Committee Minutes

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
Monday, August 28, 2000 - 7:10 p.m._________

Members present: Kreun, Glassheim, Hoff, Klave.

1. Matter of plans and specifications:
a) Forcemain Relocations, City Project No. 4814
Tom Hanson, WFW, reported project is for relocation of forcemains at two location where the English Coulee diversion will cross our existing forcemain, they went under that existing drainway in the diversion channel, the 16” watermain in front of Westgate Marine is also part of this project (to lower that), this is part of the dike project. Moved by Klave and Hoff to approve plans and specifications and authorize call for bids. Motion carried.

b) Salt and sand (Street Department)
Todd Feland, Public Works, reported this is a yearly basic request for bids. He stated they also went out and purchased some magnesium chloride which is mixed with iceban and melts ice at lower temperature; and no health concerns. (Hoff asked for information relative to this) Moved by Klave and Hoff to approve specifications and authorize staff to call for bids. Motion carried. (Comm. only)

2. Matter of change orders:
a) C.O. No. 1, main treatment building, Wastewater Treatment Plant, ICS, Project
No. 4371
Casey Hanson, KBM, Inc., reported change orders can be broken into 3 categories: 1) items they found they needed through the design process as constructing the building, either missed or left out; 2) items that were to be constructed and placed under this contract to expedite construction (planned under future contract but easier and cheaper to do now); 3) water-proofing issue is separate one. They need to install an elevator sump pit, $1,702.45; install elevator pit sump piping, $295.96; install sanitary sump, $3,477.02; install new style bearing pad, $1,718.21; additional ductile iron wall sleeves at tanks, $1,334.13; chemical piping, $2,768.69; and waterproofing, $6,033.62; for a total of $17,330.08. Moved by Klave and Hoff to approve change order in the amount of $17,330.08. Motion carried.

Glassheim reported present.

b) C.O. No. 2, main treatment building, Wastewater Treatment Plant, ICS, Project
No. 4371
Mr. Hanson, KBM, Inc., reviewed change order which includes plumbing, this falls under moving existing work onto this contract, that originally they had planned to bid the plumbing, mechanical and electrical together but some rearrangement of the pumps and process equipment which brought delay for the electrical design, that there is the option of bidding this plumbing as a separate contract, that he spoke to ICS and they have a master plumber on staff and qualified to do plumbing, and have submitted an estimate of $22,463.00 and time extension of 28 days in order to accomplish this work. Work will include floor drains, cleanouts and any piping that has to go underneath the slabs before they are poured, that this isn’t the entire plumbing contract but just doing what’s needed to prevent making it difficult in the future, cost is justified, time may be longer but alternative is bidding it, etc and would take longer than the 28 days. ICS has the next contract which is precast and certain amount of float time in there for shop drawings to be approved, and taking up that float time and not charging for liquidated damages, this will not delay the entire project. Moved by Hoff and Glassheim to approve the change
order in the amount of $22,463.00. Motion carried.

c) C.O. No. 1, Reactor Basin Roofs, Wastewater Treatment Plant, Peterson Construc-
tion, City Project No. 4371
Mr. Hanson, KBM, reported there are two parts to this, one is material and labor to accommodate the aluminum roof, that they took bids for a steel truss system as well as an aluminum geodesic roof, the aluminum geodesic was significantly less (about 20% less) with some modifications. He stated the other portion to the change order includes platforms and grading for actuated valves that are on the outside of the tank. The change order is in the amount of $65,938.29. Moved by Hoff and Glassheim to approve the change order. Motion carried.

d) C.O. No. 4, Baling Facility, Lunseth Plumbing and Heating, City Proj. 5086.
Tom Hanson, WFW, reported this is ventilation system changes and found design ended up with something that would be at risk during cold weather and added motorized damper, stat and capping of the openings to make this work, $1,887.00. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to approve the change order in the amount of $1,887.00. Motion carried.

e) C.O. No. 5, Baling Facility, Samson Electric, City Proj. 5086.
Mr. Hanson, WFW, reported they found there were no outlets in the mechanical room or the fire protection room and are needed for normal maintenance activity, adds four outlets in each of the two rooms. Mr. Hanson stated that a lot of the problems they’ve had on this project were because of the exhilarated schedule. Moved by Glassheim and Klave to approve the change order in the amount of $1,230.51. Motion carried.

f) C.O. No. 1, Water Meter Replacement, USI, City Proj. 4830. (attachment)
Nick Weisenberger, Advanced Engineering, stated this is final change order and required to adjust quantities (installed quantities vs. bid quantities); and the other portion of the change order is the transfer of materials to the water distribution shop, total net increase of the change order is $72,769.62, which creates a final contract price of $2,656,715.97, and requested that the change order be approved. Moved by Klave and Hoff to approve the change order in the amount of $72,769.62. Motion carried.

g) C.O. No. 8, Baling Facility, Construction Engineers, Project No. 5086.
Hoff asked if it was procedurally proper to add items to the agenda [g)] by the committee chair, if any requirement for notification. K.Vein stated there was none that he is aware of at committee level.

Mr. Hanson, WFW, stated that the balers were determined by bidding at an exact location which were from what was planned, several more columns needed protection from the equipment pushing the bales into the conveyors, the final arrangement of the exit tables from the balers required protection of the column from the equipment that’s handling the bales in that area, and 3 bollards 32” high to protect fire protection nozzles. Cost $11,034.00. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to approve the change order. Mr. Hanson stated information was distributed at this meeting, that he received prices after 4:00 p.m. on Friday. Hoff stated he set precedent that he won’t vote to approve items that are put in front of him at the meeting, and will have to abstain on this. Motion carried; Hoff abstained.

10. Matter of Almonte home acquisition.
It was noted that they had asked Pastor Stark to come to the meeting to update committee on concerns on the Almonte home, that the City would like to proceed in a manner to acquire that property so it can be taken for demolition so that when the dike project is starting would be able to do that in a timely manner. Mike Yavarow stated that he would assume that the City will be authorizing the city attorney to give notice within the month to the nursing home, and would have to close within 90 days. Mr. Vein stated this is in the first phase of the levee construction scheduled for bid in April and we have to have all R/W certified in advance; would look at acquiring and going through demolition. It was noted that there is extensive abatement prior to demolition (asbestos materials), and have the documentation.

Chairman Kreun asked Pastor Wayne Stark for an update on their dealings with FEMA.

Pastor Stark stated that within the last couple months they mailed a packet to each of the council members. He stated that at the last meeting in June the Flood Prevention Committee brought forward a motion to the council which recommended that the Almonte facility be regarded as a skilled nursing facility in need of repair rather than it’s present designation as shell building awaiting renovation (pre-flood value vs. post-flood value). They also stipulated in that motion that it would be the pre-flood value less any settlements from the FEMA and other insurance that was attributed back to the loss of the Almonte property, so it would net out to a certain amount. He stated they have had an appraisal done previous to all of this for FEMA which they were requested to do and which FEMA paid for, an expert appraiser of health care properties appraised the building at $3,355,000, less the approx. $1.5 million that is assigned by FEMA and insurance proceeds, and comes out to approx. $2.2 million; that they do not believe that the FEMA settlement is either fair or adequate, and are now in their third phase of asking FEMA to reconsider that, have followed administrative procedure, and have now approached Senator Conrad (and Jim Hand who mans his office in Grand Forks) and that is the step they are taking in their third go-around with FEMA. FEMA asked them to gather myriad’s of information which they did, using professional people who only do that kind of work; that they put together numerous reports which were not taken seriously even though at their request. It is as though they have arrived at a number and whatever else information comes in new, which they have requested, is either ignored or shelved, and a very complete report that they provided to FEMA a year in July has not even been reviewed; and Senator’s Office was not pleased with that information, and may bring some things to the table.

Pastor Stark asked Garth Rydland, Adm. Asst., to talk about where we need to go and would they would like to have in terms of the relationship with the City in this matter.

Mr. Rydland stated that the complexity of their situation totally is dependent on the timelines, the timelines of acquisition are within 120 days, their ability to affect FEMA to come to a better settlement within 120 days is somewhat limited but to have a deadline should move things along. He stated they anticipate a better settlement from FEMA than $1.4 million and doing everything they can to do that, that their success in the long run is to be able to acquire the amount of resources that would be the pre-flood value for the Almonte Living Center, that he thinks it’s a fair request to the City, and that’s what’s going to be before the city council at some point. Mr. Vein read the motion of the Flood Protection Committee: ..” to authorize the purchase of Valley Memorial Homes - Almonte, valued at a skilled nursing facility less insurance recoveries by Valley Memorial and that we encourage the Corps of Engineers to accept valuation of the facility as a skilled nursing facility for flood protection purposes.”; and stated that’s what’s back before the committee at this point. Mr. Rydland stated they have to figure out a way to get Senator Conrad to expedite our feelings with FEMA, and have a meeting set up between 5th and 8th at Senator Conrad’s Office (Jim Hand); still have a $2 million discrepancy between what FEMA says and what our estimates say. It’s a theoretical exercise of what really was the damage to the building, can’t prove that it was damaged until you replace it and caught between FEMA saying that’s not damaged and would restore that, and that last package they presented to FEMA had no upper level damage, it had a lot of restoration included and the amount of that was approx. $3.5 million to restore the Almonte Living Center to its pre-flood status; and it’s our engineers vs. their engineers and somehow have to come to a point that is acceptable to both parties, not there and going to run out of time and there won’t be a building, they have the ability to stall this, and that will be absolutely traumatic to the future of Valley Memorial Homes if they can’t resolve this in a manner that’s going to allow them the time to settle this in a fair fashion. He noted that there was a $250,000 advance out of Urban Development funds to allow them to pay for the interest accruing on a $2.6 million loan they have taken out against the proceeds of the sale of the building; that was the spring-board of allowing them to build 4000 Valley Square; that they have expended $325,000 on interest carrying that $2.6 million loan, 3 ½ years of interest.

Mr. Vein stated that the City can pay them whatever value we want, the idea was to make it all part of our cost for our match for the flood protection project. Mr. Yavarow stated that the Corps will pay only what the appraised use of the building by the City’s appraiser - $100,000. It was noted that if the building had been repaired at cost of approx. $2.5 million and would get $2.5 to buy it out - Pastor Stark stated they were encouraged to do that - and total expenditure would be over $7.5 million because it would take $3.5 to repair and the value of that facility at this point would be $4 million in the year 2000, and thought at not repairing/replacing were doing a service to the City, State and federal level, but in fact slipped through the cracks of every program because they didn’t repair and didn’t know that was their only option. Mr. Vein stated that the motion does say to encourage the Corps of Engineers to accept the valuation of the facility and this would have the council endorsement to take to the Corps.

Bob Kerr, Vice Chairman of Valley Memorial Homes Board, stated at their meeting whether to go ahead with Valley 4000 after what happened to Almonte, that decision was made by the Board on basic commitments or verbal commitments from the City and from FEMA or certainly wouldn’t have approved a $25 million project, were comfortable at that time with what they had, and now concerned - that lot of the people they lost in this community were the elderly people, and have one of the finest facilities to get people back - that they went through request for the 3 buyout sessions for the City - now heard that they didn’t qualify and time’s over; that they submitted for all 3 requests, never heard a formal official word and then hearing that building has been appraised at $100,000, and have no options. He stated that later he heard that the Flood Protection Committee voted on motion and now back in the ballpark with no reason what happened in the interim; and then new council members asked that it be tabled and back to square one. Mr. Kerr stated this is placing some severe financial burdens on Valley Memorial and the Foundation and the operation.

Chairman Kreun stated they wanted an update on status and apparently not much has changed, and to indicate that we are going to go forward with the process of taking the building so that they can do the dike; and not intent tonight to solve the financial difficulties or differences that we have but to update us, and after they resolve or meet with Mr. Conrad’s office and find out what that situation is, will have to be resolved whether it’s the responsibility of the City or FEMA.

Glassheim asked what sequences are and recourses. Mr. Vein stated that as a requirement of the project the City is required to acquire all these properties at their current market value; that there are certain certified Corps appraisers who do the appraisals for these properties, the appraiser in this instance deemed this as a shell facility and in some ways might have a negative value because cost more to tear it down than it is sitting as a shell; that if we follow our process to acquire this facility to have it demolished and have the land ready for next year’s construction, we are going to offer them the current market value, that they will be getting a notice shortly - within a month and it’s a 90 day notice. Mr. Vein stated that the motion before them was that we can always offer them more and the request here is that we do offer them more. Mr. Yavarow stated that the appraiser appraised this as the highest and best use - they determined as a shell building - Corps approved appraiser and City hired the appraiser.

There were questions re. to settle with Valley Memorial prior to settlement with FEMA; Mr. Vein stated they didn’t want to impact that settlement with FEMA - the idea was to exhaust all avenues with FEMA before the City stepped in and City could do what want to do. Pastor Stark stated that the best possible scenario - that they are saying that FEMA owes them $3.5 million because they would have paid at least that much to refurbish that building without a doubt (believe it’s closer to $4 million), and in that case the City’s share would drop down to about $250,000 - their goal is to get as much from FEMA as can and the City of Grand Forks would not be held responsible for any more than helping them to reach an attainable value so they can meet their obligations, and that’s what they are requesting. Mr. Kerr stated there are two totally separate issues - legal ramifications at this point is that Valley Memorial stands to get $100,000 and that’s it; the other issue is working more based on what FEMA does.

Mr. Vein stated there are a lot of concerns about who’s responsible for this facility - the City or FEMA - and FEMA has been playing this since the levee alignment went through and City was going to have to acquire so they stood away from it - and City said no, this is whether the dike goes through or not and based on the damages and should be a FEMA funded scenario and that’s where it’s been back and forth, and when gets to the bottom line, we are going to purchase that at it’s current value according to the Corps of Engineers guidelines and would like to see FEMA pay for this facility as any others but they did not and we are still expecting them to follow through and that’s why it has been delayed from one meeting to another in hopes that would have played out, that they still haven’t had the meetings and tried to take FEMA to that next level.

Chairman Kreun stated he wanted to bring this issue up so there is no miscommunication that at this point in time - the value is $100,000 and will go forward with that, but there still is the other issue to bring to the full council to rectify or come to agreement between FEMA and the City. It was noted that there is a motion which will go back to council. Klave asked if this matter should be continued by council for two weeks until after they meet with Conrad’s office. Valley Memorial reps. asked to be informed of anything happening and they were asked to communicate with Mike Yavarow re. date and times, and other information. Pastor Stark asked if the motion will be lifted and postponed again; and it was stated that if their meeting does not come prior to that with enough information. Mr. Vein stated they are going to have a discussion with Conrad’s office and that’s only the beginning of the process, can table for two weeks, but won’t resolve in two weeks and could be tabled again and again. Pastor Stark stated if that proceeds to happen, they will need to ask the City to take the risk and join arms with them, knowing that on the basis of their institutional integrity, personal integrity and mission of Valley Memorial Homes, that they can’t be doing this in December. Mr. Vein stated that when they go to FEMA and it is known by FEMA that the City is only giving $100,000 for this facility, it may reinforce their position with them; and then the City at any point in time can give a larger amount.

Pastor Stark stated they serve 488 units on 3 campuses, have brought in excess of 100
people into the community who never lived here before, they expanded their service base by about 30%, that once they are up and fully moving will provide considerable tax base because lot of the property is taxed because it is housing and not health care; approx. $15 million in payroll; this provides a lot of money that floats into the community; also the health system benefits greatly because these people are high end users of health care; and what they are doing is solidifying pieces under regional health care in Grand Forks. Info.

11. Matter of composting update.
Mike Shea, environment coordinator, stated City building new wastewater treatment plant, that it’s a mechanical plant and all mechanical plants create biosolids, and these solids have to be disposed of or treated in specific way because regulated by EPA; that he reviewed option included in the Memo that would be available to the City for disposing of biosolids, including costs and pros and cons of the options:
a) Anaerobic Digestion with Land Application - est. cost $30 million
They are very labor intensive, no flexibility in this process (can only treat biosolids).
b) Incineration, co-disposal of municipal solid waste and biosolids - est. cost $40 million
Solves municipal solid waste problem, but extremely high capital costs, and have product at the end that has to be disposed of (ash), for every 10 tons burned generate 1 ton of ash to landfill someplace, have to meet Clean Air Standards with incinerator stack.

Note: He stated they had a meeting with the State Health Dept., Burns & McDonnell via telephone, Airport Authority, Mr. Kreun; and discussed options - that our landfill permit runs out in November of this year, FAA is holding all the cards and it is their determina-tion whether or not the Health Dept. will extend our current landfill permit, completely up to them; he stated with proposed landfill site will probably go to court to site the landfill in Turtle River Twp. and that could take approx. 3 years, assuming that we win, would then have two years to construct and probably 5 years out from having new landfill. Chairman Kreun stated that the Health Dept. writes the permits and they will take strong recom-mendations from the FAA, and the FAA will not allow us to continue using the existing landfill. Mr. Shea stated if they allow us, they are taking a risk and so is the State Health Dept., that if we have a problem with birds they could close us down immediately. He stated best possibility is to continue on where we are, make it a one year extension and FAA is going to be looking very closely at what doing to mitigate this whole situation; can’t stop what doing and hope you get more out of your current landfill; Mr. Kreun stated if we stop what we are going they will give us a cease and desist order; and we have to continue with some method of alternative landfill. Mr. Feland stated they will be meeting with FAA and Health Department in Bismarck tomorrow, and would provide info. to committee at the end of the week.

c) Landfilling as alternative - est. cost $15 to $20 million
Based on similar facility to our solids plant at the water treatment plant, would have to dry biosolids, and truck to the landfill. (10 to 15 truckloads, has odor, and filling up landfill faster plus putting gas collection in the landfill because of organics.
d) Surface Disposal - est. cost unknown
Looked at this option and this is our temporary solution to the solids, once they get plant going next year and State Health Dept. only approved that for 3 years, and they are making a mess that he can’t estimate what it’s going to take to clean up.
e) Composting - est. cost $6-12 million
This seemed to be most attractive solution depending on how much cooperation we get from everyone as to source separation, and may have to put in facility next to the baling facility to separate. He stated in talking with Dick Newman, they figured they had 80% of the municipal solid waste coming to the landfill that was either compostable or recyclable. Composting creates a much better end product, gives you class A biosolids, site restrictions not included and could market on a bulk basis or bag it and sell it. He stated they’ve run about 15 batches of compost a day, used sludge from JR Simplot Co., done some greenhouse tests and had increases in dry matter, root mass, etc. and still waiting for data to come in from the field trials; and that they should have the study completed by the end of this year. He stated that the future of landfilling, that MN has proposed legislation to start in year 2008, that they would no longer accept trash in their landfills that could be reused, recycled, composted or burned for fuel in an incinerator; Iowa followed suit; and you can see if we do get to site this landfill, it may be your last one. He stated they need to start now and look at developing options. Information.

12. -Status of Charles Flink contract.
Mr. Vein reported this was referred back at last council meeting to committee to discuss a little bit about the amount of money that had been spent on Charles Flink (Greenways, Inc.) - this will be going to the finance committee. Copies of the amendments and the original contract were provided for the public service committee members; along with the tasks that were needed to be completed.

Lisa Dressler stated that to date the total paid Mr. Flink, $208,912.05, that with the current contract which is the Amend. 3 portion, the cost remaining to be completed at $50,840.00;

Moved by Hoff and Glassheim to receive and file the information. Motion carried.

13. Matter of pedestrian walkway bridge.
Mr. Vein reported they received the copy this morning from Barr Engineering, Mpls., they looked at 3 alternatives in the Barr report; 2 would be saving the ped. bridge, reusing it as a ped. bridge and 3rd option was to look at a new high-water bridge. The basics are to look at different cost comparisons. He stated that the estimates are very rough - the negotiated cost of demolition of $450,000, which is what the Corps has already negotiated for the demolition of the bridge, and under contract with construction scheduled to start after Labor Day; he stated that one of the other estimates they had previously was to look at a low water crossing, but would be higher than the designed flow, and would have to do demolition of the existing crossing plus construction of a new bridge, est. at about $700,000, cost about $1.15 million. He stated that the next 3 items were studied in the report and if try to save the bridge would raise about 6.6’ and under the first scenario would look at using the existing the piers, cost structurally to do that would be about $1.9 million. He stated mitigating the upstream impact, that this has not been validated by the Corps and made some assumptions in talking with both the Corps and Barr of about $500,000; and in the maintenance they did include the cost of painting it but there’s lead-based paint and to sandblast there were be a containment system, number of $200,000 and that could vary, and they were hiring a consultant to help with the containment system on the Point Bridge when going through that estimate; total cost $2.6 million. He stated to save the bridge where they would raise it 6.6’, but use new piers vs. old and cross sectional area reduced a little and better flow characteristics, and upstream mitigation impacts is less under that but structural costs are more, $3.1 million, using about $200,000 for containment system, and cost there about $3.6 million. He stated that if they removed the bridge and put a new bridge, high-water bridge, structural which includes demolition, $2.2 million, mitigating the upstream impacts about $200,000.

Mr. Vein stated that under the Notes in the Report, the containment system costs are very rough and need to be verified, mitigation of upstream impacts are rough and need to be verified, costs do not include any termination costs that would be there for the project that is under contract, and were told today they could request the information of the contractor but it would take some time to get the exact information, could vary from $5,000 to 60 or 70% - wide variation. He stated in saving the bridge if used existing pier system there are some life cycle costs that would have to be considered because those have potential of fair amount of maintenance involved. He stated that the current plan is for the bridge to be removed and although studying the replacement of the bridge, there is nothing in the current plan to replace the bridge downtown, that they’ve heard that a bridge is necessary downtown, talked to the Corps about the idea that if removed it should be replaced and a part of the project, that apparently is not acceptable to them, that we can do it and would be a betterment.

Mr. Vein stated another thing they would have to take into consideration is to work with the City of East Grand Forks on whatever solution is proposed; Dean Wieland was there today representing the City of East Grand Forks, that they want a high-water crossing downtown but would need to hear from Mayor Stauss directly, and that they are not very interested in the maintenance costs of the old bridge, but that would come with the territory if that were the choice. Mr. Vein stated that this is informational, and under his spending authority authorized this study to be done under the $5,000 limit and it’s at a very preliminary level.

It was noted that a rep. of the Corps (at meeting of Corps and city council at noon today) stated that if the City gets to the point of deciding to terminate the bridge contract, that they would share in absorbing the cost. Mrs. Triplett stated that whichever of these selections other than the first one, can obviously subtract out the cost of demolition as a comparison. Klave noted that they would still have to pay the mitigation to the contractor to dissolve the contract, and have no idea of what that number would be. Mrs. Triplett stated that after the noon meeting was over she talked to reps. of the Corps of Engineers about whether it was really necessary to do the bridge removal relative to the rest of the project, they stated it wouldn’t matter at all to them, the could do it next year as well; and suggested requesting the Corps of Engineers to put off executing the contract until June of next year and other options require more extensive study. Mr. Vein stated they could do within that date depending on funding available from the council for continuing to do the additional study, or what they can get from the Corps. Mrs. Triplett stated that a rep. of the Corps stated that only the contracting officer from the Corps of Engineers had the right to make the call. She stated that her request would be that this committee put forward a recommendation to the council that asks the Corps of Engineers to do what needs to be done to put it off at least until next spring.

Chairman Kreun stated he would like to know if it’s going to be feasible for us to look at one of these other options, the condition of the existing bridge, lot of renovation and is the cost to be shared with East Grand Forks, that is it better to try to save it or better to take a new bridge, destroy this one and work with the betterment situation and share with East Grand Forks.

Mrs. Triplett stated there is value in the existing bridge from the historical perspective; there are values to having the bridge there functioning as a bikepath and pedestrian path, that she thinks there are significant values to that bridge as history, and the fact that its also functional is something that they ought to celebrate. Chairman Kreun asked if they can’t stop this, what is next best step from her perspective. Mrs. Triplett stated there is no next best step, if the bridge is gone, then the City has lost a piece of its history and thinks the City has given up enormous quantities of its history already as a result of this flood.

Some discussion re. fund raising to cover some of the costs (maintenance, etc.) if the bridge were saved. Mrs. Triplett stated they needed to have a commitment on the part of the council to put off destruction of it before it’s worth doing. Glassheim questioned the restoring of the mechanism for moving bridge; Mrs. Triplett stated she had discussed that with Lisa Hedin who stated that wasn’t a possibility, wouldn’t even talk to them about it.

Moved by Glassheim and Hoff to change this from an informational item to an action item. Motion carried.

Moved by Glassheim and Hoff that we request the Corps of Engineers to get estimated prices for a) delay for 9 months and b) termination of the contract and to report back. Motion carried; Klave voted against the motion.

RECESS

Chairman Kreun called for a 5-minute recess.

9. Matter of request from Grand Cities Committee to paint the new water tower being constructed near DeMers Avenue with their new brand, logo and slogan for the community.______________________________________________________________
John Snustad, Grand Cities Committee, stated he wasn’t coming with a formal request but wanted to give committee information re. putting logo/slogan on the tower, that they’ve been working for a number of years on a community-wide marketing project that ties all the different people that market the cities together (Grand Forks, East Grand Forks and Airport) and that’s culminating on September 25 where have a press conference and invite number of contributors, city council members, county commissioners and at that time have a recruitment brochure, their website will be operational, and have an 800 number, so people will have a single point of contact to find out information about the city; that they will be coming back with a formal presentation once that logo is made known. Mr. Vein stated cost of putting logo on the tower is approx. $10,000, but would have to verify that; he stated he didn’t think there’s going to be an opportunity to do that this year - it will be painted and into service this year which is a requirement of CDBG. Mr. Grasser stated they talked to the contractor today for timetable: exterior done by September 11, can work on inside longer than the outside because don’t have to deal with rain, etc. and probably finish the last week of September with interior. Mr. Vein stated they would have to add more time for logo, would have to add stencil and be some timing issues here. The committee stated they will keep this in mind. Information.

3. Matter of bids for surplus property.
a) 3137 E. Elmwood
Mike Yavarow stated they called for bids for 3 homes and received bids on one of the houses - 3137 E. Elmwood with high bid from Ron Hanson at $5500; and the other two houses that were up for bid today were 1605 Riverside and 1205 Lincoln, both of those houses were historic but items stripped out of 1205 Lincoln over the last couple years, and 1605 Riverside in same condition since the flood, houses too big to move out of the neighborhoods and those two houses will be demolished. Moved by Glassheim and Klave to award the bid for 3137 E. Elmwood to Ron Hanson. Motion carried.

b) Demolition - 317 South 3rd Street
Mr. Yavarow stated there were 3 properties that were condemned several months ago, 2 of the properties were on the dry side of the dike and third property was 317 S. 3rd Street, antique store which is on the historic register but because it was condemned it can be demolished by the City, cost will be assessed to the property, been trying to buy this property but title not too clear, there were 4 bids on the property, that low bid was $5,000, and committee has authorization to go to $10,000. City pays tipping fees. Moved by Glassheim and Hoff to authorize proceeding with award to Robinson Excavating for the demolition of 317 South 3rd Street. Motion carried. Comm. action only.

c) 3801, 3 and 5 Belmont Road, and 505 Maple Avenue
Mr. Yavarow stated later this week the City will own the above properties, houses were totaled, and would like authorization to declare these properties as surplus and to demolish the buildings. Moved by Klave and Hoff to approve. Motion carried.

4. Matter of Project Concept Report for Paving Proj. 5112, Intersection Study at DeMers Avenue and Washington Street._______________________________________________
Held in committee.

5. Matter of plans and specifications for various projects:
a) Proj. 5111, Intersection Improvements at S. 34th St./17th Ave. S. and at S. 20th St./24th Ave. S.
Dan Jonasson, traffic engineer, reported plans prepared by consultant, Interstate Engineering, DOT moved up the completion date and have to have in by September 1 and they will hold until council approves or won’t get funding for the intersections. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to approve plans and specifications and authorize to call for bids at appropriate time. Motion carried.

b) Proj. 5089, Paving N. Washington St. from 8th Ave. to Gateway Dr.
Mark Lambrecht, CPS, Ltd., reported they drew the plans for this project for NDDOT in cooperation with the City Engineering staff, had several public meetings in November and April, had personal contact with the property owners. He stated that the northbound lane of North Washington was built in 1952 and southbound in 1956 and now because of condition will be completely rebuilt, the project includes new storm sewer, aggregate base and new concrete paving, includes bikepath on the west side of the street, good safety improvements and will include raised medians with left turn lanes, and go back up side streets a short distance and try to bring the intersection in at a 90 degree angle for improvement of visibility. He stated they will pulverize the old pavement and use it as gravel base for the new pavement; the curve at 8th will be changed to a curve that has a 40 mph design speed so it will be smooth even though the posted speed limit will remain at 30 mph. This project will be bid in November of this year through the State DOT for construction during 2001 and street will be rebuilt in halves so traffic will be maintained. He stated there is about a $3 million cost in total for this project, and been carried in the City’s CIP over the years, is a 80-10-10% funding split (80 % federal aid highway funds, and 10% State funds and 10% City funds). Mr. Grasser stated funding source has been Highway Users.

Mr. Lambrecht reported there was a storm sewer study in the north end of town that identified extensive improvements to the storm sewer and this project was viewed as an economical way to accomplish upgrading the storm sewer system to be able to take a lot of the northend’s drainage and at council’s direction incorporated that into the project, and has not been totally determined as to the cost split but NDDOT has been very cooperative and now at the point of negotiating the funding split between the State and City for that enhancement, and that will be an entirely a City share, and might be more expensive than originally estimated, but that’s because sewer would take quite a bit of water. He stated that the outfall line to the Red River had a lot of capacity that the City engineering staff directed them to make the line as big as possible and in some cases design was for about 36” pipe and ended up able to have capacity for a 54” pipe. He stated that with this quite a substantial part of that drainage area can be diverted to take its water this way - the basic facilities will be in place to be able to do that - there will be leads out to the edge of the project so that future projects could tap in. He stated they will have baseline costs est. for what the storm sewer system would have cost, and then the incremental amount would be a City betterment. He stated this will come back to committee in the form of a cost participation and maintenance agreement with the DOT. Mr. Lambrecht stated that the DOT is handling the design and administer the construction phase, and City will receive a bill for the City’s share.

Moved by Klave and Hoff to approve plans and specifications and authorize appropriate party for bidding. Motion carried.

c) Proj. 5139 and 5141, Rehabilitate Pump Station No. 26 and No. 12
Tom Hanson, WFW, reported this is on-going process of updating and rehabbing stations, City does a couple each year, bidding together to save some costs. Moved by Klave and Hoff to approve plans and specifications and authorize appropriate parties to call for bids. Motion carried.

6. Matter of consideration of construction bids for various projects:
a) Proj. 5064, Landfill Closure Phase III
Tom Hanson, WFW, reported 14 bids received, one bid not opened because didn’t contain contractor’s license renewal certificate, included application but not what was required by law. Moved by Klave and Glassheim to return bid of Veit & Company, Inc. for failure to meet specifications of bid. Motion carried.

Moved by Klave and Glassheim to accept the low bid of Gowan Construction in the amount of $917,481.70. Motion carried.

b) Proj. 5148, Intersection Improvements at 32nd Ave./S. 34th St. and at 32nd Ave./S. 38th St.
Mr. Jonasson reported 4 bids received August 14; Engineer’s estimate was $277,000 and low bidder was Nodak at $287,981.85. Moved by Klave and Hoff to accept the low bid of Nodak Contracting in the amount of $287,981.85. Motion carried.

7. Matter of Change Orders for various projects:
a) Proj. 4698, Storm Pumping Station at the Industrial Park, C. O. No. 2