park and use it as a holding pond; this option would cost $274,300.


MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 11

Mr. Bushy stated his task was to look into the capacity of the existing systems that this would tie
into and has not had time to complete it, and that even this scenario the existing lines do not have the capacity for this, because of Washington analysis done by CPS on the North Washington reconstruction project. He reported that the North Washington Street drainage runs from 8th Avenue North and then to the Red River, and interconnect between that and 7th Avenue North at North 6th Street so there’s relief at two spots (at N. 14th Street and 7th Ave. N.) and interlines are connected twice and are analyzing to see what impacts this is going to have on the lines and areas. C.Vein stated that the other option is going with a lessor storm which hasn’t been the City’s standard or to look at putting in some smaller lines to act as an overflow.

K.Vein stated that in light of comments made earlier about spending money and doing another City project and sign of the times, not sure where you go with any of this information (area would be special assessed); that they’ve identified some of the areas and not everyone can afford to do this, but concern is if building new sewer pipe down Washington, could do some increasing in that pipe size now to have it available for the future, because only have one opportunity to do this, and if do that, who should pay for the upsizing, maybe City would have to because not sure you would want to create another special assessment district for not receiving immediate benefits but have done that in the past (assessed people for future benefit). He stated that they’ve been asked to study this and have significant drainage problem and did they want to do anything. Tom Hanson stated that another problem is that the Corps’ consultant is sizing that pump station at 8th Avenue and if change things would need to make sure they get that in their process; Mr. Bushy stated they would do that. Lon Aune reported they met with DOT and due to time frame and design on N. Washington, thought it would be an opportunity to provide some form of an interconnect, the only drawback is what to do with the information, that it’s good information but time constraints they are under by DOT will probably prohibit a lot of further analysis to look at all the different options and is council decision. Klave stated there is a problem and solutions to the problem, but solutions could be $2.5 million and how would you do that when only hearing is cost. K.Vein stated that costs are going to change here, redesign with capacity to go east or go to different design storm, and may have to do combination of both.

K. Vein stated what we need to do is to find out what capacities we have on Washington, and upgrade the pipe on Washington if we can to fit those capacities and end that there; and then take this whole process back to a citizens’ participation process, show what alternatives are and get them to agree or abandon it, but take advantage of the Washington Street to whatever level we can. Mr. Aune stated they are going to have a 95% plan review in mid-July, scheduled review with the DOT. Committee suggested to find out if should upsize piping, cost of upsizing and who will pay for it. C.Vein stated that they’ve been studying this for quite some time and are going to have to look at additional alternatives and need to be upfront as far as their budget goes, that they’ve exceeded their budget now and if continue with additional alternatives, and wanted to bring that to the committee so that if continue to study this from engineering standpoint will need more dollars.

K.Vein suggested they hold this matter for 2 weeks and get idea of est. on preliminary numbers
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 12

and help determine whether want to continue the study or not, and have some idea of additional
capacity would be on 8th and what do to upgrade Washington.

Moved by Klave and Hafner to hold this matter for two weeks. Motion carried.

11. Matter of conflict of interest and code of ethics.
Mr. Swanson stated he is familiar with Municipal Code of Ethics, familiar with municipal ordinance relating to conflict of interest, they are relatively common in various communities but Grand Forks has not adopted either. He stated that each community is a little different; he stated he doesn't think the council has outlined either one but need to have more information before can even consider - and perhaps his office should do a sampling or survey and come back with
information - give listing of what communities include in those types of ordinances. Hafner
stated some of the issues here - probably most prevalent is abstaining from votes; another is verbal behavior of some council members at meetings. Mr. Swanson stated that the City Code does have some of that - those are meeting, conduct type issues, how to run a meeting, how to participate in a meeting. Hafner also noted that there have been instances where people in the audience speaking that have stated things that are unethical and that there should be something that could be done - Mr. Swanson stated that there is a Code of Ethics as it relates to City employees and there is a code of ethics that built into the Civil Service Code but doesn’t apply to mayor or city council members; and what they are talking about here is intended to apply to elected or appointed officials. He stated that what Mr. Hafner stated could be handled in course of sergeant at arms and the chair of the meeting or mayor; there are ordinances re. disrupting meetings, etc. that could be enforced, and also ability of the chair to terminate one’s privilege to speak at meeting.