City of Grand Forks - Print Friendly Form

Committee Minutes

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
Monday, February 9, 1998 - 4:05 p.m.

Members present: Hagness, Klave, Lucke.

1. Matter of negotiating wastewater treatment equipment package
with BioDigestor Technologies, Inc., (BDT)
Chuck Grotte, asst. dir. of public works, reported that this matter considered at last meeting, that their attorney had looked at legalities of handling this way and Mr. Swanson and he were to discuss and Mr. Swanson report back today. Mr. Swanson reported he made contacts with city attorneys in Bismarck and Dickinson; that City was asking to buy technology without bidding, that there is some law that allows you to declare the technology as sole source and move forward and acquire without bid; that law has never been tested in the State of North Dakota. He stated they are talking about a fairly large expenditure and motivation for challenging may be there, however, if engineers can truly provide that there is no other provider and no other technology that can provide with the same or equivalent functionality, you may be able to move forward, but can't give any assurances, no guarantees; and because of size more than likely be challenged on it. He reported there are some things they could do to challenge risk, one is to go out and start taking requests for proposals or requests for qualifications and do some pre-bidding type things and move forward. He stated he was unsure how much is technology, how much is equipment, and with building will have to bid it, so doesn't know what type of packaging looking at doing. He stated there are no firm answers.

Jim West, KBM, reported that other firms interested in this project and worked for over year with up to four companies and sorted down to this one company and no other company that can match this company that he is aware of. He reported that they have had two of the biggest companies in the US provide them with technology, along with BDT, and worked with BDT because they are locally held company and feel that their equipment will do the best job for the City, and happens to provide the smallest site and ends up with least amount of cost involved in building a plant. He stated that City can be challenged, but didn't feel there is anybody that can have serious challenge. He stated they are willing to go either way, that if they want to go with bid package, will set bid date today, have pre-qualifications and calling any potential suppliers, etc., advertise and give opportunity to come in or when get done, one basic supplier, and whether they negotiate price or bid it, either way want negotiated price before they go into a bid.

Committee asked how much is technology and how much is equipment. Mr. West stated BDT would be providing significant amounts of equipment along with their computer system and with their own technology that allows the system to be optimized and really no provider in the world that can provide that level of technology. He reported that they have looked at this for two years, likes what they see. He reported that the equipment package put together with the technology because don't want to separate equipment from the

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITEE
February 9, 1998 - Page 2

technology because want them to be held together so responsibility for the equipment and technology together.

Mr. West reported that the reason they are going with a smaller site is that everything they put out there that has any significant water depth has to have deep pile foundations on it. He reported that the building will be bid separately, concrete will be installed by bid, all pilings by bidding, pipelines, and everything not provided with technology and equipment bids will be provided by others, over half work on the site is under bid.

Committee questioned how they had cut costs; Mr. West stated that wasn't by cheapening the process; have top notch equipment, no problem with process functionality of equipment, but not used flotation equipment or equipment to clarify water. He stated they have case study presented of a micro-fine bubble flotation system, was an activated sludge process out of Berlin and has test results, has results on that and that there are 20-30 installations in the world; everything enclosed by building. Klave stated that he doesn't want fingerpointing on capital improvements, that if problem want one person to answer problem.

Committee asked how long RFP, how much slow down process. Mr. West reported they haven't given go-ahead to structural engineers to start designing concrete at this point, holding pattern until decided which way to go. He reported that Simplot has been part of negotiations whether they want more capacity or not in this, but have basic design that's ready, that they have looked at from every direction and would recommend to city council that's what they should go with and if want more concurrence in different direction, there is no way that another corporation can bid this project
that they can come in with their own layout but last layout they had, concrete aeration treatment works covered just about 2 city blocks of area and gets significantly expensive to get into that. Klave stated he was trying to bring this down to the technology and pumps they would need to use for this system, equipment, how they could narrow that field down so that BDT is comfortable, KBM comfortable and City comfortable, and if have to do an RFP can they narrow that down to a certain company that everyone will be comfortable with without negotiating. Mr. West stated they were looking at approx. $6 Million of equipment. Mr. Swanson stated he didn't know what they were trying to negotiate for, heard referred to as equipment and heard referred to technology, and asked what they are trying to buy; Mr. West stated technology and equipment installed, and asked if they could break down more what they are doing and/or buying. Klave asked if they were buying technology from BDT, isn't that what they should be buying, that if different equipment BDT doesn't want to stand behind it, so why not deal with BDT and give an end product.

Hugh Veit, KBM, stated that the choice is either to negotiate with

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
February 9, 1998 - Page 3

the problems Mr. Swanson has or could bid process - that the key thing is that one of the bid package items will be performance responsibility so all of the equipment has to be tied together because requiring them to perform to some certain degree of per-formance and putting bond on it to the amount of contract amount. Klave asked to whose specifications; Mr. Veit stated that the per-formance specifications will be drafted by the engineer, and BDT should have to feel comfortable with the equipment and that will be part of the bid package. Klave asked if buying working technology why splitting into two parts; Mr. Veit stated they weren't re-quiring BDT to use low bid pump but to use what they feel is responsible and will work for them. Mr. West stated to give quality installation that will meet certain performance criteria as far as BOD, TSS, phosphates and nitrates and ammonia on the dis-charge, and when plant done that it's most economical operation.

Hagness asked who guarantees this project when completed; Mr. West reported they had discharge standards that they are being asked to meet, and when asked other companies to meet when working down through the process of determining who could do what and capitali-zation cost and O & M wise, they have bond of $5-6 Million that says you meet those standards or what's the remedies; and they have bond. Mr. Veit stated it was his recommendation to set bid date for process equipment and list what they want out of process, but more than likely get one bid. He stated that they go with adver-tisement for bid to meet the State requirements and if challenge, hear of it right away. Mr. Swanson stated they have been told that this is the only company that can make this technology, but do they get into situation where designed for sole source to the exclusion of other bidders, and that wouldn't put in any better position, if that's where headed, say not going to bid it because no one else can do it.

Mr. Swanson suggested that they have already evaluated a number of proposals to meet the performance standards, but haven't done in a manner that we can rely on that in the course of the bid evalua-tion or proposal evaluation, and that should have been where did public advertising because assuming those suppliers/contractors dealing with have been coming to you because they've learned through grapevine not in a process of call for bid or call for proposal for qualifications. He stated that he is concerned about statute for public buildings, BDT are acting as a general contractor for parts and equipment as well as their technology. Mr. Swanson reported that if they want to waive bidding entirely for technology and equipment, if determine that there is no functional equivalent and is a sole source of product or tech-nology, then determine that and determine that it's in the best interest of the City to waive bids and acquire it that way.

Mr. West suggested that they set bid date of March 9 and in the meantime they will send out an ad for bids and identify the

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
February 9, 1998 - Page 4

project, that anyone who's interested in this project has to come in to a meeting prior to submitting any prices and that give's us a firm date when have price for that and no lingering or that's done; they will have specifications, etc. He stated they are bidding the installation of that equipment that they are providing; that they would still have massive concrete work to do and install and would do separately. They will advertise in local papers and Construction Bulletin. Mr. Swanson stated they are not obligated to take the lowest bid. Mr. Veit stated they are bidding for system supplier for furnishing and installation of this system. It was noted that BDT is considered as a system supplier. Mr. Swanson stated that what they are going to do will reduce City's risk but not eliminate risk; that only way to eliminate risk is to go out and do an open solicitation; that the theory behind bidding is that anyone out there that wishes to provide this equipment/product has opportunity to submit and offer bid. He stated two ways to discourage that goal is 1) write specifications around a particulAr product so no one else can meet that product, or 2) to say we're not bidding; here providing opportunity to some and other ways not to, more openness in system less challenge. He stated that decision made here to go with BDT, or at least proposal, and that carries with it certain requirements that BDT wants before they put operating system in; and thinks their proposal will reduce risk.

Mr. Grotte stated they are going to be bidding half of the work, concrete, etc. and haven't decided what type of building, but KBM has gone through and evaluated different things criteria needed and cost of providing that service, and BDT came in with best price, but BDT is only one who can provide this level of service for this price. He stated he looked at as legal issue, and based on Mr. Swanson's opinion, shouldn't take risk; but KBM's attorney stated not as big risk, and that's been one of their concerns. State has determined and are in agreement that can be done this way.

Moved by Klave and Lucke to authorize KBM, Inc. to call for bids for technology and process equipment with a March 9 due date. Motion carried.

2. Matter of petition from Bible Baptist Church for annexation
and for connecting to city water.
It was noted that there was some concern on council floor re. letting Church hook up to water system. Dick Westacott, fire inspector, stated if don't go for annexation, would have to look at building, etc. to determine whether could give adequate protection. He stated he has seen site plan with installation of hydrants. It was noted that fees based on taxable rate; and council concern was whether this would lead city into another fire station in western part of the city. Mr. Westacott stated that if they annex property need to protect it or don't annex it. Larry Jones, representing Church, reported that of the 6 acres purchased only two acres would have building.
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
February 9, 1998 - Page 5

Hagness stated that the council was concerned about not having a policy on this type of water hookup. Mr. Swanson reported that his office hasn't had any negotiations with either Agassiz or Grand Forks Traill Water in the last week, but knows that Mr. Loesle has discussed the matter with one of the council members and has given some indication of what they would like to do; that they have retained outside counsel this past week to represent the City in negotiations with both of them with regard to overall growth of the community in intrusion into rural water districts; that their goal is to come up with a formal or blanket agreement; but no immediate discussions as yet. He stated that the issue comes down in the council's mind as to whether were included to annex this area now or if so, how much were going to annex or enter into annexation agreement with the Church for annexation at a future date, under either scenario, could provide fire protection to them; and could provide water either through annexation or enter into agreement for annexation.

Hagness stated that he would like to see giving protection to the Church and that it's part of an agreement and that they know City will provide service if needed under whatever guidelines are. He stated that before Traill Water makes big investment which he understands they are not really anxious to do because of having to bore underneath Highway 2 and that Church would have upfront cost. It was also noted that fire department may request that specific things be done (sprinkler system, etc.) and bottom line cost may be more than cost to bore under Hwy. 2 and hook up to Traill Water. Mr. Vein stated they won't be able to get water pressures for fire protection from Traill Water so wouldn't be able to do that. He stated they want to be able to serve the Church either by annexation or agreement for water service but problem is what type of restrictions will Grand Forks Traill Water put on, etc. and needs to be ironed out; and probably refer to annexation committee under Planning & Zoning whether for review whether this property should be annexed or not. Hagness stated that this is leap-frog development and won't be annexing everything from 55th out to New Vision and not sure City's ready for that. Mr. Vein stated committee could say that based on certain events in the future annexation maybe take place in five years if additional development. Klave stated he wanted to make sure that even if connected to city water, the fire department may make some requirements to drive cost of the building up; Mr. Jones stated they understand. Mr. Westacott stated he has looked at the Church's site and placed hydrants and 3 hydrants if don't sprinkle building, but if go with sprinkling building, drop one hydrant. He reported if they go with Traill Water, City has nothing, and chances of protecting very slim.

Klave moved to allow connection to city water either under annexation or agreement. Mr. Swanson stated they have to make decision one way or other and write agreement in such a way to come MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
February 9, 1998 - Page 6

in on specific timeframe, that can be amended. He stated that balance of property would be taxed at land value, both in the future subject to special assessments if annexation occurred. Klave questioned whether required to have paved lot. Mr. Jones stated eventually it would be paved. Mr. Swanson reported they would have to meet zoning requirements to setbacks, landscaping, etc., but with respect to hard-surfaced lot, have ability to defer some of that and would defer to inspections to that. Mr. Swanson reported their recommendation would be if want to provide water service do so under agreement for future annexation, that annexation will occur with so much notice or at a final date whichever comes first, with 6 month notice provision and five-year end, and still gives opportunity to renegotiate. Klave and Lucke so moved.

Hagness asked how they would determine cost for fire protection; Mr. Swanson reported that formula based upon value of improvement and work through mill levy analysis and come up with that fee, but hasn't looked at for some time. He also noted that the fire department can go out and provide immediate assistance if there's
life at risk, otherwise fire department unable to combat fire to save the structure.

Mr. Swanson reported he has retained Mayville firm to negotiate on our behalf, and that firm represented three different water entities and represent Mayville, Hillsboro, Fargo and Moorhead among other smaller communities and has done work on both sides of the issue. He reported they plan to follow up and make negotia-tions on that. He reported that the Church may be the focal point of discussion but with most likely growth in south and west, we are at the limitations of our territory to provide services without impacting rural water and need to reach those types of agreements. They are looking at making distinctions between properties presently served by rural water and property not served by rural water, and anticipate meeting this week.

Mark Lambrecht, 3316 Primrose, reported they have been in contact with Randy Loesle of Grand Forks Traill Water re. another project
working on for the City, to run water out to the new middle school near Ulland Park and running into identical situation with that; and reopened dialogue that had been done on south end of Grand Forks within last few years, and Grand Forks Traill Water feels that even though they may not have water to that specific property, that property is within their service area and have the rights to offer domestic water service to the area and make reference to laws that protect them from the encroachment of cities onto their territory, and reiterated that he wants to get dialogue going because there are any number of locations where both wanting to be
in same territory.

Upon call for the question, the motion carried.

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
Februry 9, 1998 - Page 7

3. Matter of City ownership of water meters.
Mr. Grotte reported that FEMA didn't pay for water meters because the City didn't own the meters, and since then have turned around on that. Mr. Swanson reported that ordinance draft in the packet; he stated that old ordinance has been in effect since early 1960's and doesn't understand why say property owner owns the meter because in same ordinance have ability to enter, to inspect, replace or repair and have an obligation to keep in good repair, that didn't seem consistent with him and if this is a reason to change the ordinance to make consistent with practical approach. Mr. Grotte reported they agreed change should be done now. Sarah Hellickson stated she didn't know if this would jeopardize our position but is now more of a point of clarification because not treating any differently, just clarified current practices, and recommended approval. It was noted no difference to home owner because of bill, and whether this would alter analysis of FEMA would go through and shouldn't because what was incongruous before
was because even if title in the name of homeowner, City controlled it and are making consistent. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve proposed ordinance and to introduce for first reading. Motion carried.

4. Matter of engineering fee overruns for Water System Concept
Plan, Proj. #4654.010.
Mr. Grotte reported that in May asked Advanced Engineering to look at ideas of what can be done with the water plant as far as treatment, intakes, alternate water sources and several different things because at that point in time didn't know whether plant stay where it is or relocated, etc. and now that plant could stay where it's at but intakes relocated, etc.; that Advanced Engineering put together a comprehensive study of existing systems, what options are, very detailed and reviewed draft and are happy with it, but cost more than originally expected. Hagness reported that he, Mr. Vein and Advanced Engineering looked at the proposal and it's really in depth proposal that he's not sure ready to invest in magnitude that this proposal goes through, need to find out what would be involved with federal government as far as participation in cost, but eventually get to us and will review to see where priorities are. He congratulated Advanced Engineering on keeping plant operating, because people don't realize that only 3 weeks without water is because of Advanced Eng.'s and City's staff in getting on line as fast as they did.

Steve Burian, Advanced Engineering, stated overrun on short sightedness at time, that they had $100,000 max. to put together concept plan for the water system which addressed water supply, intakes, water treatment plant, the residuals manager system,
interaction with the distribution system and the consideration of alternate emergency water supplies, and as they got into the project as they worked with the City in looking at different alternatives in the draft they put together, had 24 unique

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
February 9, 1998 - Page 8

different concept alternatives they put forth for consideration by the City, and bottom line took lot longer than they thought. He reported that all the numbers are in the packet and he is here to request an amendment to the contract max. to allow them to recover some of the additional time they put into the project. He reported that original proposal on January 6 was to amend the contract by $50,000, and did distribute another letter this evening. He reported that at the time of the concept plan, had another study that was called the Multiple Integrated Membrane Systems study and at the end of that study were going to provide some real rough cost estimates for membrane system for the City, the concept plan materialized after the MIM study was in progress so rather than duplicating their efforts within the MIM study because going into more of planning level detail within the concept plan, used those cost estimates and only referred to those estimates in the MIM study, and in reviewing two proposals, Mr. Vein noted that there might have been that discrepancy and asked if scope overlaps and what could be the resulting fees, and even though small portion, did analyze and there was a $948 possible reduction, and second letter reduces that, so asking for $49,052.

Hagness stated that normally they should come to the committee and ask for permission for cost overrun, but because of times we've had and that work was done. Mr. Grotte reported they were recommending payment of this and talked to Steve about the overrun and making us aware of it, and prior to it happening discussed several times and
was situation where things going good, etc. and took more time. It was also noted that Hazel Sletten was recommending approval.

Moved by Klave to approve amendment to the engineering contract in the amount of $49,052; Hagness seconded the motion.

Lucke questioned as far as the concept plan if there was any additional work that will come as a result of this, additional design work, construction, etc. Mr. Burian stated they do work on hourly basis, paid for that value, and optimistic will work at the water system but only bill for new time put forth. Lucke questioned whether they will have competitive advantage because of knowledge to be awarded additional work, and Mr. Burian agreed.

Motion carried; Lucke voted against the motion.

5. Matter of chipping trees and brush at the landfill.
Dick Newman reported that they do collect trees and brush at the landfill for disposal, that in the past burned trees to get rid of them, mostly diseased elm; that two years ago when applied for burn permit received letter from State Department of Health giving
variance but would prefer City to look for other means of disposal. He reported they gave several options: chipping, burying, firewood and that burning was by far cheapest. He reported that he hasn't received any additional information from Health Department but each MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
February 9, 1998 - Page 9

time they inspect landfill they mention that brush pile needs to be managed in different way than in burning. He reported that he has been looking for someone who does chipping commercially and recently ran across company out of Rapid City, Reclamation Services, Inc. that will do commercial chipping of brush and trees; expensive - charge from $200-250./hr to chip brush and gave proposal that it would take approx. 180 hrs. or close to $40,000 to chip brush (have 4500 tons of brush or about $10/ton). He reported that Chuck Grotte put together package of information for FEMA and Corps and they have reported that the landfill space is worth about $10/ton so to bury it would be same price as to chip. He reported that he is looking for authorization to negotiate with Reclamation Services to do the chipping (have to wait until weather warms) or take out for bids. He reported he hasn't been able to contact Park District yet (Hagness stated he has meeting with John Staley in the morning and will refer). It was noted that their accumulation is for a year and includes trees from Park District. Mr. Newman reported that the machine Reclamation Services using costs around half million dollars and will take up to 48" (brush at landfill about 18-to 24"). He noted that they don't charge city residents for the trees/brush but charge from outside the city.
Committee stated they would like to talk with Park District, and held for 2 weeks.

6. Matter of creating special assessment districts for various
projects:
a) Proj. 4506, Dist. 115, street lighting on S. 38th St.
(24th to 30th Aves.S.)
b) Proj. 4509, Dist. 118, street lights on 30th Ave.s. (38th to
42nd Sts.)
c) Proj. 4637, Dist. 122, street lights on S. 31st St. (32nd
to 36th Aves.S.)
d) Proj. 4597, Dist. 119, street lights on Oxford St., Harvard
St., Princeton Street and 5th Avenue North.
e) Proj. 4635, Dist. 120, street lights at English Coulee Center 2nd Addn.
f) Proj. 4636, Dist. 121, street lights at Rivers Edge and
49th Ave.S. (Belmont Road to Rivers Edge Drive)
g) Proj. 4639, Dist. 124, street lights at Garden View Estates
h) Proj. 4641, Dist. 125, street lights on s. 21st St. (26th to
27th Ave.) and on 26th Ave.S. (20th to 23rd Sts.)
i) Proj. 4642, Dist. 126, street lights on Cambridge St., Hamline St., and 5th Ave.N.
John Thompson, traffic engineer, reported that these projects are street lighting projects in new areas of town, some held from last year. He also noted that two projects are in University area where they have requested additional lighting to improve safety
aspect, and have agreed to special assessment. Mr. Thompson reported that on the University projects they separated into two parts, one part 80-20% University and other part 60 residential and 40% University so left opportunity for east part of the project so

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
February 9, 1998 - Page 10

could be protested out by property owners if they so desire. He noted that projects 100% special assessed to property owners by front footage. It was noted that if private residents could also protest to Special Assessment Commission.

The following motion was moved by Lucke and Klave on each of the projects: that we adopt a resolution creating the assessment district, approving the engineer's report, including estimate of cost, an assessment district map, and further that we pass a resolution instructing the city engineer to prepare detailed plans and specifications, and that we declare intent to sell bonds to finance these improvements. Motion carried.

j) Proj. 4715, Dist. 258, watermain on N. 51st St. (10th to
12th Aves. N.)
k) Proj. 4463, Dist. 387, storm sewer on S. 42nd St. (DeMers
to 17th Aves.)
Mr. Grasser reported that watermain that ties in with Congressional Subdivision and storm sewer project had gone through committee in mid-April but same project as before.

The following motion was approved by Lucke and Klave on each of the projects: that we adopt a resolution creating the assessment district, approving the engineer's report, including estimate of cost, an assessment district map, and further that we pass a resolution instructing the city engineer to prepare detailed plans and specifications, and that we declare intent to sell bonds to finance these improvements. Motion carried.

7. Matter of consideration of bids for emergency electrical
services.
Mr. Thompson reported they had received two bids, that this is contract that runs for two-years on a per hour basis and that Ron's Electric bid same price as their previous bid. Bids were $32/hr for master electrician, $24/hr for journeyman and $15/hr laborer. Moved by Klave and Lucke to accept low bid of Ron's Electric, Inc. and authorize entering into a contract for a two year period on a per hour basis. Motion carried.

8. Matter of agreements for engineering services for various
projects:
a) CPS - Proj. 4713 and 4714 - storm sewer and paving N. 55th
St. from DeMers to Gateway.
Mr. Grasser reported they asked CPS to give City a contract for preliminary study and scope of this project, this is being driven by new development in Congressional 1st and 2nd Subdivisions, that road has given lot of trouble in the past and had several graveling projects on it, subsoils very poor, and with development out there, time to bring into an urban section. He reported they had preliminary authorization to go out and looked at project, CPS has brought in contract for $19,782 to do the preliminary scoping of

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
February 9, 1998 - Page 11

project, including soil borings, which will give them pavement thicknesses and id aggregate and fabric may need on the project. He reported that this will tie into another item because of being tied with Congressional Subdivs., would like to leave possibility open that may use CDBG funds on this but would be with group and on agenda for Flood Response on Wednesday until do determine what sort of funding mechanism may want to use for the construction, basically flood recovery type project (had to do with Congressional 1st and 2nd Resubs. which border on 55th Street and those subdivisions built as part of the flood recovery efforts). They are going to urbanize the road.

Mr. Lambrecht reported that soil is bad, and will be design similar to DeMers Avenue where soil cut out and thick aggregate base that has geotextile fabric beneath paving, and will be expensive street, and part of the preliminary work is finding source of funding and identifying what assessments are going to be.

Mr. Grasser reported that because of the amount of work coming on in staff, that they had done this in-house and committee didn't see lot of these development costs coming up; that there's number of these projects coming up because of loss of staff and sheer magnitude of projects, they aren't able to put together this investigative effort and what he is planning on is to break contract up into study and report phases that will answer some of the questions you had (width of streets, soil conditions, prelim. cost estimates, potential tapping fees, special assessment districts in areas, etc.) and was suggesting CDBG funding on this phase of the project. He reported that should the investigation be recommended for approval and to proceed by the council, then get into actual design specification and if identify project as being special assessment project, go through normal channels and funding. He reported they will see projects coming in three different con-tracts: study and report, design engineering and possibly construc- tion engineering. He would like to see project done this year, probably only storm sewer and aggregate base, or do storm sewer base and concrete paving; the longer takes to start projects and depending upon fall we have will dictate how far go, and likely this project go to 1999. Klave asked that staff look closely at projects have because so many so don't end up paving street that could wait for year to be paid. Mr. Grasser reported they would look at timelines.

Moved by Klave and Lucke to authorize entering into an engineering agreement in an amount not to exceed $19,782. Motion carried.

b) KBM - Proj. 4756 - Rehabilitate/Reconstruct Belmont Road.
John Thompson reported this is actually a reconstruction project, started out as rehab but can't so go to reconstruction project. Mr. Grasser reported that until flood protection issues and things get resolved, would likely leave as a rural section, but MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
February 9, 1998 - Page 12

because so deteriorated condition, have to tear off what's there and reshape, do have the possibility if council desires to provide rehab. funds towards a total reconstruction and full reconstruction would put in an urbanized section. He stated that until Corps flood construction plan in place would have backlash from neighbor-hood because Belmont Road does provide fairly good barrier that close to the city and why looking cautiously at any development east of Belmont Road, development more favorable west of Belmont Road. Hagness questioned whether any funding from company that took heavy trucks for hauling materials out there or State or FEMA; Mr. Grasser reported they aren't getting any money directly, but because Belmont classified street won't get DSR money from FEMA to take care of that, but program they substituted to do that is Emergency Road Funds, so will get money to repair and replace it from flood damage but not through DSR process - will get 80% federal money to do this work. It was noted that street will be done with asphalt.

Mr. Thompson reported they are looking to sign contract and looking for motion to approve contingent upon city attorney and engineering department review of contracts; that Department of Transp. is pre-paring those contract but haven't received yet. Mr. Thompson reported they send letter of RFP and select engineers based on qualifications and then negotiate after that. Mr. Veit reported that because of amount of design, but because of magnitude percent-age less. - $25,000 contract. Mr. Grasser reported that the con-tract being drafted by the NDDOT and are concerned with and this probably won't be standard hourly rate contract because State likes to go with cost plus fixed fee and are still negotiating with DOT, and their concern is that they actually get work done this year; that if waited for contracts just put at greater risk at end of year, or bring information when have it. Klave stated that as council member for that district, he doesn't want to see this held any longer than has to, road is literally gone and need to do something as soon as possible. Mr. Grasser reported there is more engineering with State than with standard special assessment pro-ject, and percentages also using their judgment, because on larger project percentage decrease but degree of difficulty may offset that; that this is reasonable. Moved by Klave and Lucke to authorize entering into an engineering agreement contingent upon review by the city attorney and engineering staff in an amount not to exceed $25,000. Motion carried.

c) AE - Proj. 4757 - Mill and Overlay Downtown Streets.
Mr. Thompson reported that this project same situation, where waiting for contracts from NDDOT and recommend get approval contingent upon review by city attorney and engineering department
review of contract, and continue with construction of preliminary design phase of these projects. It was reported that there is 20% City share and 80% federal government from Emergency Relief Funding and trying to get 20% covered by the State of North Dakota.

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
February 9, 1998 - Page 13

Klave asked if this is demonstration project; Mr. Grasser reported they are hoping to get demonstration project that those funds applied for and that will essentially reconstruct all the streets downtown, that this project could still go on in conjunction with that project, that they would like to see emergency work last 4 to 5 years, can either hold off the demonstration project until the end of that period or reimburse part of it. He reported that in case demonstration project goes belly up, may have to go back through CIP process and put individual streets back onto the list and some of those may come back in 1999 or 2000, and be so close would likely delete the overlay portion of those streets that they would identify at that time, and will bring project through and then drop parts out if need to.

Moved by Klave and Lucke to authorize entering into engineering agreement with Advanced Engineering continent upon review by the city attorney and engineering staff. Motion carried.

9. Matter of preliminary report for utilities to serve new
middle school.
John Schlieman, CPS, reviewed summary of proposed utility options to serve new middle school and probable cost and recommendations.

City Project No.4706 - Watermain
Mr. Schlieman reported they looked at three options for watermain -16" main from 40th Avenue S. and S. Washington Street right of way and then over to middle school; second option on Columbia Road and 36th Ave.S. that goes to Ulland Park and replace with 16" line; third option coming down 20th Street and 32nd Ave.S. then south to 47th, down to school and across. He reported they are recommending the South Washington option - est. total project cost $447,000. He reported they talked to Park District re. temporary water for summer and they will negotiate with School, with permanent line ready by fall.

City Project No 4705 - Sanitary Sewer
Mr. Schlieman reported next they looked at sanitary sewer for the school, two options: and their recommendation is that the School District connect into Grand Forks Park Board lift station and negotiate cost with Park District. Mr. Grasser reported he talked with Dr. Sanford on Friday and he's going to be making request for the sanitary sewer and won't have to bring in sanitary sewer project at this time.

Hagness asked how much of $447,000 watermain project is tapping
charges and Mr. Grasser reported that as property sits today almost all because all property outside city limits, and hopeful that during annexation process which is such a critical issue so costs can be assessed to benefitting property owners, but as of today all tapping charges. Mr. Lambrecht reported that the School District

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
February 9, 1998 - Page 14

has a portion of their budget earmarked for off site utilities. Mr. Grasser reported he talked with Dr. Sanford and they may have the ability to some DSR money to help front some of those costs for the watermain; and CPS and City will be working on that and bring back to committee. Mr. Grasser stated he didn't know where City funds would come from; that they are working on 1998 tapping fees and will then meet with auditor.

City Project No. 4707 - Storm Sewer
Mr. Schlieman reported that storm water drainage through southend drainway system, reviewed area on map, from South Washington and across Park property, would be constructed to 47th Avenue South, then storm sewer would come out of ditch and down right of way up School or Columbia Road. Mr. Grasser reported they will have to purchase all of the right of way; that he met with Park District and if follow original route will have to go through condemnation to obtain, expensive and time-consuming; that he is exploring another option to that.

Mr. Grasser reported they would only be acting on watermain project tonight.

Moved by Lucke and Klave to authorize entering into engineering agreement for Watermain Project No. 4706 (which will be brought back to committee). Motion carried.

10. Matter of defining scope of engineering services for Proj.
4717 - Stormsewer analysis of area bounded by Gateway,
Washington, University and Columbia.