Committee Minutes

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
Monday, January 8, 2001 - 7:00 p.m.

Members present: Kreun, Klave, Stevens.

1. Transportation and Community and System Preservation (TCSP) Grant.
Earl Haugen, MPO, stated that the TCSP grant is tied into a study that the MPO has done for both cities on the river crossing that will be part of the dike project plus the downtown bridge that both cities have stated their desire to replace; reviewed parameters that they went into in studying this - that three bridges will be built (two on the Red River, one on the Red Lake River and both cities want replacement for the downtown bridge) and presented slide presentation on information relative to the bridges showing possible locations for each bridge, design criteria, water surface elevations, bridge alternatives (through-girder alternative. metal truss alternative, girder concrete deck alternative), funding to pay costs. He stated that the funding that we have is already pro-grammed for 3 bridges that the Corps is helping us put in at $600,000 each, funds committed at 50-50 split, $300,000 each from the Corps and $300,000 either split by both communities; on the Red Lake, 100% on the East Side, recommended increases for those 3 bridges is $375,000, either through enhancement or the TCSP grant; for the downtown maintaining that 840’ is the cost estimate that we are pursuing funding for at $2 million, alternate 820 cost est. at $655,000, and Grand Forks has already applied for Transportation Enhancement - TE grant has tentatively been awarded by NDDOT to Grand Forks towards the downtown bridge and then taking the difference with TCSP. He reported that TCSP is Transportation Community Systems Preservation and is basically part of the livable communities federal initiative among different agencies and this is one found in the Department of Transportation. He stated that if all funds become available, need to work on agreement among all parties with EGF lead agency (MNDOT, MNDNR, USACE, and FHWA). He stated Conclusions were that the money is available to build four bridges, but not at elevations we want; TCSP is a source of funds to cover the difference; and application due January 31 and Congressional support needed to obtain the grant. He stated they would be going to East Grand Forks to get their commitment to the same application, and have already agreed to this once, when did the enhancement application for the downtown bridge.

Charles Grotte, asst. city engineer, distributed copy of letter from Lisa Hedin, Corps of Engineers, dated in November and outlined options for bridge in the downtown area and presented three options: 1) build bridge we want, how we want, and they are not involved other than it doesn’t have hydraulic impact; 2) that possibly this could qualify as relocation, City would pay 100% of the cost and get credit on overall flood protection project and our share would be roughly 50%; 3) possibly moving one of the other bridges (deleting either the north or south bridge) and moving that to the downtown area and there would be a recreation cost of 50-50 and if wanted different than what they were going to provide under the recreation plan, we would pay the difference. He stated that we started looking at other options to pay for bridges, and the TCSP grant seems to fit in with that and using that grant out share is only 20% of the downtown bridge and have been encouraging that and when went to the CIP process, that's plan we presented for the downtown. He stated that when the CIP when through did not have the study done so didn’t look at using the TCSP grant to raise the other bridges, that raising the bridges makes some sense and Greenway Alliance agreed with that. He stated he still has a question as to how high we want the downtown bridge - that 820 won’t do that (get across river during flood in 1997 - 840 does) and need to consider; that we’re still pursuing the grant based on the 840 elevation but are based on the Greenway Alliance recom-mendation looking at a bridge at 820, and question for the City of Grand Forks is whether want an 820 or 840 bridge; that 840 bridge has some problems when get to the edge of the bridge, have to come down about 10 ft. to the ground level. He stated the 820 ties in with the landscape that would be in the community green and be usable all but 10 days of the year - good alternative and half the
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE - PAGE 2

price or less. He stated there would be no impact on hydraulic problem with the 840 bridge and 820 about 2/10ths impact and that’s a concern with the Corps and that might be an issue with the ND State Water Commission - did have some problems at the time we were trying to get our permit to build the Riverside Dam modifications, that talking 1/10th increase there and they were very reluctant to allow that and that’s an issue that needs to be worked through; that MNDNR has some guidelines for bridges to be 3 ft. above the 50-year flood, not a requirement, and needs to be looked at. NPRR bridge had 6/10ths impact. He stated that in the next 3 or 4 months going to need to decide how high want this bridge so can start planning for it, but no problem with pursuing it the way it’s been presented, can look at a lower bridge if city council accepts that. Mr. Haugen stated that EGF supported the 840 bridge as part of the TE grant elevation. Klave stated there was major concern in 1997 flood with getting ambulances from EGF to Grand Forks when hospital on this side of the river - Mr. Haugen stated there are some simple things that could be done on the Kennedy Bridge on Gateway Drive to have that remain open to higher flood height than it was in the past. Mr. Haugen stated there’s an issue in EGF because they closed down the State Highway for parades, etc. and MN is upset with that so they are going to try to turn back business 2 on the EGF back to the City, as part of that process they have to agree with the City of money to replace that structure, under the turn-back money they have 15 years from date of turn-back to spend the money for that facility and Sorlie Bridge would have to be replaced 15 years if happened today, or if EGF won’t agree to it---- Klave stated that would be a 50-50 split to replace the Sorlie Bridge - Mr. Haugen stated that ND is stating now that for the next 20 years we see no reason to replace the Sorlie Bridge, MNDOT stating in 25th to 30th year they foresee without turning it back that the Sorlie Bridge would have to be replaced, but Kennedy isn’t going to be replaced but some things on the ND side that could be done to keep that fairly dry during the flood event - Gateway Drive on the East Side is going to be reconstructed next year and raise up roadbed to higher height than what it currently is and Kennedy will be passable.

Klave stated application is due January 31, will Congress look at in the near future. Mr. Haugen stated this is an ear-mark project so whenever delegation can say they’ll ear-mark it, then can go to the bank with it, but actually not designated in any bill or the normal bill until the appropriation for transportation is done and that’s usually late September because of federal fiscal year. He stated you have to get the backing of the Congressional delegation, doesn’t have to be the TCSP grant program, lot of pork comes out of lot of different bills for reasons not attached to what the bill has been approved for, and there’s been some legwork with them - that in ND there has not been an award of a TCSP grant. ND hasn’t received anything in the past and asking for $1 million and would probably be the only project ND would get that year. Mr. Grotte stated this hasn’t been presented to any of the neighborhood groups and still have that process to go through. Kreun stated these are all options and authorizing the ability to obtain funds.

Moved by Klave and Stevens to approve the TCSP grant application for funding the downtown bridge and assisting with the cost of other bridges in the Greenway. Motion carried.

2. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement for engineering services with Advanced Engineering for Project
No. 4717, north end storm sewer analysis._______________________________________________
Brian Weiss, Advanced Engineering, stated that the City retained Advanced Engineering to perform an abbreviated study of the storm sewer system within 170 acre watershed bounded by Gateway Drive, North Washington Street, University Avenue, and North Columbia Road, the study evaluated taking all the storm water to the Columbia Road, through the Bronson Property and north along Columbia Road to outfalls on the English Coulee, later in the study concepts were being put together to rebuild North Washington Street, and that included improvements to the
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 3.

storm sewer, the City then requested that additional alternative be evaluated for taking a portion of the storm water east of North Washington Street, this alternative evaluated and results of analysis were incorporated into the design of the storm sewer improvements in the project and into the northend storm water study, and presented request for approval for Amendment No. 1 to the agreement in the amount of $4,408.00 for additional services for evaluating the alternative.

Mr. Grasser stated that when reviewing the concept report for North Washington found an opportunity to make provisions for drainage in the future to the area described; that Council Member Hamerlik had brought this to their attention a year before and that’s what started the original study, that time was short and they went in and did work recognizing it was going to cost some extra dollars, and that analysis that A/E did along with Jay Bushy (eng.) was successful and did get the oversizing into the Washington Street project at minimal cost, process has been successful and recommended approval.

Moved by Klave and Stevens to approve Amendment No. 1 with Advanced Engineering for additional services in the amount of $4,408.00. Motion carried.

3. Appraisal for utility and construction easements for City Project 4648.3 - Grand Forks Trans-
mission pipelines, Phase 2__________________________________________________________
Mr. Weiss, A/E, stated that as part of the clearwell and transmission pipelines an appraisal is needed to determine the value of the permanent utility easement and temporary construction easements for construction and maintenance of dual 30” transmission pipelines and 16” water treatment residuals forcemain within the property owned by Burlington Northern Leasing Cor-poration, located along the north side of DeMers from S 19th Street to Washington Street, that a proposal was obtained from Appraisals and Real Estate Research, Inc. to complete the necessary appraisal for the amount of $5,500, and requested approval from the City to enter into an agreement with the appraisal firm. Mr. Grotte concurred.

Moved by Klave and Stevens to approve entering into an agreement with Appraisals and Real Estate Research, Inc. in the amount of $5,500 for an appraisal of permanent utility and temporary construction easements across property owned by Burlington Northern Leasing Corporation. Motion carried. (Comm. action only).

4. Bids for Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment, City Project No. 5085, Geographical
Information System (GIS) mapping city-wide.______________________________________
Mr. Grasser distributed additional information, the actual bids that were received today, that our proposed funding source for this project is CDBG money and weren’t confident they could free the money up earlier in the process and because have deadline the end of February, had to expedite it to make sure get the equipment received and the bills paid by February. He stated they have a justification for the unit and what they had anticipated quotes to come in at; that justification for the unit is because we have invested a million dollars of CDBG money into making a GIS system for the City, but question comes in as to how you keep it up and maintain it because every year as we continue to grow we need a way of tying in the new manholes and new hydrants, valves into the system. He stated a roving unit is needed in the field on the site and need a base station, that they received prices on the equipment, that they thought base station cause some problems from funding standpoint through CDBG funding and have talked with local consulting firms in town (WFW, A/E and CPS) about possibility of City being able to piggy-back onto their base stations and they have given authorization to tie into their various frequencies which means we can get by without having a base station of our own. He stated they received bid from Frontier Precission, with base
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE - Page 4

station would have been about $48,000, without, $26,340, and recommendation is to award to Frontier Precision for Alternate 2, which is the GPS system without the base station, and that the funding for this will come through Urban Development Comm. this week. He stated that all the consulting firms won’t have theirs running all the time so between the three, think we can have access adequate to meet our needs; this will help us on our surveying, and some other benefits.

Stevens moved that we authorize purchase of the GPS system and award contract to Frontier Precision, Inc. in the amount of $26,340, contingent upon funding. Motion carried.

5. Change Order No. 4, 2000 Forcemain and watermain, Proj. Nos. 4814 and 4816.
Mr. Hanson, WFW, reviewed change order in the amount of $20,578.00 which is over the 10% allowed by the department - in November had change order to correct for error made in preparing the bid form which added $27,600 to the project, subsequent to that working with the water system portion of the project added $16,000 because needed a second by-pass line for the work to maintain fire protection at the airport, and now when doing final checks in looking at right of way, found that the final drawings - 90% drawings from HDR who is doing the channel work for the diversion of the Coulee had changed the geometry of their soilbanks and added ditches behind them which now meant that the ends of casing pipes were going to fall inside those embankments underneath the bottom of the ditch, and required longer casing pipes beyond the work area so useable to us in the future if have problem and other minor revisions at cost of $20,578.

Moved by Klave and Stevens to approve Change Order No. 4, Industrial Contract Services, Inc., contractor, in the amount of $20,578.00. Motion carried.

6. Amendment No. 1 to agreement for engineering services between the City of Grand Forks and
Advanced Engineering & Environmental Services for City Project No. 4769, raw water intake
and transmission lines._____________________________________________________________
Mr. Grasser stated that he was considering to come in at one of the next meetings with an expanded detailed discussion about the watermain project, that under new administrative procedures the city engineer has authorization to approve the plans and specs. and first time that many of the council members will see this project is when they come in with the award, and could create a problem with a project of this magnitude - get into more detail on the entire project from the intakes to the transmission lines, etc. to tie the project together. Mr. Grotte suggested doing for the whole council rather than 3 or 4 members. - Mr. Grasser stated he was considering but wondering re. timing of the bids.

Wayne Gerszewski, A/E, reviewed background - that the City operates 3 intakes (1 on Red Lake River built in 1930 and 2 on Red River, with the Almonte intake built in 1930 and new intake built in 1967), that the City considered replacement of these intakes for a number of years and were in 1996 CIP plan for replacement in 2001 and 2005, but as result of the flood of 1997 the City realized these intakes were highly vulnerable to damage and all 3 damaged in 1997 and had no raw water supply for awhile - that they have a number of system deficiencies with these 3 intakes as well, aging infrastructure, decreasing reliability, limited capacity, a lack of transmission line redun-dancy, limited seasonal access because located so close to the rivers and also on the wet side of the Corps levee protection system. The overall project was initiated in May of 1998 with two primary phases, had a preliminary engineering phase and a final design phase, which included the design bidding , construction and warranty phases of the project. Preliminary engineering was initiated in
August, 1998 after developed the overall engineering budget for the project. In March of 2000 A/E presented preliminary design submittal 1 to the public service committee, large document that
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 5

reviewed all the things they have to look at for the project to come up with what we have today that we’re actually with - that preliminary design submittal 1 was converted into a facility plan report and presented to the committee in April, 2000 and that report has been forwarded on to the ND Department of Health, today are in final design of one of the first bid packages.

He stated the project consists of intake pump house, the 60 ft. inside diameter concrete caisson, located 65 ft. below existing ground surface and built on the dry-side of the proposed Corps of Engineers levee, and that will be the first phase to install this caisson. The second phase of the project which would take place in 2002 would be the installation of 4 30” steel transmission pipe-lines, two are approx. 2400 or 2500 ft. long - twin 30” lines that go beneath the Red River and Red Lake River and also 2 other 30” transmission lines that will be installed, each 14 to 1600 ft. and go from the caisson to a point where we will be constructing two new river inlets within the Red River. He stated on the Red Lake River side they will be tying the 2 30” pipelines into 2 existing river inlets that were installed in 1994, and trying to reuse some existing infrastructure. He stated this work re. caissons, transmission lines and river inlets are done under Bid Pkg. No. 1, Part 1 of the project, and will be bid this spring (April) and construction will take place in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

He stated that Part 2 of the project which will be designed later, after the first portion is bid, is comprised of is a two-story pumphouse above the caisson and within the pumphouse will be the pumping systems, electrical gear, emergency generator, (all located on second floor), and also install 2 30” ductile iron lines and will tie to the transmission lines that will be installed across town; and if and when a new water plant is built it would be in Industrial Park and those transmission lines would be converted from finished water lines into raw water lines and would be moving raw water through them to the plant.

He reviewed the amendment to the agreement - that the original engineering agreement was negotiated with the City in August, 1998, and at that time they were going to replace their 3 intakes with 1 new one, and to come up with preliminary design bidding, construction and warranty of the project, don’t really know all the concepts and finally put together a scope of work and reviewed with the City, and that budget estimated at $1,487,000. He stated that following the completion of the facility plan report in April, 2000 along with all the preliminary engineering that was done, there was a detailed geotechnical expiration program for this project that was completed (soil borings, etc.) and that contract changed into something a lot more complex and the overall mag-nitude change - two bid packages and went from what originally anticipated as a 3-year project to now a 5-year project. He stated there were a number of structural changes, foundation require-ments, and a two-story pumphouse. Construction material requirements changed - originally required using high density polyethylene pipelines, due to the soil depths and at some points 80 ft. below the ground surface and now dealing with steel pipelines that are limited on where the route can go which changed a number of things and for longevity of the pipelines in our corrosive soils and water, have to have special coating system designed for them inside and out, and have special cathodic protection consultant on the project team who will design a cathodic protection system to protect these pipelines. He stated that the contractor pre-qualifications that they have asked permission to do that, are required as a result of the geotechnical as to how detailed the project got, can’t have any contractor come in and build this project - have to have experience on both the caisson side and on the transmission line side, not so much on part 2 side, when building pump-house, but other two are very specialized and that there’s a substantial increase in time - 2 year period they added to the project. He stated they visited that agreement and its applicability to that
current concept, reviewed tasks and assigned engineering time and came up with new engineering amendment amount - $454,500, and this is what they need to get project completed.
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 6

Chairman Kreun asked if that changes our funding sources. Mr. Grotte stated it’s the same funding source - most of this project is eligible for part of our utility relocations, roughly 50-50% ultimate cost share with the Corps, we have to pay 100% of the cost and it’s eligible for our share of the State of ND - who will pay for 45% and we’re getting a new raw water intakes for 25% of the cost - our taxpayers share - lot of things compounding the engineering efforts on the project and agree with the amount presented.

Chairman Kreun asked what longevity of this intake - Mr. Gerszewski stated design something for 20 to 30 year lifespan - potentially up to 40 years. Mr. Grotte stated that our newest one is 30+ and others 70 years old - have had modifications and upgrades but facility itself has lasted. Mr. Gerszewski stated new intakes/pipelines designed on a set of criteria and objectives that the City had for expandability to 20 years in the future, 40 years in the future and up to 2050, projecting the city’s water demand at that period on growth curves, etc. and sizing our piping and inlets and how much water we actually need - and this whole system is based on that. Mr. Grotte stated there’s provisions to put additional pumps in at later times, larger pumps, etc.

Warranty on the project - Mr. Gerszewski stated that’s the time they are involved in the warranty period after construction, final completion of the project - that they are overseeing things that if the contractor has to correct things, things not functioning properly and keeping that through the end of their warranty period to make sure they follow through (2 years - normal).

Mr. Gerszewski stated they haven’t finished the general contractor pre-quals - still waiting for info on couple drillers - have 4 drillers with 3 pre-qualified and those would be put on a list for the generals to use when they put their pre-qual. packets - have 6 or 7 general pre-qual. packets out there - from Montana, Minneapolis and couple local ones.

Steve Burian, A/E, stated that when the City originally asked us to put the agreement together in August, 1998, and reason they asked for an agreement that was unencompassing before the facility plan was done was that in 1998 nobody knew when the levee would be constructed, didn’t have route finalized, time lines changing; that City had them do preliminary engineering budget and the final design, bidding and construction budget at the same time, can’t afford to not have these things being done on a parallel track and as things evolved that’s when realized that having a 5-year window to do this as long as they got the river work done in an early fashion was going to be an acceptable timeline. He stated they did a concept plan for the City, that the City originally looked at having a plant at the existing site vs. the two alternate sites that were looked at and included a rough concept for a new intake facility; the concept used in August, 1998 was concept from report that had previously been submitted to the City that was kind of high altitude - all encompassing study and as a result when dug into the intake job in more detail that’s when started coming up with all these problems that weren’t envisioned when did the high altitude - corrosion proof, previous intakes, soil depths. Mr. Burian stated date on the report was December, 1998 - started in July, 1997. He stated it hasn’t been finalized yet and at the time was a very controversial one because so many things happening within the city and nobody was too excited about a $150 million potential concept over a 30-year period for the water system.

Mr. Burian stated bid packages will be brough in their entirety, talked about doing a caisson and
bidding the drilling and knew that drillers would be pointing at caisson contractors and vice versa and prefer with discussion with your technical people to bring two bid packages - below ground and one above ground and make those encompassing bid packages with the risk on the second bid package because of State law could get separate electrical, mechanical and general bids.
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 7

Mr. Grotte stated this is an hourly to a max. contract so if they don’t spend all time, we don’t pay.
He stated this is part of the flood protection project so not going to increase water bills, except for small portion, majority out of special assessments for the flood protection project. There is certain amount that is called betterment, making this expandable for the next 20-30-50 years where the Corps would pay for the capacity we have today.

Mr. Burian stated the whole project will be funded through the SRF program at 3% for 20 years, don’t have to bond it; that we have 45% of 50% of $13.6 million will be State money, 55% of $13.6 plus the $4.4 will be funded at 20 years at 3% and some of that will be paid through the water utility of the $4.4 and the remainder of the 55% will be paid through the special assessment process.
$18 million is total project cost (construction plus engineering plus geotechnical, separate consultant, contingencies).

Moved by Klave and Stevens to approve Amendment No. 1 to agreement for engineering services in the amount of $454,500, for a maximum fee not to exceed $1,941.500. Motion carried.

7. Committee member comments:
a) A woman in the audience asked why the City didn’t put people who are in jail to work - cleaning up potholes in streets, etc. Chairman Kreun stated there could be liability factor, that County has used work release, and would take into consideration.

b) Todd Feland stated he had talked to Jay Fiedler, and will come back at next meeting with re-examining the EIS, that it is his understanding that the Township Board met the last week in December and decided that at this time they don’t have an interest in meeting with the city council, and again is reiterating the need for an EIS before such a meeting can take place. He stated they will come back with starting that process forward; some discussion with Mr. Fiedler whether Burns & McDonnell should do it or an independent firm; that the Health Dept. wanted a timeline of how the City was going to get things done - and after that meeting get a further understanding of what the council wants to do, then send a timeline back to the Health Dept. that doing everything we possibly can and going to need a landfill extension two years from now, if take a year and half to get an EIS done. Kreun stated it would be his recommendation to do the EIS whether they require it or not so have all the information required of us. Mr. Feland stated we are getting some quotes from Waste Mgmt. for costs to transport to landfill; how much landfill space do they have, trying to do everything we possibly can to explore all these options. Klave stated we needed to emphasize why or why not do an EIS.

c) Mr. Feland stated that at the CIP Comm. did the utility rate study and he will have Planning set up a meeting this month to get that moved forward to city council - that finance needs an approved plan by the City for SRF loans, etc. related to the rates and how pay for cost of these large construction projects. Chairman Kreun asked they bring back in 3 weeks so get plan in place.

Moved by Klave and Stevens to adjourn; meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

Alice Fontaine, City Clerk
Dated: 01/09/01