Committee Minutes

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
Monday, December 11, 2000 - 7:00 p.m.

Members present: Kreun, Glassheim, Stevens; Klave absent.

8. Logo for Central Business District water tower.
John Snustad, chairman of the Grand Cities Committee, and Tim Burke were present. Mr. Snustad stated the committee is an amalgamation of all the marketing groups in town to build a positive brand to market the regional audience, that they wanted to build a logo identity and main effort is going to be the market regionally within 300 miles of the Grand Cities trying to attract residents, new employers, new students, shoppers to town and tell the great story that’s going on here, and had asked the committee to consider the possibility of putting the Grand Cities brand and name, slogan if see fit, on the DeMers Avenue new tower as a great landmark symbol icon of the “grand cities”. He stated that it’s a high traffic area and speaks to the great things that are coming in our future and the beautiful downtown area that has been developed. He stated that since the “grand cities” brand has been kicked off has taken off more locally than thought it would.

Mr. Burke stated that at this point they have not approached East Grand Forks but would expect to approach and ask them to do the same thing or find another way to display the logo and name as well. He stated that in the past the City has been a part of the funding for activity but is not going to be in this coming year and think this would be a positive way for the City of Grand Forks to participate on a continuing basis in the branding effort. The number of entities involved in hiring the agency to develop this were members of both Chambers of Commerce, both cities, both economic development groups, the regional Airport Authority, Altru, University of North Dakota and Convention & Visitors Bureau.

Mr. Snustad stated that Hugo’s is using logo on their paper bags and different businesses are using it in their ads, the media has been very receptive, and rather than saying East Grand Forks, Mn and Grand Forks, ND can shorten that to Grand Cities and talking about attributes of both towns and fits into weather and news items and been adopted very favorably.

The question was raised as to whether they would participate in the price of painting of the water tower. Mr. Grasser reported that staff looked into it and est. $10,000. Mr. Snustad stated they would consider any suggestion that the committee would make, but would rather that it be the City’s second and third year’s contribution from the City; the City put in $5,000 from year one.

Glassheim stated he hasn’t been taking well to the advertising campaign - resents reading in the newspaper things are called “grand cities” when there’s weather report, think the name of the town has been usurped and doesn’t like it - that it’s an advertising ploy - pretentious - starting to see letters to the editor and would really like to see a vote of the people if we’re going to call this the “grand cities” - that to put “Grand Cities” on a city water tower when there is no such entity - and doesn’t think it’s a good idea.

Mr. Burke stated that the people who object to this the most are the elderly - felt that they needed a name that drew from what was already there and that was “grand” and needed a name that dealt with the two communities because it was the two communities working together - not one community; that they’re not changing the name of Grand Forks or East Grand Forks - that it is a marketing ploy but ploy belittles the goal here - it is a way to talk about the two communities together to people outside - trying to associate a sense of achievement and opportunity and future here with that idea in a way that is easy to communicate and still serves the heritage of the names of this community.
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 2

Mr. Staley reported that when they worked on the southend tower, did work with water tower consultants, that there are a lot of dynamics and have to have someone who knows water tower graphics, and suggested having somebody whose knowledgeable . Mr. Burke suggested dealing with concept before spending any money, but can decide whether appropriate to use the logo before spending money on consultants. Steve Burian, A/E, suggested doing as change order (if approved).
Mr. Snustad thinks next 90 days will be important for public acceptance and feedback, might want to welcome public debate in March or February.

Moved by Stevens to direct engineering department staff to investigate using the “Grand Cities” logo on the Central Business District water tower, refine costs and do a mockup of how this will fit on the tower. Kreun seconded the motion. Motion carried; Glassheim voted against the motion.

9. Logo for the southend water tower.
John Staley, Park District, presented copy of logo for the southend water tower - and stated he hadn’t done any research with contractor and expenses, that they would like to put logo on the water tower and would be good advertising and location of the course; that the Park District board would like to do it and have opportunity to do it - billboard in the air - that this is a promotional item. He stated that if the committee is interested in working with them on it, he will send that info to the contractor (graphic artist) and ask them what they can do with it and bring it back to committee. Kreun stated he hasn’t heard any negative comments on the King’s Walk logo. Moved by Glassheim and Stevens to recommend support of the addition of the King’s Walk logo to the southend water tower, with Park District to investigate and bring information back to committee for consideration. Motion carried.

Mr. Grasser stated their first choice is to work with the existing contractor and try to do as a change order.

Chairman Kreun stated that as they are going through the agenda with all the backup material on each item, and would like committee members to consider whether they want or need all that information (copies of contracts, etc.) or only a summary.

1. 2001 chemical bid approval for water treatment plant.
It was noted that bids are done on an annual basis and vary for prerequisites for acceptable bidders based on plant trials, product quality and packaging availability for the water treatment plant. Mr. Feland noted that on spread sheet the bid for cationic polymer are delivered in totes rather than drums (300 gal. vs. 55 gal.) and totes reusable. Moved by Stevens and Glassheim to accept the low bids (per attached summary) of chemicals for water plant for 2001. Motion carried.

2. Engineering service agreement on City Proj. No. 5218, Inert Landfill Permit.
Mr. Feland stated that at the last landfill site meeting they explained that they were seeking some permits in the area east of the existing solid waste landfill to keep that for the solid waste, and this would allow them to enter into an agreement for scope of services with Webster, Foster & Weston to do that - they would use the existing money that was set aside in that contract in order to put together the documents and info. to the Health Department for the City. It was noted that the original contract was $60,150.00 and used only $18,235 and are basically going to expend the same amount of money and get more work done. Mr. Feland stated they have a parcel of land that they can’t move laterally for a solid waste landfill but next best option would be to make that an inert landfill (that’s not bird attractant) and remove inert material that’s going to the existing solid waste landfill and move that to the adjacent property in order to preserve space and lengthen our life - 2
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 3

to 3 years. Moved by Glassheim and Stevens to authorize entering into an agreement with Webster, Foster & Weston for engineering services. Motion carried. (Committee stated copy of the attached agreement was not necessary - summary okay if variations pointed out.)

3. Construction bids for City Project #5111 - Traffic Signals and Intersection Improvements at
17th Avenue and 34th Street and 24th Avenue._________________________________________
Mr. Grasser stated there was an extensive list of background on the cost participation, main-tenance agreements - applicable items on last pages where see bidders summary for the project; that this is a DOT project and are applying Urban funds to this - 80% federal participation; low bidder is Fargo Electric and recommended award. Moved by Glassheim and Stevens to award contract to the low bidder, Fargo Electric, Inc., in the amount of $358,824.10. Motion carried.

4. Construction engineering services on City Project No. 5111 - Traffic signals and Intersection
Improvements at 17th Avenue and 34th Street and 24th Avenue.__________________________
Mr. Grasser stated this is agreement for construction engineering which includes inspections, reports, etc.; and engineering firm is Interstate Engineering which did the concept report and plans and specifications; and this is part of the overall costs and eligible for the 80% participation. Moved by Glassheim and Stevens to authorize entering into an agreement with Interstate Engineering, Inc. for constructions services on Projects 5111.1 and 5111.2 in an amount not to exceed $25,000.45. Motion carried.

5. Budget amendment (Engineering - $4,900)
Mr. Grasser stated they are requesting to take some funding out of cash carryover account, had various expenditures that over ran their normal budget (advertising for various engineering positions) using national magazines and more extensive use of regional newspapers. Moved by Glassheim and Stevens to approve the budget amendment. Motion carried.

6. Construction bids for City Project No. 4974 - construction of 17th Avenue South Bikeway from
35th Street to 25th Street.____________________________________________________________
Mr. Grasser stated that the bikepath is on 17th Avenue South and goes from west of 34th Street at Oddessy Circle and east to 25th Street - entrance to Purpur Arena (original scope was to take it to Red River) and negotiated scope of the project to meet budgetary constraints and is being paid for with Transportation Enhancement dollars, and because using federal dollars it was bid by NDDOT, low bidder was Opp Construction; that they may be coming in for some engineering amendments on the project, engineering amendments are not cost participating on Transportation Enhancement projects; State pays 80% except engineering and any right of way or relocation. It was noted that low bid is under the engineer’s estimate. Mr. Glassheim questioned whether the bikeway could be lengthened (as cut off several blocks to meet dollar amounts); Mr. Grasser stated he doubted that they could lengthen the project but would check on that.

Moved by Glassheim and Stevens to award the contract to the low bidder, Opp Construction, in the amount of $128,795.84 to be City funded per Cost Participation and Maintenance Agreement with the North Dakota Department of Transportation. Motion carried.

It was noted there is some underground work near Century School (by one of the tele-communications companies - Mr. Grasser stated they have concern and make sure that we take care of any backfill issues before putting concrete down - companies putting cabling all over town and don’t have any control over it - the authority these people are working under is coming out of federal legislation). He noted they have received a number of complaints - committee questioned
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 4

whether they are keeping file on any complaints, etc. re. cable so when next extension to the franchise comes up will have specific items to discuss. Mr. Grasser stated they don’t have good information data system for that yet but one of the things they are working on.

7. Construction bids for City Project No. 5089 - Reconstruction of North Washington Street from
8th Avenue North to Gateway Drive.__________________________________________________
Mr. Grasser reported that this is a DOT project and is being funded with regional monies because of classification of the street - 80% federal, 10% State and 10% local; the lead agency is the NDDOT and our action would be to concur in the award; that the City’s share is estimated at $337,097.00 plus $118,000 local funding that we decided to add into the project to do some storm sewer upsizing to address some of the storm sewer issues west of Washington and east of 20th Street as they have some significant drainage problems out there. Mr. Grasser stated that the decision was not to create a special assessment district but use money out of regular funding (Highway Users). Moved by Glassheim and Stevens to concur with the North Dakota Department of Trans-portation in the award of the contract to the low bidder, Opp Construction, in the amount of $2,037,063.65. Motion carried.

10. Amendment #11 to Greater Forks Engineering Group for in-kind survey services; City
Projects Nos. 4820 and 4821.___________________________________________________
Mr. Grasser reported that the City is responsible for land acquisition and doing utility relocates, that year or two ago the City advertised for services to do that type of work and Greater Forks Engineering Group got the survey work and KBM ended up with street relocation type work. He stated that once the Corps gives their final alignment and identifies the property that needs to be acquired, they turn that over to the City for acquisition and part of that process is to survey and identify that parcel, an appraisal process and negotiate out the actual acquisition, and this is service to do the actual surveying and the land descriptions so that process can proceed.

Mike Yavarow, engineer, reported we have two projects - one is to provide surveying needs on the English Coulee part of the project (for baling facility and 4.5 miles south) and other part is on the levee project in town levees and what happens when they get southeast of town will address later on. He stated that the City is responsible for providing land for the project and the relocation of the facilities behind the project (abatement work, reconnect water lines that are dead-ended, etc.) - Corps is responsible for building the project - there are some parts that we are still responsible for but just about the entire construction project is their responsibility.

Moved by Glassheim and Stevens to approve Amendment No. 11 for professional services agree-ment with the Greater Forks Engineering Group regarding in-kind survey services related to property and right of way acquisition for construction of the US Corps of Engineers flood protec-tion system for the city of Grand Forks. Motion carried.

11. Street Department budget amendment.
The budget amendment reflects increased revenue due to sale of property, scrap and services - $2,728.78. Moved by Glassheim and Stevens to approve the budget amendment. Motion carried.

12. 2001 residential/apartment recycling agreements.
Mr. Feland presented the proposed agreement which deletes the ability to extend the term of the contract, and that this is the last year of the contract (fifth year of contract). He stated there are three changes: asked for more reporting (report shall contain any requested information specifying where and how much of the recyclables are being marketed), changed the cost of the
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 5

containers (increasing 30 cents/month from the sanitation budget) and added a 60-day escape clause. He stated that in 2001 they will have to decide what kind of recycling service to provide and then rebid under a new contract.

Moved by Glassheim and Stevens to approve the 2001 residential/apartment recycling agreements. Motion carried.

13. City of Bismarck snow gate information report.
Mr. Feland reported that last June Bismarck had a voter referendum or initiative measure which passed 3 to 1 - they will use snow gates or other devises except during a declared emergency to clear snow from all driveways; and budgeted an additional $350,000 for operations and maintenance to perform the driveway snow removal - sales tax revenues will be used to cover the additional expenses (for 8 additional personnel wages and benefits and 4 pcs. of heavy equipment that they lease throughout the year - get better price than leasing for 6 months because individual vendors get a better deduction from the manufacturer of a governmental discount if they keep it for a full year rather than giving back in less than a year). He stated that during the off-season they will use 8 additional personnel for landfill and baling facility, or on street maintenance projects during the summer. He noted that they also purchased 20 snow gates - have 20% for spares because of high maintenance (they use paygraders and motor loaders) at cost of $75,000. He noted that first snowfall was 8” and took 32 hrs. of plowing - second snowfall 5” and took 22 hours of plowing. Mr. Feland stated they found it was difficult to do the 8” of snow; and will have to do something with parking ordinances - mailboxes, etc. He stated he would do another information report on this matter. Glassheim stated he would like to see us move towards presenting it to the city - whether advisory vote, etc. Mr. Feland stated it would be fine to look at it but there are other needs - higher priorities.

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

14. Amendment No. 1 to Authorization No. 4, engineering agreement between City of Grand Forks
and Burns & McDonnell, solid waste baling facility construction period services, City Projects
Nos. 5023, 5086, 5136 and 5145.______________________________________________________
Mr. Grotte stated that as part of the on-going landfill baling facility effort with Burns & McDonnell and their sub-consultants (Webster, Foster & Weston), the City did hire Burns & McDonnell to design and assist with the construction services for the baling facility which consists of those four projects: solid waste baling equipment, solid waste baling facility, North 69th Street watermain, North 69th Street paving, with total value of construction at approx. $6,175,000; that they had anticipated the design service would be around $200,000 but because of the accelerated design and many change orders and originally project was to have been completed by June or July of this year, there are still portions of the project underway (issues with construction of the road - some not up to grade and corrections that need to be made, etc.) and Burns & McDonnell is asking the City to amend their contract by $93,427, which would bring their construction period services max. not to exceed an amount of $316,177.00. He stated that Burns & McDonnell and the sub-consultant, Webster, Foster & Weston, have been doing an excellent job, and did get the facility operating and has been functional within a few weeks of the target date and the State did grant us our permit to continue using our landfill, etc. , and recommended amending their contract to pay the additional fees. Webster, Foster & Weston has been doing the on-site inspection and Burns & McDonnell did shop drawing reviews and some coordination. Chairman Kreun stated that by having the baling facility operational is what prompted the Health Department and FAA to look at giving us a two-year extension with our permit in hand and with an almost 7 year guarantee to
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 6

accomplish our goal; and part of that was due to the baling facility being up and running. Mr. Grotte stated it was a monumental task in getting that design built in less than a year.

There was some discussion re. hourly rates - that WFW’s part of this is $78,000 and Burns & McDonnell is almost $15,000. Mr. Hanson stated that 89.9% of the paving panels don’t meet surface tolerant requirements, will have to monitor that in the spring, etc. Mr. Grotte stated some of this is the fact that they accelerated the schedule and contractors not getting things done as quickly; that the problems with the paving were contractor’s problem, not a design problem and not penalize the engineers that designed it. There was some discussion re. liquidated damages - which City has not done; that engineer will have to go back and spend additional time to document the problems and get them straightened out.

Moved by Glassheim and Stevens to approve Amendment No. 1 to Authorization No. 4, engineering agreement between City of Grand Forks and Burns & McDonnell, in the amount of $93,427.00 for additional construction period services with an agreement maximum fee not to exceed $316,177. Motion carried.

Mr. Grasser stated that there are several of these where have to let the contractor develop a history so that you can document it; this particular contractor, developing enough history on now and next time they may be low bidder, need to have discussion re. lowest and best bid.

15. Engineering agreement between Grand Forks City and KBM, Inc. for evaluation of short and long term disposal options of residuals from the water treatment plant, City Project No. 5219.
Mr. Grotte stated that prior to the flood KBM had started design of wastewater treatment facility and during design, there were discussions about integrating sludge from the water treatment plant into the wastewater treatment facility and at that time go to the sludge plant and haul it out in a truck; but with the flood protection project our existing water reclamation facility is under the levee and will be removed in the next 2 to 3 years and we will be installing a pipe that runs toward the lagoon and pumping more liquid form of this sludge - that now the reclamation facility dries out the sludge but if pump it have to leave in more liquid form so not clog pipes. He stated that KBM under this agreement would be looking at short-term, long-term and longer term where actually trying to integrate the composting idea into the sludge management - that Mike Shea did a presentation of a holistic consolidated waste management system where integrating water treatment sludge and wastewater treatment sludge and garbage into something where ultimately get rid of it in environmental friendly approach, and this is a step towards that - the contract would be for $68,800 and KBM would be doing most of the work, would have a sub-contractor doing some of the chemistry biology type things for them.

Jim West, KBM, Inc., stated this offers the environmentally sound alternative for the city and cost effective - they are looking at the short term solution to get sludge out there prior to getting the pipeline built and turning over the aeration ponds - probably truck it out there and there would be an interim solution with the wastewater treatment plant in receiving materials from the piping or from the lagoon situation and long term is integration into a composting complex with those residuals that did not end up in the wastewater treatment facility. Mr. West stated that what has to happen to get it appropriately handled, how set up a 365-day/year handling facility to pump it, etc. to get it integrated. It was noted that the sludge plant will be removed when the dike goes in and that line would be used until the City builds a new water treatment plant out west - probably 8 to 10 years for use of the pipe - will be pumping it from the water treatment plant to the wastewater treatment plant.
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 7

Chairman Kreun asked when this system is up and running, what percentage of the sludge will they be able to use; and it was noted that would be a part of the study. Mr. West stated they have already done some homework on this and can use all of it - is what they are programming to do (once get composting facility). It was noted that this is a 10-year project. Mr. West stated this is a report phase - what machinery and capital costs look like, how O & M look in this, chemistry biological integrations - and will be back later if decide were going to design something and build it.

Mr. Grasser stated that in 8 or 10 years when they move the water treatment plant a lot of the basic plumbing, as long as the system is working, would continue to be used, may require modifications and replumbing but if system works, could the sludge from the new water treatment plant, add some pipe and tie it into this pipeline and whole thing continues to function - Mr. Grotte stated that’s the idea and that they are going through the site of the new water treatment plant so can use that piece of the pipe to go north to the wastewater treatment plant and could also use pipe that goes from the new water plant site to the old site for raw water, etc.

Mr. West stated that by the end of December he hoped to have a preliminary report into the city re composting; and maybe can lower or hold costs into the future; and thinks the composting facility can offer a significant option to the city that they’ll want to consider and can solve more than one problem at a time, and the integration really appears that there’s going to be a cost savings to the city. It was noted that they would reduce the usage of the lagoon and have less bird problems and don’t have to move the lagoons, etc. Mr. West stated that when the wastewater plant gets set up to have a continuous discharge to the river, don’t need the lagoons - but left in as an option. It was noted that the lagoons would only be needed in an emergency situation on large volume conditions; and end up with one pond left. Chairman Kreun stated that the FAA is already looking at the lagoons as being unfavorable at this point in time because of bird problems. Mr. West stated they have solutions to all of those problems and need to work through them together. Mr. Feland stated that they have put the compost facility in the CIP for 2003-04 or 2004-05.

After further discussion it was moved by Glassheim and Stevens to approve engineering agreement with KBM, Inc. for evaluation of short and long term disposal options of residuals from the Water Treatment Plant, not to exceed $68,800.00. Motion carried.

16. Rate adjustments - Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.
Mr. Grotte stated that the engineering firms come in for their annual cost of living adjustments, and recommended approval of the new rates, that new rates would be applied to all their existing agreements but wouldn’t change the dollar amounts of any of their agreements because more of the larger agreements had rate increases built into them. Steve Burian, A/E, reviewed the hourly fee and expense schedule for 2001; looked at more in terms of what salaries would have to be given - in keeping good engineers and good technicians and hourly rates are built off of multipliers to develop that salary structure - and expenses was built on cost of service analysis. Glassheim asked how can they as a City know what’s a fair increase - Mr. Grotte stated you compare them to what other competitors are charging. It was noted that the City is having hard time finding engineers and local consultants are also having a hard time.

Moved by Glassheim and Stevens to approve 2001 rate adjustments to be applied to all existing agreements. Motion carried.

17. Public Works Facility budget amendment - $726,300.
18. Public Works Facility budget amendment - $480,000.
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 8

19. Stormwater Department budget amendment $80,700.
Mr. Feland stated they renovated the middle part of the public works facility and brought over the wastewater department and the water distribution department and co-located them at the public works facility on North 47th Street - that amendments cover transfer of bond proceed funds to cover cost of renovation. Moved by Stevens and Glassheim to approve each of the budget amendments. Motion carried.

20 Committee member comments:
Mr. Grasser presented two items for committee’s information.
a) He stated that several weeks ago the committee asked about potential recovery of expenses as it related to the costs brought in by KBM (an additional contract amendment for the wastewater treatment plant) and question was how much of those funds could the City potentially recover as part of the litigation process, and Mr. Swanson’s response to that was “don’t count on it - there may be possibility of recovering some fees but basically - these are not recoverable fees on the City’s part.”
b) He stated that several weeks ago they discussed the disputes the City has with Valley Contracting, their chemist, re. the mill and overlay project - that Mr. Swanson called him last week and gave him a verbal notification that they have filed suit on the City for recovery of those costs that they were looking for, claim is for approx. $60-65,000. He stated that the City tried to negotiate those down (City had two contracts - one with Valley and one with Strata) and felt same type of settlement that they offered to Strata which was ultimately accepted; and will leave the rest of the information to Mr. Swanson’s Office. Information.

It was the consensus of the committee that the summary report with pertinent information would be sufficient backup material on the agenda items.

Moved by Stevens and Glassheim to adjourn; meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk

Dated: 12/12/00