Committee Minutes

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
Tuesday, May 26, 1998 - 7:00 p.m.

Members present: Hagness, Hafner, Lucke

C.T. Marhula, 5124 Belmont Road, stated that they have had their share of problems on Belmont in last year and a half and often times they as citizens are quick to criticize city officials and city employees, and just wants to report that they had a minor problem over the weekend (fill was put in to fill ruts and created a dust problem) and city employees responded very quickly and in excel-lent manner and will continue to do so until road is repaired; he expressed appreciation to them on behalf of the citizens out on Belmont Road.

1. Applications for moving permits:
a) John Bredemeier to move building from 125 Polk Street
to 1719 2nd Avenue North - double garage.
Tim Manz, Mechanical Inspector, reported that only repair required is that electrical needs to be redone, and recommended approval. Moved by Hafner and Lucke to approve application for moving permit, subject to the public hearing. Motion carried.

b) Lana Stallard to move building from 124 Lincoln Dr. to
801 Chestnut Street - garage.
Mr. Manz stated this is another flooded out garage, and repairs required are for replacement of one overhead door, door jamb, window and to redo electrical, and recommended approval with repairs. Moved by Lucke and Hafner to approve application for moving permit, subject to the public hearing. Motion car-ried.

2. Matter of request by Simplot for variance to driveway - maximum allowable width of roadway approach.
Al Petkau, Brandon, Manitoba, J.R. Simplot Company, stated his letter to Bev Collings dated May 13, 1998 addresses concern that they have with highway transport trucks, both semi-trailers, A-trains and B-trains accessing and leaving the property. He stated that City bylaws call for maximum width at the property of 30 ft, and max. width at the street of 42 ft. and they would appreciate having approval on the westerly driveway as truck traffic will be coming from Mill Road in a westerly direction on Bacon and will want to access that property and to do properly would request 83 ft. at roadway entrance on westerly side and 100 ft. on the easterly approach, so that trucks not pulling out into the wrong lanes of traffic flow as accessing and leaving the property (liquor fertilizer trucks and some could be 90 ft. plus in length). It was noted that communication stated 58 ft. and now talking 83 and 100 ft. because if traffic coming from Minne-sota, come from easterly direction off Mill Road onto Bacon Road, traveling west and need wider approach. Mr. Petkau reported that the 58 ft. will not get the job done as rear end of the trucks will be sliding off into the ditch if don't make wider. Mr. Grasser reported that the whole lot is about 200 ft. wide and

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
May 26, 1998 - Page 2

making entire lot a large approach. Mr. Petkau reported that the westerly approach will be for leaving the facility. Mr. Vein asked if vehicles making approach extend past the property line on either side (extending into future property on the east side). Mr. Petkau asked what would happen if didn't make width at street that wide is that truck traffic would be leaving facility and going to Minnesota would have to go west on Bacon to Hwy 81, then onto Gateway and out to Minnesota, rather than making a right hand turn onto Bacon and head onto Mill Road. Mr. Petkau stated they would like to keep vehicles in right lane. Committee stated that this might be something to address in the future when people buy and plat property, ingress and egress, to stay on their own property. Mr. Grasser reported they run into that regularly - Mr. Petkau stated they attempted to purchase addi-tional land from State Mill but they opted not to sell them additional properties.
Moved by Hafner and Lucke to allow a maximum width of 83 ft. at roadway entrance on westerly side and 100 ft. on the easterly approach, so that trucks not pulling out into the wrong lanes of traffic flow as accessing and leaving the property. Motion carried.

3. Matter of request by mechanical contractors re. unpaid mechanical permits.
Mr. Manz reported that he sent memo to committee members to give them some background information, that there are some local mechanical contractors who feel they shouldn't have to pay full mechanical permit fees for equipment replaced during the flood, because in order to expedite the inspection process the City deputized the local mechanical contractors after the flood so didn't have to wait for City's inspectors to make inspection; that they held a meeting shortly after the flood on April 29 where this was discussed in detail. Meeting included mechanical board (5 members) plus invited all local mechanical inspectors they could contact (15-18 people there), and discussed lot of issues and one of the things was issuance of permit fee and decided to carry on as much as with business as usual and keep mechanical permit fees in place, did discuss waiving fees but Mech.Bd. didn't have authori-ty to waive them, decided to leave as is as fees would be passed onto the homeowners. Committee asked Mr. Manz if he made any promises one way or another whether they would not be inspected by the City or that they would be, or that the fees would be waived in part or whole. Mr. Manz stated that the intention was they were going to inspect all the installa-tions eventually when had resources available, that last year had 6 or 7 inspectors working on mechanical inspections and they primarily took care of out of town contractors who were licensed after the flood, so local mechanical contractors pretty much on their own although they did do some spot checking, and was intention that they were going to do all inspections with City staff; on September 15 started regular inspection process where

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
May 26, 1998 - Page 3

inspected every instal-lation by mechanical contractors. Hafner stated that part of the fee is to pay for inspection and when local contractors deputized was the intention to pay them for the inspection. Mr. Manz stated that he didn't think there would be a profit because would eventually hire enough inspectors to go back and do all the inspections. Mr. Vein reported that they will have a mechanical inspector come back, even if year later or some point in time, and actually do the on-site inspection, and if a fee is collected it may not cover the cost at the time but would in the future. Mr. Manz stated they would also be doing final inspections for electrical, plumbing and building permits. Mr. Vein stated that the goal is that no matter what installation it was, will ultimately have the City do a final inspection on every installa-tion, whether electrical or mechanical, etc. and it was intent to do this. He started that as time went on started getting lot of complaints, and as started to do some inspections, found some improper installations (both out of town contractors and local contractors - perhaps on local because they hired out of town sub-contractors). Committee asked what permit fee is used for and affect on City; Mr. Vein reported that couple years ago they tried to adjust fee structure for all inspections to cover cost (adm. costs and cost of individual in field) and goal of fee is to reimburse City for costs, and will be doing inspec-tions even if don't get the fee it's general fund depart-ment, and money has to come from someplace to cover that. Mr. Manz report-ed that State waived all electrical fees and City Code written adopts State Board electrical fees, and those fees went back into effect June 15. Committee questions amount of fees: Mr. Manz stated 3500 mechanical permits taken out @$30 = est. $100,000, and 4 - 5 contractors who still need to take care of mechanical permit fees and don't have exact number of installa-tions but another 3000 mechanical permits - $90,000.

Bill Hastings, member of Mechanical Board, stated that to get everyone going and to do their own inspecting, was plus for them because they didn't have to wait for the City and did speed up; if City going to re-inspect later - thought they were going to spot-check, that they were going to charge for permits, and didn't say how much but took for granted whatever they had been charg-ing; some companies because had people from out of town, designat-ed people to go and check jobs and little more involved; some were under assumption were going to pay for it and some hire their own people to check it, but there was going to be spot checks. He stated that customer pays fee. Mr. Manz reported that the way ordinance written is that the check has to be paid by the licensed mech. contractor if done by that contractor, so can't take check from homeowner and contractor would pass that on to the homeowner. Mr. Hastings stated they paid fees and made their own inspec-tions; and have had some pieces of paper from City stating some things had to do.


MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
May 26, 1998 - Page 4

Hagness stated that the purpose of inspection of furnaces is so that City knows they were installed correctly and have had some complaints and to tell homeowner that City is responsible if they weren't installed correctly because we inspected them. Mr. Manz stated that's why have Codes, to make sure we have safe, healthy houses and no Code violations, to protect property, and loss of life; and City wants to go through and do 100% inspection and make sure all meet Code and mfg. installation instructions. Lucke stated that if inspection process basically the same contractor that installed the work, quality control.

Jeff Wilson, president of Vilandre Fuel & Air-Conditioning, reported that packet presented is basically a list of all of the memos that went back and forth between Tim Manz' office and each individual contractor, and all of the meetings that took place; original meeting on April 29, when mechanical board met and sat down and decided that local contractors (didn't deputize anybody from out of Grand Forks) deputized local people, but at time of that meeting sole intent was 1) get people to get gas meters on, get water heaters in homes and furnaces, trust local contractors and take care of these people, and when someone stands up there and says it was solely for the benefit of not having to wait for an inspector, that's incorrect; it's two-fold, not having to wait for an inspector but to benefit the homeowner so can get equip-ment turned on as quickly as possible and move onto next project. He stated that packet goes on to Mechanical Board meeting that transgressed after that point, and up until about now where they're at. He stated that from his perspective as a contractor, his sole intent when someone comes out and says they will depu-tize your people, assuming the City has hired them to do the inspections, that they did do inspections on every single pro-ject; that a member of their firm is on mechanical board and he said after meeting that Mr. Manz going to deputize them as inspectors, that they met with their crew, and told people that they have Codes have to follow and make sure jobs are done correctly before they leave the job site. Committee asked Mr. Wilson if they collected fees as installation fee permit for each job. Mr. Wilson stated they do not specifically pinpoint a permit but sent as a whole project, and when did bids after flood did on handshake and phone call, and no paper trail, but their permits are included in most of the written proposals they have done over the past and now. It was noted that fees $15.00 flat permit issue fee, and depends upon what equip-ment installed in the house; and noted that collection of the fee was to turn around and pay the City, and that he has not paid City one permit because they performed the inspections, the City did not. He stated that if the City is going to issue a permit, which Mr. Manz has stated they will, which is $15.00 of that fee and will pay the $15.00 issue fee if the city issues him a permit, and it is the inspection fee that they performed on behalf of the City that he has problem with. He stated that he doesn't believe that MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
May 26, 1998 - Page 5

the City has to reinspect their work, if they choose to do so, can't stop them from doing that; that they contracted with McFarlane Sheet Metal, local contractor, and two gentlemen here from PA but the service techs. and installers did start ups and final inspections of those properties. He stated that he didn't think that with contractors dealing with in the city, didn't need to re-inspect the work; but do need to and need inspection process. He stated that he didn't think that every-thing done way it should have been done because of amount of work done in the city, and knows Inspection has done some spot checks on jobs they have done, and have had couple calls to repair some items but nothing life threatening.

Randy Boettner, Custom Aire, 1318 12th Avenue South, stated that in disputing the mechanical permits, what really interests him is that first Mech. Bd. meeting they held after the flood to allow contractors to be deputized and provide service to the city that they weren't talking about how much is it going to cost them to do this, how much are contractors going to charge to do this work, but was told to them that they were to provide service, and after all was said and done, they pulled together all of their contractors and had a meeting of how they would provide this process, went out and did inspections and on subcontractors, made a special effort to double check their work, has docu-men-tation on that, and now City comes back and says they want to get paid for these jobs that they inspected. He stated that doesn't make sense to have to pay for work they provided.

Mr. Vein asked who did the inspections? Mr. Wilson stated they handled through their company that each individual installer is a licensed mechanical installer in the city and have taken neces-sary testing and gone through process and the operators of the bus-iness gave those individuals full authority as licensed inspec-tors to inspector their own job after job was complete. Mr. Boettner reported that they had service techs. go out and inspect projects throughout the city, and had some of their sales people inspecting jobs, checked everything pretty thorough-ly and has check list they went through. He noted that they did not pay any permits. Mr. Vein reported that the request Mr. Manz has made is for the money that we would have to do the inspec-tions and not to take money from when you paid people to do their own inspections; and stated that the work they did was fantastic and doesn't want to tarnish that but fact is that they were looking at financing the additional inspections which would come through the permit fee, and maybe double inspected; but do have a policy in hand where they do inspections on a normal basis and most of the time not much to correct but as a safety device for citizens, need to follow ordinance and do the inspections. He stated that if continue the policy of having to do the inspec-tions they will continue to have our people in the field doing that and it will be a cost to the city.

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
May 26 1998 - Page 6

Hafner stated that the contractors did a service for the city and that there must be a way to compromise to some degree because they spent at least an hour or more of time to do that. It was noted that some contractors did pay permit fees. Mr. Vein reported that they were not to use CDBG funding and going to put through the budget, collect fees and if short-falls ask for CDBG funding.

Mr. Wilson stated he didn't know how many additional staff members were brought on by the City, and he was told they were doing inspections on projects that weren't paid, and their permits haven't been paid because waiting to get this resolved, once resolved will pay permits or do whatever is deemed neces-sary. He stated that payment of additional inspectors couldn't be done through inspection fees. Mr. Boettner stated that there was a rumor that there was grant money. Mr. Vein reported that there wasn't grant money and under CDBG guidelines there is a certain amount available for administration, and when hire additional employees on their salaries were coming through the administrative section of CDBG funds, except for inspection
d-epartment.

Hafner asked if they charge any less than normally for installa-tion and collected enough to pay for the installation; Mr. Wilson stated yes and enough to pay for the permits; but didn't charge extra for doing inspection. It was noted that on September 15, 1997 City took over all inspections as they normally do and have not paid fees since then because they haven't gotten permits from the City. Mr. Manz stated they keep track of inspections and about once month send permits to contractor, and wanted to make sure they have all post flood permits taken care of and several thousand dollars in permits that need to be paid for; committee suggested that they do that right away. Mr. Wilson stated that after the 15th of September they have inspected all of their projects and he has no problem with those. Mr. Vein stated it gets down to self-inspection and there is a certain benefit to an outside entity doing inspections; Mr. Wilson agreed with that. Mr. Vein stated that as a service to the public they will need to have an inspection done.

Bill Hastings stated he was billed and paid fees. Mr. Manz stated they will bill out as soon as possible.

Jim Fristad, Lunseth's Plumbing and member of Mechanical Board, stated he was out of town on day original meeting held, but company rep. was there and in talking to him afterwards, it was his understanding that they were deputized but nothing else changed, and on all heating service repairs, replacements they charged permit fees and paid those; only thing didn't pay is residential water heaters and whatever determination is will abide by that. He stated that only problem that they have is

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
May 26, 1998 - Page 7

that when quote a customer permits are included, so now if permits waived, would have to repay customers.

Mr. Wilson stated that it's not essence of giving funds back to consumer as the inspection has been performed, either by the City or by contractor, and permit issue fee of $15.00 is going to be issued by City and really no refund to the consumer. Mr. Boettner stated that when told were deputized that they were in charge and provide service so when customers came into their office, gave them a flat number, and permits not really thought about because they were doing work and taking care of it and getting job done, later found out that the City wanted to collect on the services, wasn't really in mind to put permits into esti-mates.

Dennis Jensen, D & D Heating, Manvel, ND, stated he was at the meeting on April 28 and never once mentioned that this was going to have a follow up inspection, when they went out on job, as-signed one person to make inspections, and as a rule had one person there; did run a tally today and spent for one person for short period of time $14,000, and inspection fees they owed back in were $9,000 and $5,000 - about a wash, and are willing to give back half of that for the issuance permit, and agrees that they paid out of their pocket in good faith and that's how they did it and cost them money.

Moved by Hafner and Hagness that they charge the $15.00 issuance permit fee and waive the $15.00 inspection fee.

Hafner stated that he questioned whether every job needed inspec-tion, but perhaps spot checking, and after what went through last year and asking contractors to do their own inspections, which they are qualified to do, it seems there should be some kind of compromise. Lucke stated there was lot of double checking there own work and something where health and safety is crucial, it would seem like a good way to run a company to double check your work, and raising issue that perhaps there wasn't a lot of additional cost incurred, that we waive the inspection so that we can progress through recovery phase and eventually inspections will take place. Hagness stated that City is ultimately respon-si-ble for the job and mixed feelings from contractors on what they interpret the Board and Inspection Department to do and feels they can issue the permit and justify the inspections from the people that did the inspections, should spot check and maybe if have 5-6 people doing all the inspections, let 3 of those go and recover some of our costs that way also, and feels that contrac-tors did a service for the community. Mr. Manz asked how commit-tee would like them to treat contractors who have paid the full permit fee; Hagness stated that he would refund cost down to $15.00 and if out of town contractors, made full inspec-tions and weren't deputized, they paid the full amount. He stated that this is recommendation to the council, and that city attorney

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
May 26, 1998 - page 8

would have to give his opinion also. Hafner asked that if motion passes, that they have accounting of what those dollars are, how much refund, etc. Mr. Manz stated that if fee returned to homeowner, contractor would have to justify that they did the inspection and provide documentation along with that or return to homeowner somehow. Hagness stated he wasn't going to get into that ballgame, that we deputize them and are assuming they did the work and that's why going with half the charge, and unless council or city attorney needs more requirements than that, that if need refund or need some accounting from the present people that haven't paid, wouldn't go into too much detail and due what normally do with accountability. Mr. Vein stated that he wasn't sure they could put those numbers together before council, but could estimate.

Upon call for the question, the motion carried; Lucke voted no.

Hagness stated vote will go to the council next Monday night as a recommendation to pay $15.00 for the permit fee; and that whether it goes through council or not, that since date certain where making full inspec-tions, start billing normal-ly.

4. Request to call for bids:
a) side-load trucks and contain-ers.
Todd Feland reviewed the truck conversion costs for 5 side load trucks at $120,000 less 7 rear-load trucks; container conversion costs for 90/gal and some 300/gal side load contain-ers, and total budgetary estimates and potentially the depart-ment may be over budget by $12,000; but if go ahead and call for bids may need budget amendment to make up for the short-fall if come in as projected. He stated they would start side load collection system in May of next year, phase in from May, June, July and August and trucks delivered in phases and increase routes. He stated that as part of the side load conversion City would own the containers and as part of that and as long term the depart-ment is asking they keep one person to supplement in that area and would have to start with attrition process and in talking with Mr. Newman, he thought should starting looking at who may be leaving or transferring and probably starting in 1998, latter part of this year, and recommended going with department's request to take the five employees through attrition process.

Hagness stated that they have a person who's on part-time full-time position in Street/Sanitation Department should be looking at putting on full time in the 1999 budget but haven't put funds forward to put that person full time and they are getting by on a full-time person that's being paid part-time and not same bene-fits and when can save 6 employees should be looking at putting that person in that particular department; that there are other departments that they have part-time full-time people and deal with them one at a time.

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
May 26, 1998 - Page 9

Jim Gerszewski, San. Department, and Tom _______, who has gone out and set routes for side load collection system.

Hafner asked if buying larger containers; Mr. Feland stated they would provide everyone with 90/gal. container and if needed more, 90 and 60 or 90 and 90 and charge extra for that, and looking at extra bags being put out. Hafner stated that we are in the busi-ness of providing service to our community (pick up of large items); and it was noted that San. Dept. would be running trucks on schedule to provide service and can be extra charge. There was some discussion re. placement of containers and that City should be looking more at recycling program. Moved by Hafner and Lucke to authorize call for bids for the side-load trucks and containers. Motion carried.

b) landfill compactor.
Mr. Feland stated they were going to request to call for bids for landfill compactor, will do away with qualitative point system, and need to write specs. to what we need; second change is to go with Carron wheels with pin on teeth with a double u blade and all major manufacturers would be able to put these wheels on, may cost little bit more but as far as efficiency and work of compac-tor; and ask to bid this as an ownership and also as a lease to compare the two, service agreements on both. He stated that in ownership will ask for a buy-back after five years. Moved by Lucke and Hafner to approve specs. and authorize call for bids. Motion carried. Mr. Vein commended Mr. Feland for work he did to come up with solution to dilemmas that have been here for a while.

c) wastewater vehicle
Gary Goetz asked for request for bids to replace wastewater service truck, which would consist of a new crane, new truck body and four-wheel drive truck, replacing unit that's 1989 model with 114,000 miles and which will be traded in (crane is obsolete, company out of business and can't get parts for, when put into pump station, it won't stop and is dangerous). He stated they have $45,000 budgeted. Moved by Hafner and Lucke to authorize call for bids. Motion carried.

d) bucket machine (wastewater dept)
Mr. Goetz stated that this is flood damaged and have a DSR on those and have to bid. Moved by Lucke and Hafner to authorize call for bids. Motion carried.

5. Matter of request from Street Dept. for trucks.
Mr. Feland reported that as part of the side-load system and in looking at trucks Street Dept. has an evaluation of them they have 7 trucks between years 1978 and 1982 and thought this was an opportune time to allow Street Dept. to buy some of the Solid Waste trucks that would be traded in, bids would come in and St.

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
May 26, 1998 - Page 10

Dept. would have to evaluate which ones they want and bring back to committee and include in 1999 budget. He reviewed truck conversion costs for total est. conversion cost of $45,000 for three trucks. He stated that sometimes trucks/equipment given from one department to another and whether want to supplement general fund department with enterprise funds. Hagness stated he would like to see continue as in the past.

Moved by Hafner and Lucke to accept concept for Street Department to purchase three Solid Waste Department trucks being bid as trade for sideload trucks and to refer to the Budget Frame-work Committee to include funding in the 1999 budget. Motion carried; Hagness voted no.

6. Matter of temp. const. and roadway/utility easements.
Temporary construction easement for Watermain Proj. 4708, $890; temporary construction easement for Watermain Project 4706, $1875.00; roadway and utility easement for Sanitary Sewer Project 4661, $1.00; and temporary construction easement for Sanitary Sewer Project 4661 for $1.00 were presented and read. Moved by Hafner and Lucke to approve the easements and authorize proper City officials to sign the easements. Motion carried.

7. Matter of wastewater treatment plant - access road and
staging area, approval of plans and specs.
Lynn Brills, KBM, stated they have second bid package on new wastewater treatment facility and consists of constructing access road and staging area to get site ready for heavy construction activity that will be taking place, and will be utilizing exist-ing road that runs along south lagoon dike which was beefed up for concrete trucks in the past, bid date set at June 22, and plans and specs. sent to Mr. Grotte; est. cost $170,000. Mr. Grotte reported he look plans over and are on final review. Moved by Hafner and Lucke to approve plans and specifications and autho-rize call for bids. Motion carried.

8. RFP for A/E (architect/eng.) services for public works facility - renovation and alteration, #4822.
Charles Grotte reported that after flood last year an addi-tion was built onto the public works building, to provide space for donated goods until they no longer needed space, and not getting any so don't need lot of space and moving onto next phase. He stated they would like to hire an architect to do study and progress into design and management of that project. He stated they need sprinkler system for the building, new fire hydrants, some work on the roof and build office space and storage areas within the building, etc. He stated that the wastewater shop is on the wrong side of the dike and would be relocated into this building, and also the water distribution shop which is currently in the water plant, because of their expansion. Lucke asked if they could do in house; Mr. Vein

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
May 26, 1998 - Page 11

stated they probably could but doing so many other things more qualified for and better use of their time. He stated that they do so much of their time working with consultants and is managing consultants and perhaps in future add more staff to keep overall costs down but at time not requesting that and need consultant. Mr. Grotte state they have est. $75-100,000 based on $1 million project, and then doing roof on existing building, etc. Moved by Lucke and Hafner to approve RFP for architec-ture/engineer servic-es for the building. Motion carried.

9. RFP for engineering and surveying services - permanent flood
protection in-kind service projects. Mr. Grotte stated that this is to hire consultants to do projects where he has preliminary listing of projects that the City would be responsible for in connection with flood protection projects and will note that first three projects are designated for Advanced engineering and remainder of projects are for what this proposal would cover. He stated proposal written somewhat general so if other projects added later, they will fit four main categories, otherwise do another solicitation. He stated there will be several projects to be done in the next 4 to 5 years and some started right away and some held, but within next year be doing something on all of these (planning), and is requesting to get permission to advertise request for proposals (including schedule) and requested someone from the committee to sit on the selection board. Moved by Lucke and Hafner to approve RFP for engineering and surveying services. Motion carried. Hafner will sit on the selection commit-tee.

10. Matter of request from Vern Gornowicz to connect to city
watermain - three-way agreement.
Vern Gornowicz and Mark Lambrecht, CPS, presented request, that what Mr. Gornowicz has platted is four 2 1/2 acre lots north of Highway 2, north mile and quarter west of the Toyota Dealer-ship and west of the Gun Club - a series of industrial lots. Mr. Gornowicz stated they wouldn't protest annex-ation if it comes up. Mr. Vein stated that by ordinance they do not service properties outside the city limits and it's been their recommendation not to do this but because it has in part de-creased potential for future annexations when time comes, and major point of annexation is delivery of utilities; the request that he agreed to not to protest future annexation is significant improvement on that, but if resale have to make sure that applies to future users and that's real concern. He stated this property so far west doesn't know when would be there. (This is 3/4 mi. west of New Vision). Hagness stated that they did do the Church out there. Mr. Vein stated it would be expected that Mr. Gornowicz pay all upfront costs and pay for city water usage; and asked what type of service serve with this line. Mr. Gornowicz stated only usage would be trenching company (underground wire); and each is 2 1/2 acre lot to be sold for future commercial lot. Hagness asked if

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
May 26, 1998 - Page 12

covenant to go with property not to protest annexation. Hagness asked if no protest on annextion for waste mgmt. firm on previous property would stay with that property; Mr. Gornowicz stated they still own half the land there. Mr. Lambrecht stated that Mr. Gornowicz being far-sighted enough to put in watermains to specifications and avoid potential battle in the future, and that they under-stand ramifi-cations of selling water outside the city limits, that they will have to cross Highway 2 to get to the lines and will still be doing some considerations of cost even if City gave permission to weigh the alternatives. Hagness suggest-ed possi-bility of changing ordinance. Mr. Vein stated they would recom-mend going along with their proposal and when look at future costs and better for City in long run with no protest to annex-ation, and would like to review plans. Mr. Lambrecht stated they would bring plans and specs. at future meeting, this is three-way agreement to proceed in principal. Hafner asked about exist-ing water service territory, Mr. Vein stated perhaps if existing area, but as bring in new platted areas, this is different situation.

Moved by Hafner and Lucke to direct city attorney to draw agree-ment to allow water tie in and authorize entering into three-way agreement with developer and engineer. Motion carried.

11. Matter of quick-take condemnation for Proj. 4669.3, Southend
Drainway Phase 2B.
Mr. Grasser reported this has to do with next phase of southend drainway, now bid to 40th Avenue South and invoked quick take authority to get some of that property from Curran along South Washington, and in the process of acquiring that. He stated that the alignment here requires them to go north just west of 18th Street, north to 40th Ave.S. and west to Inter-state; that they have had some preliminary meeting with property owners, Gornowicz, Useldingers, Greenbergs, and going to come up with mutually beneficial agreement between all parties. They thought they had mutually agreeable arrange-ment with him last summer, waited for appraisal price to come through, got appraisal in for this parcel at $125,000 for entire parcel of land, made offer and now have letter from proper-ty owner's attorney rejecting offer of $125,000 and his value is $275,000, and property about 3/4 acres of land and because of difference in price value and to expedite thing and are recom-mending going through quick take, and this will avoid house and take 119 feet and temp. const. easement and would allow house and garage to stay and take approx. 1/3 of the property. He stated they are in the process of having appraisal company re-evaluate that slice of his property and make that offer to him and if rejected, go to court system for quick take. Mr. Grasser reported they have come up with understanding with Mr. Gornowicz and other property owners which is fair and asking for portions to be donated as R/W and some as park, purchas-ing bottom pieces of drainway and getting slope easement on the

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
May 26, 1998 - Page 13

outside, and basing on appraised value. Moved by Hafner and Lucke to proceed with quick take condemnation of property, contingent upon failure to negotiate settlement with B.Peterson. Motion carried.

12. Matter of status of Congressional Subdivisions.
Mr. Grasser reported that work done in bad time of year; and that with flood recovery in Congressional Subdivisions and to establish housing in city, work was allowed to proceed and now in stage of picking up pieces; that it was contractor's first job in city of laying sewer, water and stormsewer of this size in Congressional 1; in Congressional 2 Molstad was contractor and subbed to Gibb and that job went a lot better because had a more experienced contractor plus ground not quite as tough. (Congres-sional 1st is north development north of 6th Avenue where Schmaltz was going to put in development; Congressional 2 is development is south of University Avenue). Hagness asked if they were going after contractor for a deduct, and Mr. Grasser stated they have been discussing that for some time but prefer-ence is that work be corrected, problems they have with houses built and gravel and fabric are in, most other utilities in (NSP, US West, etc.) and other cabling systems in, and majority of this area is virtually impossible to take corrective action on it at this time. Mr. Grasser stated problems because it was so wet, high ground water and had a wet fall. Grasser stated that the mis-aligned sewer is a big concern, and sanitary sewer when went through and televised it, number of areas found ponded water, camera goes under water, there's dips in the gravity sewer line; and probably goes back to installation procedures. He stated that our inspectors were out there looking at the job, because inspectors stated when laid was right but because of wet soil, when did backfill procedures the soil so bad and tried to do compaction, but pushed and shoved pipe moved around. Mr. Grasser stated that inspector was one of the SNA people hired to do inspection out there. He stated that concern is future operation maintenance, do additional maintenance.

Mr. Grasser reported that we owe contractor money, and no other contracts with the City, is bidding other projects but not low bidder and depends on job. He stated that better training for inspectors, but had permanent people stop and observe and that confirmed that it looked good before backfilling. He stated they have sat down with the contractor; and on one hand would like to have them repair it so establish what a fair price might be for a deduct if leave it there; how much to fix it and make it right but don't want cure to be worse than disease. He stated other problem is that paving was supposed to follow closely behind underground and Valley Contracting has indicated that their probably going to be asking for damages for delay, but hasn't gotten that official-ly, and has problems with paying that kind of damage, poor precedent to set and is in special provisions that

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
May 26, 1998 - Page 14

won't pay, will take firm stand against that, and if comes to that point look at best low bid to the City. Nodak on north end and Valley on south end with identical issues going, Nodak is paving and Valley is not and boils down to the attitude of the contractor.

Mr. Grasser stated that what they really wanted to do (trenches did not get under streets and designed that way) and allow streets to be put in because trenches didn't extend under them but according to report and soils report, they're expecting anywhere from 1" to 12" of settlement in deep trench areas, and one of the recommendations is to allow the paving contractor to start but understanding that there is some risk involved as this isn't typical type project and are probably places where trenches into road more than documented, but to keep project going to sell homes out there, recommending going ahead with the paving, but some risk that might be some settlements that go in and have to replace. He stated they will work with Urban Development and do something of temporary nature, put in asphalt driveway for a period of 3-4 years, let settle and then come in and install final concrete driveway and not install sidewalk. He stated that Urban Development through Housing Agency is building homes and quasi-city relationship and viewed as City's, and have to work out with Urban Development.

Mr. Grasser stated he would like concurrence on recommendations from the committee; he stated that in Congressional Subdivision on the south, staff recommending that instead of going with median put road as standard 37 ft. wide street. Mr. Vein stated that he likes that concept because of snow removal maintenance headaches, and encourages that. Mr. Grasser stated they are holding substantial amounts of money and will be visiting sites more often. Mr. Vein stated this is information and bring back to committee. Mr. Grasser stated they are looking for concur-rence because taking risk normally don't and probably going to people with varied opinions when leaving these driveways out. Mr. Vein stated that this is to put on notice that going to do this and consequences of what's going to happen, in minutes and council aware of it. Mr. Grasser stated that with engineering there's always a solution but not cost wise. He stated that if thought recompacting could be done would force contractor to do that, but with houses being built and street being built and other utili-ties, not possible; and contractor has change of condition. Mr. Grasser stated this one reason they are going to resist very strongly when start talking other subdivi-sion like golf course, building houses when still putting in utilities, and this is reason why can't do that. Information only.

13. Matter of selection committee for engineering services for Proj. 4806, pave Mill Road (Gateway to Highway 81) and Proj.