Committee Minutes

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
Monday, July 31, 2000 - 7:00 p.m.___________

Members present: Kreun, Glassheim, Klave.
Chairman Kreun noted that items 4, 5 are removed from the agenda for further research; item 12 will be included under informational items; and two additional items: on item 11 there will be l) Proj. 5042 change order on 7 mg reservoir; and item 16, engineering services, Amendment No. 2, on Project 5042.

1. Matter of application for moving permit:
a) Tony Anderson to move building from 1 Lincoln Drive to 2097 N. 42nd St.
Bev Collings, Bldg./Zoning Administrator, reported that Mr. Anderson acquired this building (garage) from the City when he got contract to demolish the house and is moving to construction site for storage; this is going through the site plan approval in the Planning Office; that Mr. Anderson is required to bring building up to Code and building appears to be in good condition. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to approve application for moving permit subject to the public hearing. Motion carried.

2. Consideration of bids:
a) traffic paint
Todd Feland, Public Works, reported they received one bid, Grand Forks Glass & Paint, that bid a little higher than what normally pay (approx. $2,000 more) and recommended award of the bid contingent upon testing of the paint by the Street Dept.; that if paint doesn’t meet performance requirements, would bring it back to committee and rebid. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to approve acceptance of the low bid contingent upon testing of paint to make sure it meets requirements: 1375 gal. white paint in the amount of $40.30/gal. or $443.30/55 gal. barrels in the amount of $11,082.50, and 1055 gal. yellow paint in the amount of $40.30/gal or $443.30/55 gal. barrels for a total of $8,503.30. Motion carried.

b) hoses and reels @ baling facility
Mr. Feland reviewed quotes for 600 ft. of hose, 6 reels and misc. items (nozzles and installation, etc.) It was moved by Klave and Glassheim to accept the bid of Grand Forks Fire Equipment in the amount of $6,066.24. Motion carried.

3. Budget amendments
a) Street Department - $1,551.62
Mr. Feland reported funds reflect sale of surplus property, take from revenue item and move that into Maintenance/traffic signs.
b) Water Department - $30,000
Mr. Feland stated they were going to purchase two years’ of meters off of existing water meter bid, they have arrived, and moving the 1999 into Year 2000 for the purchase of those meters. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to approve both budget amendments. Motion carried.

4. Matter of request for right turn lane on 32nd Ave. S.
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 2

Held in committee for further research.

5. Matter of Project Concept Report for P.5112, Intersection Study at Demers Ave. and Washington St.____________________________________________________________
Held in committee.

6. Matter of request to install signals for bikepath crossing on 47th Ave. S. near South Middle School__________________________________________________________
Scott Zainhofsky, project engineer, reported engineering had received letter from Dr. Sanford requesting that the City purchase and install some crossing signals on 47th Avenue South and are requesting authorization to do the design and install the signals and bill the School District for the work. Klave noted that when one of the requirements was lighting at that intersection with School District to make payment. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to approve the request, with School District to make payment of cost. Motion carried.

7. Matter of cost participation and maintenance agreement with the North Dakota Department of Transportation for Proj. 5111.1 Intersection Improvements at S. 34th St. & 17th Ave. S. and Proj 5111.2 Intersection Improvements at S. 20th St. & 24th Ave. S.
Mr. Zainhofsky reported the cost participation agreements between the City and the State regarding funding of the projects, the match is 80.93% federal funds and remainder to be funded by the City with a max. federal contribution of $160,000 on each of these two projects, and requested approval of the agreements. It was noted that the total project costs are $230,000 and on the other $257,000, and City would pay balance which is more than the 19% (payment from either Highway Users Funds or sales tax and money is available). Moved by Klave and Glassheim to authorize entering into the cost participation and maintenance agreements with the North Dakota Department of Transportation. Motion carried.

8. Matter of creating special assessment districts for various projects:
Mark Walker, project engineer, reviewed general policy for special assessments, that a special assessment project is identified by area benefiting from the project, and those areas inside the city limits are identified as a special assessment area, that areas outside the city limits that benefit from the project are identified as either tapping areas or future assessment districts. He stated that tapping areas where portion of the project that relates to the benefiting property is collected through a lump sum payment by the property owner at the time the building permit is taken out; if areas identified as future special assessment districts and when properly comes into the city limits, we then create a district and assess their share - that all the projects listed under this agenda item are projects that were previously identified as future special assessment districts, and when project installed these areas were outside the city limits and have since been annexed and could be special assessed if we choose to. Mr. Walker stated that some of the property owners that are in these special assessment districts may offer complaint that projects driven by someone else and that they didn’t request the project, however, their property does benefit and property values increased, and they do have the opportunity to utilize the project if they choose to.
MINUTES/PULIC SERVICE - Page 3

It was noted that the projects have already been built and paid for by city residents, and that now these areas have come into the city and would be special assessed; that notice was given that these areas would be included. Ken Vein, city engineer, stated that when projects started assessment maps were published/advertised in the paper. Most of the projects were done in 1998 , one in 1997; there is a depreciation schedule for an under-ground project is 40 year depreciation schedule but no depreciation during first five years; for paving 25 year depreciation schedule with no depreciation during first five years. Mr. Walker stated that some of these projects pertain to projects that driven by the new middle school and School District funded those projects, that when the School District requested these utilities be put in they offered to pay for them, that City will assess these properties when annexed and collect those assessments and reimburse the School District. It was noted that everyone will be paying their fair share for services provided, but some delayed until the property is brought into the city and platted (some unplatted).

Mr. Walker reviewed figures on the engineer’s estimate which showed total project cost, less City share (if any), original assessment cost (for property in the city limits), cost for future assessment district (which has now been annexed), and/or remaining future assessment share (will be brought back when that area annexed). (Years of assessment are 20 for paving, 15 for sewer and water)

It was moved by Klave and seconded by Glassheim that we approve assessment of all the projects as listed (to adopt a resolution creating the assessment district, approving the engineer’s report, including estimate of cost, and an assessment district map).

There was some discussion relative to notification to property owners - typically not policy to notify property owners in future assessment districts or tapping areas. Property owners will now be notified by the finance department, that these assessments are not protestable. It was also noted that they have allowed developers to use letter of credit to install and then is special assessed to the properties and if come back and say they have a large special assessment, they have to remember when they purchased the property they weren’t paying for that on their purchase price; and that’s an option that we’ve been doing for the last few years. Glassheim stated there are going to be people who didn’t know this was going to happen and who would they talk with. Mr. Walker stated letter will be sent out by the finance department giving estimated assessment for certain period and there will be a contact person with phone number they can call if have questions (questions re. financing they will talk with finance department, and if problems with engineering those calls would be forwarded to the engineering department). He also stated that prior to certification of the assessments the residents have an opportunity to meet with the Special Assessment Commission if they feel assessments do not benefit their property. Mr. Vein stated that the project is done and in place and reviewed timetable with the committee (notices sent to property owners, notices of meetings, etc.) - options are that benefiting property owners pay for it or the City continue to pay for it. It was also noted that water and sewer projects are not protestable (paving normally is protestable); that benefits have been established showing which share goes to the original assessment district and what share goes to the
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 4

future assessments district. Mr. Walker stated that one of the first things they want to do is send letter to the property owners, have to have some idea of what their assessments might be and can’t determine that until the Special Assessment Commission meets and decides preliminary benefits, and that’s purpose of original meeting of the Commission so finance department can calculate what each property owner’s special assessment might be and send letter to each individual property owner showing range of assessment, and then final opportunity to come in on the one or two days of public hearing in the fall before actually certified to discuss how benefits determined and discussed their individual assessment; Mr. Vein stated that it is after that the assessments certified so property owner has every ability to go in and give their input. Mr. Walker reported he talked with Mr. Swanson and got his opinion on ability to protest future assessment districts and he stated they don’t have that ability nor do they have the ability if in tapping area; that Mr. Swanson stated that the people that are outside the city limits at the time the district is created which are the future special assessments and tapping area and they never have the ability to protest (not when original project created nor now).

Upon call for the question the motion carried.

a) Proj. 4522, Dist. 554.1, Paving on Cherry St. from 47th Ave. S. to the South End Drainway (created as future assessment district on June 1, 1998)

b) Proj. 4661, Dist. 391.1, Sanitary Sewer on S. 34th St. and 40th Ave. S. (created as future assessment district on June 1, 1998)

c) Proj. 4706, Dist. 260.1, Watermain on S. Washington St. and 47th Ave. S.
(created as future assessment district on March 16, 1998)

d) Proj. 4707, Dist. 393.1, Storm Sewer on 47th Ave. S. from S. Washington St. west
(created as future assessment district on April 6, 1998)

e) Proj. 4838, Dist. 399.1, Sanitary Sewer on S. 20th St. from 40th to 47th Ave. S.
(created as future assessment district on July 20, 1998)

f) Proj. 4839, Dist. 264.1, Watermain on S. 20th St. from 40th to 47th Ave. S.
(created as future assessment district on February 16, 1999)

g) Proj. 4919, Dist. 265.1, Watermain on 45th Ave. S. and S. 25th St.
(created as future assessment district on February 16, 1999)

h) Proj. 4939, Dist. 401.1, Storm Sewer on 45th Ave. S., S. 25th St., and S. 20th St.
(created as future assessment district on February 16, 1999)

9. Matter of Plans and Specifications for various projects:
a) Proj. 5064, Landfill Closure Phase III
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 5

Tom Hanson, WFW, reported they prepared plans for the next phase of the landfill closure, problem finding dirt and will borrow material left from original construction of the lagoons, and used for daily cover but isn’t quality need to build the liner out of, and borrow dirt from the drainway east of the landfill in area where the City owns property and area west of the landfill where the County Water Board owns that land and received permission to use that. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to approve plans and specifications and authorize call for bids. Motion carried.

b) UND Steamline Replacement Project Phase II
Mr. Zainhofsky reported that the UND has a steamline replacement project through campus and because these lines cross City R/W need to bring to committee for approval, plans and specs have been reviewed by the engineering department, with some comments which UND will be acting on. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to approve plans and specifications contingent upon engineering review and approval. Motion carried.

10. Matter of consideration of construction bids for various projects:
a) Proj. 5108, 2000 Traffic Loop Detector Replacement Project
Mr. Zainhofsky reported 1 bid received from Nodak Contracting in the amount of $17,230.00 and recommended approval. Moved by Glassheim and Klave to accept the bid of Nodak Contracting in the amount of $17,230.00. Motion carried.

b) Proj. 5156, Dist. 135, Street Lights in Kannowski Addition
Mr. Zainhofsky reported 3 bids received (housing development on the west edge of the new golf course) Bergstrom Electric was low bidder in the amount of $116,421.00 and was slightly less than the engineer’s estimate. Moved by Glassheim and Klave to accept the bid of Bergstrom Electric in the amount of $116,421.00. Motion carried.

11. Matter of Change Orders for various projects:
a) Proj. 4861, Sanitary Sewer Restoration Area 1, C.O. No. 7
Mr. Hanson, WFW, reviewed change order in the amount of $14,930.00, Molstad Excavating, Inc., contractor, and that condition of line was in worse condition than shown during televising of lines and had to be replaced rather than relined. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to approve the change order. Motion carried.

b) Proj. 4719, Sanitary Sewer Restoration Area 2, C.O. No. 11
Mr. Hanson reviewed final change order in the amount of $2,148.30, Lametti & Sons, Inc., contractor, additional cost for transition line. Moved by Glassheim and Klave to approve change order. Motion carried.

c) Proj. 4983, Pump Station No. 27 Replacement – General Contract, C.O. No. 3
Mr. Hanson reviewed change order in the amount of $3,452.00, Industrial Contract Services, Inc., contractor, area of work at 24th Ave. S. and S. 34th Street where water was ponding and will construct a minimal swale with 10 ft. wide bottom and flat slopes and will have better drainage. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to approve the change order.
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 6

Motion carried.

d) Proj. 4971, Water Tower Level Controls – Mechanical Contract, C.O. No. 2
Charles Vein, Advanced Engineering, reviewed change order in the amount of $6,404.51, Moorhead Construction Co., Inc., contractor; that this project involves putting in flow meters and flow control valves at all of the existing water tower sites, two sites at north end and south end tower did not have manway openings large enough to get the piping in and out and at the request of the City negotiated a price with the contractor to enlarge on a permanent basis, and amount of two manhole changes is $6,404.51, and is less than what was in the original handout. Moved by Glassheim and Klave to approve the change order. (Todd Feland identified funding source: Water Maint. Operation budget (Maint. and Water Towers - 5300.100, 5340.440.0030) Motion carried.

e) Proj. 4824.1, Mill and Overlay Streets City Wide Phase I, C.O. No. 2
Mr. Zainhofsky reviewed change order - that they found several catch basins that needed to be adjusted, zero dollar change order because we’re paying for the catch basin adjustments by reducing the asphalt quantities that are going down; Nodak Contracting, contractor. Moved by Glassheim and Klave to approve change order. Motion carried.

f) Proj. 4824.1, Mill and Overlay Streets City Wide Phase I, C.O. No. 3
Mr. Zainhofsky reviewed change order which is settlement negotiated with Nodak Contractor for their claim - original claim $20,500+ and after talking with them and determining that they had not included any costs for removing steel, and offered half of what was requested and they agreed to that, and this change order will free up that money again as a zero dollar change order by deducting asphalt quantities. He stated the contractor should have anticipated some of the steel being in the concrete and after talking with inspectors came to conclusion that there was an excessive amount. He also stated that they are still negotiating with Valley Contract on their claim. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to approve the change order in the amount of $10,246.08. Motion carried.

g) Proj. 4225.1, Paving S. Washington St. from Hammerling to 26th Ave. S., C.O. No. 12
Mr. Walker reviewed change order in the amount of $4,753.90, Strata Corporation, contractor, and stated this project is being engineered by the NDDOT and they determined there was various additional work necessary to complete the project (remove and reset some signs, put in additional pavement markings, landscaping work) and cost of change order for the City is 10% of that amount. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to approve the change order. Motion carried.

h) Proj. 4225.2, Paving S. Washington St. from 32nd to 40th Ave. S., C.O. No. 6
Mr. Walker reviewed change order in the amount of $770.00, Strata Corporation, contractor; project administered by NDDOT and change order is for installation of a pipe from ditch into a manhole with a grate at the end of the pipe for safety purposes; half of cost by the City and half by the project and of the $385.00 participating cost City will pay
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 7

10%. Moved by Glassheim and Klave to approve the change order in the amount of $770.00. Motion carried.

i) Proj. 4655.1, Paving S. Washington St. from 26th to 34th Ave. S., C.O. No. 6
Mr. Walker reviewed change order in the amount of $1,437.27, Strata Corporation, contractor, for hydrant extension kits which were not included in the plans (hydrants located in the ditch bottom and after filling ditches, hydrants too low) and were installed by City forces; City share is 10% of cost. Moved by Glassheim and Klave to approve the change order. Motion carried.

j) Proj. 4655.1, Paving S. Washington St. from 26th to 34th Ave. S., C.O. No. 7
Mr. Walker reviewed change order in the amount of $1,000, Strata Corporation, contractor, project administered by NDDOT and project needed additional curb and gutter replacement work and sidewalk work, City share 10%. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to approve the change order. Motion carried.

k) Proj. 5149, Sidewalks in Congressional Subdivision, C.O. No. 1
Mr. Zainhofsky reviewed change order in the amount of $14,995.00, Opp Construction, contractor, for additional sod quantities to provide better transition of the yard grades to the new sidewalks and increased amount of sod to cover the additional grading work that had to be done. He stated this is a CDBG funded project and funds are available. Moved by Glassheim and Klave to approve the change order. Motion carried.

l) Proj. 5042, 7 million gallon reservoir modifications, C.O. No. 2
Mr. Vein, Advanced Engineering, reviewed change order in the amount of $16,841.75 and 28 day adjustment of final completion deadline, Moorhead Construction Co., Inc., contractor, (located near Ray Richards golf course) (repair insulation, $965.13; replace interior reservoir bolts with stainless steel bolts, $729.06; reinforce area surrounding the reservoir wall penetration, $17,020.79 and $1,666.79; deduct for returned pipe, ($2,120.02); and deduct for fencing replacement, ($1,420.00); for total of $16,841.75). Mr. Vein stated that when they designed this project they went back to the original manufacturer of the tank in 1974 and they gave drawings of how tank originally constructed showing location of tank which was vacant of pre-stressed wires for making penetration through wall, contractor did that, there were pre-stressed strands there and were cut, and had to repair and was during critical period of time. He stated they could go back to original manufacturer but didn’t think they would agree to pay the cost, would be legal fight and expend far more than the $16,000. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to approve the change order. Motion carried.

13. Matter of Bids for Wastewater Treatment Plant, Bid Package #5, Precast Concrete, City Project # 4371_______________________________________________________
Casey Hanson, KBM, Inc., reported they received 3 bids, I.C.S., Inc. was low bidder in the amount of $983,300.00 (they hold larger contract at the wastewater treatment plant) and are experienced in this type of construction. He noted there were several items which
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 8

were included in this contract (sewer under poured floors, conduit, and were scheduled to be put in under future bid package but timing was such that would have had to bid small contract for this type of work). Moved by Klave and Glassheim to accept the low bid of I.C.S., Inc. in the amount of $983,300.00. Motion carried.

14. Matter of Engineering Agreement, Amendment No. 8, GFEG, Sanitary Sewer Modifications and Water System Modifications, City Projects # 4815 & 4816.1
Mr. Hanson, Greater Forks Engineering Group, stated this agreement will identify the needs and relocate City-owned utilities in the vicinity of the Corps dike, three sections, one at DeMers area, in Lincoln Drive area and third in Elmwood/Olsen area and provides for design and bidding phases. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to approve Amendment No. 8 to the engineering services agreement in an hourly not to exceed amount of $37,839.96. Motion carried.

15. Matter of Contract Change Order No. 4, Samson Electric, Baling Facility Structure, City Project # 5086________________________________________________________
Mr. Hanson, WFW, reviewed change order in the amount of $11,978.33, Samson Electric, contractor, for miscellaneous item; engineering department has reviewed. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to approve the change order. Motion carried.

16. Matter of Amendment No. 2 to engineering services, Project No. 5042, 7 MG Reservoir
Improvements_____________________________________________________________
Mr. C.Vein, Advanced Engineering, reported this will increase the max. for engineering services for the work associated with the repairs through the walls of the 7MG reservoir, handling negotiations with the structural contractor, reviewing work and contract change order, in the amount of $6,000.00. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to approve Amendment No. 2 in the amount of $6,000.00 Motion carried.

Informational Items:

12. Matter of Engineering Services Agreement Amendment, Burns & McDonnell, Solid Waste Disposal Alternatives, City Project # 4306_______________________________
Charles Grotte, asst. city engineer, reported they received some directions to look at alternates for solid waste disposal rather than landfill at the Manvel area, that they spoke with Chairman Kreun and rep. of Burns & McDonnell, and WFW, and staff members and reviewed alternatives they should look at and is beyond what they can accomplish in the timeframe desired and discussed with Burns & McDonnell and WFW assisting with exploration of alternatives and basically is within the scope of their current contract, there is money available in their current contract to do this work; however, if proceed with landfill in Manvel or other options in the future will likely be coming back for additional money because didn‘t plan to study alternatives again, and this is to make committee aware. He stated there were figures of $30-50,000 to study alternatives including recycling, hauling to other locations by various methods, composting, cutting down on things going into landfill, rate structures and are proceeding with the study and make aware that there
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 9

will be costs associated with this.

Glassheim stated most important thing to do is find out what is required of us, Mr. Grotte stated they are looking at options to stay at existing location. Mr. Grotte stated they have est. between 5 and 7 years of capacity at the landfill and based on current rates, will have to move at end of that time irregardless of what FAA says, and are looking at ways to expand our landfill at its current location and decrease amount going into the landfill, and working with the State to see what they will allow us to stay there and are planning to have a meeting with the State Health Department to discuss these issues and get something in writing from them.

Hoff reported present. Mr. Hoff stated that his council packet had been rifled at door in front of his apartment, and certain schedules and agendas were missing.

16. Matter of Sanitation Department survey.
Mr. Feland presented draft copy and that they worked with the Bureau of Governmental Affairs at UND, and that he would like committee to review for week or so to see if they want things changed - more of a performance based budget they are moving to, cost of services as well as some of the current events they have going on in community related to service levels, what people like and a move in the CIP committee to go to fee basis system related to additional pickups, curb side grass pickup in next budget year. He stated that they want to end extra collection (post going to the sideload collection and post flood) at the end of this summer. It was noted that the new pamphlet comes out in December and want information for that.

Mr. Klave stated that he had received a call re. the grass bins or roll-offs on 47th, and having problems there; Mr. Feland stated it’s become a dump site, (they are putting demolition, furniture, everything going in there) that sanitaton does pickup 6 days a week and most Sundays (but push to eliminate overtime); there was suggestion to moving it farther out, and some of it is from outside the city. Mr. Feland stated they’ve had calls all summer; Klave stated that if can’t control it to eliminate it.

Hoff stated that fines for dumping things are not adequate, fines for hazardous materials to the dump are not adequate - actually no fines, if get caught have to take stuff back, and nobody is checking dumpsters for hazmat, that landfill full of hazmat and no fines for this, to do whatever we can to increase the fines for this and would help to generate revenues. Committee asked how do they control it, how catch them; Hoff stated take the money generated to fund people and have startup money; that lot of what police do could be handled by social workers, and police could be out generating revenue and helping the environment and would be matter of shifting responsibilities to County and away from our police force, doesn’t have answer but need to brainstorm. Mr. Feland stated there is a $100 fine, but no one enforcing it. Klave stated they have numerous violations, esp. at this site for yard waste, time to ask police to patrol that area heavily for a two-week period. Hoff stated they need to calculate effect of garbage consciousness being raised which is causing
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 10

more people to report violations, and empower sanitation workers to issue fines when see hazmat visible in dumpsters, give new area of responsibility. Mr. Vein stated they could take this back to the department to see what they can do for enforcement and bring back to committee.

Chairman Kreun stated that they review the draft copy and if questions, etc. to get back to Mr. Feland. (Mr. Feland stated they will have someone go out on Sunday to dump that and have some of that cleared for the weekend)

17. Matter of south end water tower painting
It was noted that there was some discussion earlier that there was going to be a name painted on the tower out by the new golf course and with Mr. Palmer’s company’s insistence that it be very restrictive, will leave blank at this time; and would like to bring up water tower by the Purpur Arena, paint or logo (that is replacing “smiley” face tower). Mr. Vein stated it may deteriorate where have to remove - won’t repaint it. Kreun stated so there’s some thought and discussion to other council members on what to put on new water tower at the Purpur Arena. Info.

18. Matter of repair of forcemain along S. Columbia Road, 62nd Ave. S. & S. Washington Street____________________________________________________________________
Mr. Hanson, WFW, reported this is forcemain installed that is about 3 miles long and serves several pump stations, and experienced 9 leaks in that since accepted, that it passed a 100 psi pressure test in 1999; the pipe inspector sent two samples to their lab and inspected them and said there was one excess deflection which was probably caused by shipping, and also showed gravel and grit in the joint and significant gauges in the spigot area of the pipe, the pipe manufacturer was up again and decided to send one of the new joints to an independent laboratory and our recommendation was for the City to send another joint to their own independent laboratories, that they are concerned that this could lead to significant issues as the warranty period starts to wear down and continue to have problems. He stated that the 100 psi pressure test pushed the gasket tight up and sealed it up around the gravel that’s gotten into multiple joints and when operating at 2 to 15 psi where run it under normal conditions, that’s allowing those to weep and leak. He stated they’ve sent a sample to the firm in Chicago, their letterhead and est. for services is enclosed, but spending about $4-5,000 on testing and shipping and their involvement with the repairs. He stated they haven’t notified the bonding company, are waiting to get the report back and discuss this with Mr. Swanson before they did that, and that will happen shortly. Mr. Hanson stated that end of the warranty period is in December of 2001 but will get Mr. Swanson involved early on when receive reports back from the lab. Hoff asked what sort of legal problems do they anticipate due to this; Mr. Hanson stated that his real concern is that the bond has a limited time of duration and could continue to make all the repairs that show up until December, 2001 and after that when there is no bond and if continue to have problems and if not resolved, and not have funding source to deal with it.
Information.

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 11

19. Matter of restructuring standing committees and meetings.
Mr. Vein stated that many of the items and issues that are on the agenda are construction related and process related for special assessment projects or construction projects, that in many cases timelines are critical and can work with any restructuring that takes place but in some cases consequences, that staff looked at timetables and tried to compare using current action process to what different timetables would be on projects, and under current meeting dates to do a special assessment project, takes about 7 weeks and with restructuring with committee during same week as council, looking to increase to 10 weeks, or if making modifications to current process give some authorizations to committee or have special committee meetings. He stated that this is one of many things that would happen but shows process, esp. special assessment process because of notifications and advertising. He stated another item is change orders, impacts of that, sometimes need right away. He stated another thing he wanted to bring up was there was some discussion of modifying current administrative procedures that he brought to committee 6 months ago. Much of the special assessment process is going to happen as is anyway and greatly reduce number of items on the agenda. Kreun stated that the intent of moving the committees was to make it easier access for the public input and for council members for informational gathering between time the packet was put out and the time of the council meeting.

Klave stated he doesn’t have problem with trying to bring everything within one week but concern with how the process will work, that when they looked at how to consolidate the meeting into a better time schedule, give more authority to department heads and staff; that by adding informational items makes committee more aware of items that are happening. He stated he was going to stand firm on the fact that if want to make citizen friendly, should be evening meetings - 5:00 or 5:30 not good time to start a meeting.

Glassheim stated that he has letter that Wednesday night is church night, not only for council but for the public, and agrees meetings have to be in the evening. He stated the negative of having meeting the night after council is fatigue, need breather, so would have to do it Tuesday and Thursday, two committees each night, doable; understands reason for it but not aware of any legislative body that doesn’t have committees because 90% of what we did tonight, no debate and just goes forward so have committee of 4 rather than 14 or 7 but if controversial items don’t know what they are. He stated he can work with the Tuesday/Thursday deal after council but it’s difficult and burn people out - staff and council but week to debate. Mr. Vein stated if they change scope of items on the agenda, it simplifies things much, and one advantage of two weeks is that it gives staff a week to get an agenda prepared for committee and week to prepare for council, and that is a benefit to staff.

Hoff stated that this meeting went from 7:00 and that it’s now 9:00 p.m., due math for all the meetings and unless ram things through and not give public an opportunity to speak, not have the full discussion, you will have to assume that the committee of the whole will theoretically take as long as all the other meetings added together unless something gets
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE -Page 12

missed, 2) so what if questions are asked twice during the full meeting, if get different answer the second time, have something to worry about; 3) problem is that you have part-time people in a full-time job, when people say they weren’t informed they seem to be saying you didn’t give him the information and tell him the part that was important to his agenda in a way he understood fast enough so that he could go there and oppose it or speak for it, that people want some type of reorganization but should it be the full reorganization that has been proposed; however, problem is a systemic problem - that at the current council pay of $200 every two weeks, only the very rich can serve or the very poor and very dedicated; that we should increase the salary of the council members to $20,000/yr. all current members including those who may be re-elected excluded; develop other revenue sources, such as sources talked about tonight so that not only the very rich who themselves do not appear to have time to do the job, can serve, may have to start thinking about grad. students, law students, people who are trained to develop public policy and are willing to spend all the live-long day doing it, that Wednesday night can’t be 5:00 o’clock and Wednesday night is church night.

Glassheim stated that committee of the whole would be extremely long and drawn out and don’t even know how much time it would take, likes idea of decision made by smaller group which both the public and other council people then know we’re moving toward that decision. H stated that if in committee of the whole for everything, vote on it, hard to come back to discuss it again and not have rubber stamp, likes appeal process of smaller group who might be wrong and then larger group has appeal people who get new information, etc.

Tom Hanson, WFW, stated that it is a contractor’s right not to do any work until has signed change order approved by the governing body, that they’ve managed to avoid those by having a relatively short decision within two weeks, trust between the contractor, engineers and council, and cost for that is delay changes and so far haven’t had any of those but those could occur if have delays in holding the project; that with new schedule could have 3 ½ weeks from the last decision process to the next decision process, and need to work on that if changes are made.

Hoff questioned how much time to have special meeting - could happen same day.

Glassheim stated that on the administrative procedures, every department head had proposals and asked for status on items that were to be removed from the table. It was noted that every department submitted them to the mayor who was going to try to put together a unified proposal to bring back, and would assume that was still in the mayor’s office.

Klave stated he referred to all committees because committee that acted on this matter because not all of the council people were informed that meeting was going on so knew nothing about it and handed a time-line agenda of moving forward, disagreed because not everybody on the council had that opportunity to sit in at that meeting, and if looking for
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 13

action to take back to the council floor and want to know feelings on it; that he would reject the proposal presented to council that evening because the timeline extremely fast, no sense to go from 4 committees for a month to 2 committees for a month to a committee of the whole immediately following, when this whole change of government took place they spent months with the government restructure committee determining what should be done, that vote was taken to go to a 7 person council in 2002, and nowhere seeing that meant going to a committee of the whole, move forward at a very cautious pace so that by 2002 staff and things are geared and ready to go to a 7-person committee at which time probably will work as a committee of whole - hard time seeing committee of the whole of 14 people, thinks committee structure has worked well for the city of Grand Forks and work well into the future, when it gets downsized to 7 may end up with portfolios.

Kreun stated that what everybody is saying at this point in time is we’re not ready to go forward with the aggressive schedule, to slow down and look at it and make sure all our entities are in order to accommodate all the construction people and staff, council and public.

Glassheim moved that this committee recommend that the council not adopt the committee of the whole structure, that the council retain four statutory committees, that the committees meet on Monday and Tuesday evenings of the second week following the council meeting or in the fourth or fifth week. Hoff seconded the motion.

Klave stated concern with all committees going into Monday or Tuesday night, difficult for a committee member to sit in at another committee meeting - it was suggested that he arrange with the chairman and go to that committee for that item, and items could be shifted on the agenda.

Hoff stated they could let the public be involved by televising committee, and rather than televising live, could be played for later broadcast. Klave stated that they just started televising council meetings, there was discussion re. getting a time slot with UND and would have to work with them. Hoff stated that if the public’s inability to participate and get information as an issue, then televising more of the meetings and someone coming up with a solid proposal to do that might be part of the answer. Kreun stated they are accommodating the public by having two meetings going on Tuesday night and two meetings on Monday night, and how long get minutes out of those meetings into the packets to get to the council. Klave stated the way we have been doing business has gotten information out to them.