Committee Minutes

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
Monday, December 14, 1998 - 7:00 p.m.

Members present: Hafner, Klave, Lucke.

INFORMATION: Matter of water intake site.
Hafner stated that Lonnie Hafner would like to speak to this matter, that committee will not be taking any action but listening to his statement. Lonnie Winrich stated he wished to express concerns as leaving on a trip tomorrow and won’t be able to attend the public meeting on Thursday night; that this is of much concern to him and his neighbors. He stated that the proposed raw water intake facility will essentially devastate their neighborhood, it would cause demoli-tion of 3 houses which don’t need to be demolished, 2 are currently owner-occupied and third habitable but vacant at present time, that’s 30% of viable housing stock on their block. He stated that the building proposed to go into that area would be three stories high, 60x80 ft. and would dwarf one and two story frame houses that occupy the rest of the block, would look completely out of place; and his own house which would be next door to this facility would look like caricature of urban growth and shudder to think what will happen to property values because won’t be as desirable as part of residential neighborhood. He stated he doesn’t think this has to happen, there are other viable sites along the river; houses being removed on 4th Avenue S. because in dike line but there should be room between the dike and the street for this facility, removed because portion falls and easement for the dike; there is an area directly across the street from this location and south of the water plant where proposed dike like makes two right angle bends, but that’s an invitation for erosion in the dike and would make more sense to make a smooth dike line across that block and if did there would be room for a sig-nificant structure there; there is a block bounded by 3rd and 4th Streets and Gertrude and Franklin Avenues that is half occupied by the water plant and other half of the block consists mostly of rental property and vacant property, no owner-occupied houses and believes raw water intake facility could go in that site. He stated that those who live in the area protest the demolition of their neighbor-hood, they want to encourage what has been happening, the encourage-ment of owner-occupied houses in Grand Forks, and the preservation of the tax base and getting people into houses, and this flies in the face of all those policies that the council has been trying to pursue for the last couple years. He stated he would hope they would insist on some alternate proposals for this raw water intake facility. He stated he has worked with engineers all of his professional career, taught computer science at the University and there are many who contend that computer science is in fact an engineering discipline and in many universities housed in the college of engineering; that
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
December 16, 1998 - Page 2

he doesn’t claim to be an engineer but knows that one of the first principles of engineering is that there is never only one solution to a technical problem, much of the art and practice of engineering con-sists of evaluating alternative solutions and comparing them; and it is an abuse of engineering practice to propose only one solution and claim that’s the only thing that can be done, and particularly since this proposal is being based on what was described in Mr. Grotte’s letter to the neighbors in that area as a preliminary engineering evaluation. He stated he would ask them as members of the committee and as members of the council to insist on a number of alternatives for this facility along the lines of the proposal that deals with the replacement of the water plant, where have several alternatives and they are evaluated compared, etc., and further that they insist on a full evaluation of all of those alternatives and not merely a pre-liminary analysis. Ken Vein, city engineer, stated that he had outlined a couple possible locations that might be potentially available for further study, and he talked to Steve Burian, A/E, about one additional location, and would be very interested in seeing what his thoughts would be on other locations other than the one presented. Mr. Winrich stated that one of the problems that he has is that he is leaving town tomorrow for an extended holiday trip and doesn’t know that he will be able to get that to them; Mr. Vein sug-gested getting phone call re. locations. Information.

1. Matter of partial release of easement, encroachment agreement
for stoop, and agreement to relocate waterline.
Jon Large, project engineer, stated that there was a recom-mendation from Ray LeClerc that shows what he would like to have done with R/W by the Acme location (map showed portions of the City R/W which he would like to return to the land owner and area which City would maintain for sidewalk and utility easement) and by doing this it would cut down on paperwork that would be needed to obtain the easements or their protrusion into our ease-ment. He stated that Acme would still have to relocate the water-line which would be in the City’s utility easement re. entrance to the building. Mr. Vein stated only concern was to make sure that the utilities be relocated along with the vacation request. Mark Lindvig, Johnson Laffen Architects, stated there has been a survey done now and they were able to locate sanitary line and waterline with respect to the actual property line and the building. Mr. Large stated he has not seen survey, and that he was briefed on this by Mr. LeClerc; Mr. Vein recommended approval of the recommendation and if any problems between now and council meeting, can correct between now and then.

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
December 14, 1998 - Page 2

Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve the recommendation and refer to
Planning and Zoning Commission for the vacation of a portion of North 17th Street R/W and alley R/W dedicated to the City of Grand Forks, ND and filed in the Office of Register of Deeds, Grand Forks, ND on January 18, 1991 and recorded as Document No. 461645; said portion more specifically described as being the westerly 30 ft. of Lots 8 and 9, Block 78, Alexandrer & Ives Addition, Grand Forks, ND including portion of E/W alley adjacent thereto; said R/W vacation being subject to a sidewalk and utility easement on the easterly 23 ft. thereof; and contingent upon relocation of the waterline at Acme Electric’s cost. Motion carried.

2. Matter of temp. construction easement for Proj. 4846, storm
sewer at 40th Ave.'s. between s. Wash. and Southend Drainway
Mr. Large reported there is a 50 ft. easement that runs about 1264 ft. and turns into 100 ft. wide that runs for about 140 ft., the owner is asking consideration of $133.00 which is equal to the amount that he would normally get for renting that property. Moved by Lucke and Klave to approve and accept the easement for consider-ation of $133.00 to be paid from CDBG funds. Motion carried.

3. Matter of temp. construction easement for Proj. 4836, storm
sewer on east side of Belmont Rd. between Southend Drainway
and Adams Drive.
Mr. Large reported this construction easement is for considera-tion of $1.00. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve and accept the easement for the consideration of $1.00 out of CDBG funds. Motion carried.

4. Matter of farm lease - rent reimbursement for 1999 (between
city landfill and city lagoon).
Mr. Large reported this is matter Mr. LeClerc had been dis-cussing with Mr. McEnroe who has been renting the property that the City owns, that he has been having cattle in that pasture area and this summer there has been construction going on with bringing dirt for cover for the landfill and this has caused him problems with the cattle (pink eye) and would like some reimbursement on rental of the land, but did not give amount (rent $2300/year). Committee asked for further information from renter re. amount of damages and collaboration re. problem with cattle. Moved by Klave and Lucke to hold this matter for 2 weeks. Motion carried.

5. Request from McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc. for
permission to enter city right of way.
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
December 16, 1998 - Page 3

Dean Fairaizl, Bismarck Office, 919 S. 7th St., Suite 602, and Ruth Capon, 136 Eagle Street, Fargo, Branch Mgr. in Grand Forks and Fargo, stated they were here to request permission to enter City right of way, at the present time McLeod is reselling services through US West and would like to come into Grand Forks and build their own network and get off of US West and do cheaper for their customers; that they have given plans to the city engineer. Mr. Grasser, asst. city engineer, stated he knew they were anxious to get started on construction, that he talked with Mr. Swanson for a few minutes and he suggested that they could allow an interim agreement to allow them to come in with a franchise agreement to be done later; that what Mr. Swanson envisioning was some sort of franchise agreement that might encompass all utilities within the city. Mr. Fairaizl stated that Phase I of the project is going to be dealing with the business areas, map showing portions planning on construction right away and is aerial plant (put on pole lines owned by US West and NSP) and work in progress to get permitting and pole agreements from them. He stated that what he needs for City approval now is setting of down guy anchors at the end of the pole lines and probably next year there will be some underground work to interconnect areas where can’t get to all aerially. Mr. Fairaizl stated that US West and NSP have pole lines everywhere that he is planning on going. Klave stated he had heard that NSP was considering putting everything underground so no poles left above ground, wouldn’t want to put something on pole and they abandon pole because going underground and poles still there for different reason. Hafner stated that he doubt seriously that either one would abandon their poles. Mr. Grasser stated he had a number of concerns when this first came in and have had some discussions but thinks that most of his concerns but if first phase of work is all aerial, doesn’t have any specific issues to address but by next construction season will have made comments and Mr. Swanson will have detailed agreement put together. He stated that committee could possibly make motion to approve interim agreement for Phase I of the work contingent upon approval of the city attorney. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve interim agreement contingent upon review and approval of the city attorney. Motion carried.

6. Request for payment of flood-related mechanical inspection
services.
Jeff Wilson, president Vilandre Heating & Air-conditioning, 701 North 7th Street, stated that in July of 1998 he sent a check to the City of Grand Forks for mechanical permits that they incurred
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
December 14, 1998 - Page 5

during the flood reconstruction, have had this conversation before a number of times, and went before committee and through council, and he was asked to pay those fees and did so willingly. He stated that at that particular time that if the vote was in favor of the City that he would render a bill to the City for what he believes were services rendered, that he did that when he submitted his check for payment of the inspection fees for mechanical permits. He stated that a short period after that the bill was sent back to him by Tim Manz, that Mr. Manz thanked him for sending in a check for the permit fees, and sent his bill back to him saying that there was nothing in the City Code that allowed for payment of these. He stated that they inquired of Mr. Swanson as to what direction he should take to get this issue heard again, and he said to come back to committee.

Mr. Wilson stated to give a recap, in April of 1997 the City of Grand Forks deputized his company along with others as mechanical inspectors; and with this information he informed his staff a number of times that care needed to be taken when they did inspec-tions of the property and project thoroughly inspected before leaving; his staff did as asked and he did what City asked him to do. He stated why were they deputized, that he has three reasons that he can assume as to why they deputized them: 1) City inspec-tion department trusted staff (and local people because deal with them every day and work well hand in hand); 2) no possible way that the City could have staffed quickly enough with qualified inspectors to handle the demand and couldn’t have been any possible way the City could have staffed quickly enough to handle all the telephone requests and paperwork for these inspec-tions, so put in the hands of the contractors; that they did inspections, kept track of inspections and submitted to City for payment. He stated they were asked to do this, did what asked to do, only problem he has is that they did it for free. He stated that Mr. Manz, city inspec-tor, has told the committee in his tes-timonies prior and through recent memos that contractors were the sole beneficiaries of the inspection process after the flood because of enormous time saving that he thinks contractors realized, and that he disagreed; that under normal conditions prior to the flood and even now, his staff is instructed to call for an inspection after a project is done and if a City inspector has not come to the property prior to their finishing the job, his staff is expected to leave to come back to the office to either finish out the day or move on with the next project; that he doesn’t have them stay at the property and wait for City inspector to show up, can’t afford that. He stated that
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
December 14, 1998 - Page 6

under flood conditions had they not been deputized you can only imagine the amount of backlog that would have taken place, that he realized no time savings and his point is that he was asked to do the inspections, asked to track them, to submit documents to the City and then later paid them, all at no expense to the City. He stated that the City chose to do reinspections, didn’t have to as they did what City asked them to and did the original inspections, they chose to reinspect and why punishing him for something that he paid them in full for; and what City had to do after contractors did the inspections was issue a simple permit, and Mr. Manz has informed him now that those permits are ready for him to pick up tonight after meeting or tomorrow, and with that inspection that he paid, he paid $15.00 permit issue fee and a variety of different amounts dependent on what type of equip-ment was installed. He stated that he doesn’t think this is fair.

Mr. Wilson stated that during the spring of 1997 they were installing in the neighborhood of 6 to 10 water heaters a day, 36 to 60 week, during late spring and summer and fall of 1997 they were installing 20 to 30 furnaces a day, about 106 to 180 furnaces and related equipment a week; that is an enormously large amount of inspection requests the City would have had to have handled had they not been deputized, people would have had to wait for days to get their gas turned on for furnaces and water heaters. He stated people were looking for contractors and when found one and got on someone’s schedule, contractor gets equipment installed, can’t imagine having them have contractor wait for days to get a City inspector out to do inspection because of the numbers. He said to put them together with Custom Aire with volume they did also, and a lot of the other contractors in town, looking at double the requests, City inspection department would not have been able to cope with it, and provided that service for them. He stated that when they offer a service to their community you expect service has value; if service has no value you’re out of business. He stated that the service they provided had an enormous impact on the city at that particular time and had enormous value to their customers and a good portion to the city of Grand Forks; that the City fails to realize the value they provided for them during this time of disaster, and with that request that the bill he submitted to the City for services rendered dated July 28, 1998, be approved.

Tim Manz, city mechanical inspector, stated he basically agrees with what Mr. Wilson said except for one thing, he mentioned that before the flood that basically when they called for inspections
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
December 16, 1998 - Page 7

that inspector comes within 30-40 minutes of the guy’s doing the job and cleaning up, and meet him there and works out just great, but the City Code and National Code they adopt actually makes provisions for if contractor has to call for inspection up to 48 hours in advance and it’s his responsibility to wait on the job until the inspector comes, that’s the intention and it happens 90% of the time where the contractor is on the job, and they’ve had this luxury up until the flood, and is still in the City Code that they need to wait on the job until the inspector comes, and they all would have been in a bind after the flood if they would have had to wait on the job, but that’s one thing in the Code that’s specified.

Hafner asked when they had the meetings, emergency meetings to discuss with the contractors the matter of inspections, was there any agreement as to compensation for the contractors or were there any requested. Mr. Manz stated that at the meeting there was no request and no agreement, but was discussed briefly whether or not they should waive or reduce the fees and Mechanical Board didn’t have the authority to waive or reduce the fees so would have had to go to city council so Mechanical Board members discussed it and also the mechanical contractors were at that meeting they more or less agreed that the time saved by doing their own inspections would more than off-set any expenses that would have to go through to do their own inspections.

Moved by Lucke and Klave that in view of the fact there is no written contract to reimburse the contractors, moved to deny pay-ment of bills. Motion carried.

7. Matter of lighting on bikepath along English Coulee from 6th
Avenue North to Gateway Drive.
Mr. Large stated there was a letter from UND covering this issue; that it’s his understanding that this item has been through public service and public safety and city council, and now back to public service, and were waiting for approval from UND for the project before request for proposals were sent out, and have letter which states UND’s approval so were asking for committee’s approval to request for proposals. Hafner stated they have council referral from public safety that indicates “..that federal funds combined with City-match pay for the installation or construction of lights, defer the maintenance and on-going costs for lighting to the Uni-versity, and further that signs not indicate safety concerns as suggested by the University”.
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
December 14, 1998 - Page 8

Mr. Brooks stated that the proposals before committee, is that he hasn’t heard any dollar figures, and asked if anything put as pur-pose of the lights, is it a safetyissue or just trying to get a lot of people on the bikepath. Hafner stated that initially this com-mittee passed request, that it went to council and the matter of safety issues was brought up and it was referred to public safety to ask if there were safety concerns. Lucke asked that if MPO is funding 80% of this, if that is out of a safety budget and if looked to reason they are funding it, could answer that question; it was stated they are part of highway beautification fund on MPO that can go for bikepaths. Mr. Grasser stated it’s transportation enhancement funds, that projects compete state-wide for funding and generally go to bikepath related type issues, landscaping, etc. and funding source is 80% federal and 20% local (they don’t pay for design engineering and R/W acquisition, etc.) and MPO has some funding to help off-set the cost, $6-8,000 item. Beth Bouley, member of safety committee, stated compromise came to be part UND and part Grand Forks, and stated that concern on the signs was wanted to be very careful on wording of how done; that it was combination of liability as well as concerns. It was noted that the City does maintenance or repair of the paths, safety’s recommendation was that be UND’s expense.

Mr. Brooks stated that purpose was to make it more useable for people, didn’t address the safety issue, that there’s nothing beautiful about path at night, not a place to be walking at night, sheltered and not going to make it safe at night unless remove shrubbery. He stated that the dollar issue - City’s share 20% and initial proposal is City going to maintain and that area flooded every year and part of path flooded once during the summer, those lights, etc. get flooded and talking about Coulee water, etc., it’s corrosive and have to do more to keep flood-proofed which is going to cost more money, and are they just trying to spend money? and from safety point, that path has had no signs and now when put lights on it, they want to put signs up saying it's dangerous and asked if that was contradictory.

Hafner asked if City gets federal monies for this type of project, and if didn’t spend it here, would build bikepath somewhere else and didn’t know if an issue of saving money and if it is let him know. Mr. Grasser stated that the City competes with other com-munities/counties who submit list of requests to transportation enhancement funds, State goes through and ranks and dollar amounts attached to those requests, and State finds out how much money they
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
December 14, 1998 - Page 9

can allocate in a year and rank. He stated that City can’t bank this specific amount of dollars if don’t proceed with the project, it will likely go down the list, although sometimes they may allow us to carry some of that over, but that there is a danger that we will lose the money if we don’t proceed with the project. Mr. Large stated that he talked with Earl Haugen, MPO, and if funds not used for this project, couldn’t be used for something else.

Klave stated he wasn’t in favor of this when it came to CIP, and not sure favors it now, not sure if right place to be using funds, concern about on-going maintenance costs, and when MPO vying for these dollars, they need to look long and hard at what is in the best interest of the city, and not what’s good project that’s going to go through so get the funds; if lose funds, lose them but doesn’t like taking funds just to say got them and not to throw that money away when have on-going costs forever, whatever dollar figure up front. Lucke asked what time of the day this bikepath becomes unbeautiful, because with lights very useable bikepath, safety concerns - feels better walking there with lights, and denying this because we have part of town that’s unsafe for people to be in, sends poor message and is for the project. Mr. Brooks disagreed, putting up signs because this place has history of causing trouble - that at night it’s not a place to be, and shouldn’t be place to encourage people to be at night.

Mr. Grasser stated there are couple alternatives that committee could consider tonight, 1) to approve project to go ahead and would work with MPO to hire an engineer, and other to kill it, or third step is talking about number of issues of lighting, etc. without really having a study done, may want to proceed and actually do the concept report, get engineer in there and evaluate lighting, issues etc. and let them define more clearly the issues at a later date, both costs and level of lighting; that there’s potential lack of data over there. Klave stated that federal dollars have a cap, and not a matter of having a study done to figure out how much lighting because that could come back and tell us more and would be City’s responsibility to fund that and on-going costs; and didn’t think this was time to start lighting bikepaths, have enough other things going on in our community and citizens watching very closely what we do and has a concern to start spending city dollars lighting bikepaths when lot more pertinent things going on. Lucke asked that once the city has a full dike this will be safe area as far as not flooding any time of the year; Mr. Vein stated it would be safe

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
December 14, 1998 - Page 10

area when dike in place and design would be such that in those areas it would be overhead or in some type of conduit system.

The committee agreed to leave their previous motion on the floor.

8. Matter of adoption of 1999 National Electrical Code.
Mr. Manz distributed copies of the proposed ordinance and stated this would be routine adoption of current electrical code; ordinance will go into effect upon adoption by council (January 5). Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve the ordinance and introduce for first reading.

Melvin Pederson, 2423 University Avenue, stated he has copy of the Code and that there isn’t any section in regard to the home pro-
cedure, wiring in the homes, that would make it somewhat easier for layman to do his own wiring, they ought to be allowed to do their own equipment. He stated he’s had some problems that are related and if this document had a section in it concerning the necessary layman’s point of view, layman’s ability to use the kind of equipment that he owns that maybe appropriate, however, he’s been told by the City not to touch his electrical wiring and has been given a list of what has to be done, has done it, and inspector says he won’t look at what he did. He stated he has a lot of computers, build computers, etc., and would suggest that if want to adopt a Code, should consider having people be allowed to get a license to do their own wiring (take test and/or have course available for people). He also noted that Tim Manz wrote a letter saying that he’s not allowed to touch the wiring.

Hafner stated that they are dealing with adoption of the National Electric Code and not doing something that’s pertinent to his situation. Hafner stated he was entitled to do wiring in his own home as long as inspected and passes inspection; and purpose of Electrical Code is to protect everyone from whatever dangers there are, good purpose to have an electrical codes, not only to protect him but whoever may buy house later, and everyone has to comply with rules. Hafner stated that if inspection department need to come back and re-inspect, hope they would do that.

Upon call for the question, the motion carried.

9. Matter of in-kind support of powdered activated carbon (PAC)
study to look at bidding requirements.

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
December 14, 1998 - Page 11

Craig Lacher, Lab. Supervisor with City Environmental Lab, stated they are requesting for environmental lab services, equipment, time for a proposal to look at powdered activated carbon efficiencies and usefulness in water treatment facility, this is in-kind money combined with study by EERC to develop powdered activated carbon in ND using ND lignite, there are wide variety of differences between powdered activated carbons and have been able to identify almost 50% different efficiencies between and currently the water plant is spending about $45,000/yr. on powdered activated carbons and becomes very useful tool.

Moved by Lucke and Klave to approve in-kind support of the study. Motion carried.

10. matter of request to write specs. for payloader for sani-
tation department.
Dick Newman, solid waste mgr., stated he has payloader for the landfill in the budget for 1999, their five-year guaranteed buyback is up in April so need to get specs. written, approved and bid as soon as possible so have delivery before buyback hours are up (there are 8500 hours on machine, and 10,000 hours or five years) machine is starting to show quite a bit of wear, and was down last summer because of transmission problem but because under warranty company took care of that; landfill equipment works 10 hours/day 6 days/week. He asked for permission to write specs.

Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve request to write specs. for payloader. Motion carried. (Comm. only)

Mr. Newman stated he has taken liberty of writing specs. and distributed these tonight for committee’s review and asked that if any questions, to contact him prior to the next public service committee meeting. It was noted that it was his belief that it was best economical thing to take guaranteed buyback and invest in a new machine.

11. Budget amendments.
a) Sanitation Department - $692,059.00
Mr. Newman reported they have had a good year at landfill, but also spent lot of money, and are requesting $285,200 to come out of landfill revenues to be used to cover temp. wages, overtime wages, workers compensation, diesel at landfill, leasing of equipment and maint. of vehicles. He stated they are also asking for cash carryover of $371,859.00 to go into construction equipment for the
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
December 14, 1998 - Page 12

purchase of the landfill compactor, which was budgeted for 1997 but not purchased until 1998 and monies not carried over automatically and asking to take monies that were budgeted in 1997 be brought forward to pay for landfill compactor. Klave asked if most of the maintenance done out of house; Mr. Newman stated lot done in-house but with big equipment some of it farmed back to Butler because they have tools and equipment to take care of it. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve transfer of funds. Motion carried.

b) Dial-a-Ride - $98,212.00
c) Public Transportation - $70,000
Todd Feland reported that b) is for contract service to Nodak Cab, and that bdget is over by $98,212.00 and to cover added expense to move some of the federal transit revenue, State grant revenue and also anticipated revenue from Nodak (they pay user fare) and that is up $2,000 over what was budgeted. He stated that c) is to come from cash carryover of City Bus which relates back to movement of federal money from Bus to debt Dial-a-Ride Program and then to use some cash carryover to cover lost revenue. He stated that this portion of budget has gotten very expensive and will get more expensive and probably program need to concentrate on maintaining costs. Klave and Lucke moved to approve transfers.

Klave stated he didn’t know what a good dollar figure is that we should be carrying over from year to year and has concern that all departments (we're asking to tighten budgets, etc. but there seems to be lot of money carried over from one year to the next, and needs to be addressed by all department so can get a truer cost feeling for what actually is per se in each department every year so when it comes time to do our mills, we know where we’re at and not have a department have $70,000 of cash carryover, not sure if there’s more. Mr. Feland stated there was approx. $150,000, and his concern is that with Dial-a-Ride program is becoming an expensive program so it’s taking money from the Bus and subsidizing into Dial-a-Ride program and in future years become tighter, and run down the Bus program. It was also noted that when requests for transfers come in, there’re done deals., and assumptions on part of staff that they will be approved, should consider before spending money.

Upon call for the question, the motion carried.

12. Matter of pedestrian bridge removal.
This matter was pulled from the agenda.
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
December 14, 1998 - Page 13

13. Matter of authorization to request proposals for mapping/
infrastructure.
Mr. Grasser reported this was pulled from council because of request from MIS, and understands their concern was that they were afraid of what doing here on mapping might be in conflict or over-lap some efforts that are already being done throughout the city, that he talked with Roxanne Fiala, and engineering aware of efforts going on in the city in various department, and this is an effort to coordinate and compliment the work being done. He stated they have MPO doing aerial photos that they will try to incorporate with MIS, MIS has consultant hired to help bring various GIS activities together, engineering department is able to do some mapping and infrastrcture identification through our street evaluation process (when go through an analysize the streets with van, take pictures every 15-25 ft. and through photographs should be able to identify where most of the manholes, hydrants, etc. are at. He stated he was envisioning (original request brought to CIP and their sugges-tion was to look for funding from CDBG), but with all efforts making to date in bringing in pieces of this mapping and GIS process together, he is requesting to get a consultant on board so when issues or deficiences are identified have someone to go out and address, can write scope of work and negotiate a fee, and to do task required at the time. He stated that one of the tasks coming up is with aerial photos and street surveying, that they will be able to go out and physically identify with State Plain Coordinate locations 60-70-80% of our infrastructure (manholes, valves and fire hydrants), and if can get to 70-80% level of accuracy through efforts making already, it may make a lot of sense to spend an extra $50-70,000 and finish off what lacking and then know have a very accurate map. He stated maps are put together based on old as-built drawings that go back to early 1900’s but according to as-built plans (question of trying to coordinate cyber map into the real world) and want to verify what’s being shown in cyber space meets real world and only way to do is to go physically out and get coordinates on most of the infrastructure. Mr. Vein stated they were asking for authorization to take proposals at this point. Mr. Grasser stated he is trying to be pro-active and doesn’t want to wait until September or October of 1999 to find out that there’s things they need to hire consultant to do and go through 3-month hiring process and trying to get CDBG money under contract; sees high probablity that will need consultant to do some things. He stated there’s no money allocated so not spending any money at this time. Committee reaffirmed their original motion and to send back to council.
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
December 14, 1998 - Page 14

14. Matter of Amendment No. 3A (const. admin. - GFEG) to
engineering services agreements for Proj. 4848, Pump Station
#39 (CDBG).
Lon Aune, GFEG, reported that earlier they had approved an award for construction services for Lift Station #39 that’s located east of Washington and south of Presbyterian Church that’s being constructed on southend of town, and project put togther as part of the southend development. He stated that the amendment is for professional engineering services for the construction observation services (staking to on-site inspections including testing), total services over $66,000, and is part of the CDBG projects and looking for approval of the amendment to proceed.

Moved by Lucke and Klave to approve Amendment No. 3A in the amount of $66,111.15. Motion carried.

15. matter of Amendment No. 1 to eng. services agreement for
Proj. 4807, paving S. Wash. St. from 40th to 47th Aves.S.
Mr. Large stated this is a change from an amendment to a separate contract, the addition of the contract was made because of requirements from the State DOT that City cannot use information that was provided in Phase I and II reports, and that a separate report has to be done for this portion of this project. He stated that in the agreement there is a statement that there’s a max. amount of $10,600 for the report or analysis.

Jim West, KBM, Inc., stated that in conjunction with their being awarded the concept report and design services for the next phase of S. Washington St. it is necessary to do a traffic signal study, school pedestrian study at intersection of S. Washington and 47th and the other part of the contract is that the State Historic Preservation Officer is requiring a cultural resource survey, and those are the items required and encompass the contract, and there is some question whether it should be an amendment to the existing contract or a new contract, his direction from the DOT was that they wanted a separate contract. Committee asked if the cultural resource survey was done on the prior aspects of the project, and it was noted done up to 40th. Mr. West stated they had done to 40th and the Southend Drainway had one done and small stretch that wasn’t done.

Moved by Klave and Lucke to authorize entering into a contract with KBM, Inc., contingent upon review by the city attorney. Motion carried.
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
December 14, 1998 - Page 15

16. Matter of change orders for various projects:
a) Proj. 4719, Sanitation Sewer Restoration Area 2, CO#2
Tom Hanson, WFW, reviewed change order and stated there is a piece of line between Court House and Kem Temple that has no activity and no need and recommending to plug and abandon line and won’t need any future maintenance costs, and remove manhole, etc., cost $4,050.00 (Lametti & Sons, Inc., contractor). Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve the change order in the amount of $4,050.00.

b) Proj. 4860, Storm Sewer Restoration Area 2, CO #1
Mr. Hanson reported there are some inlets they need to resolve for $1,700, manhole depth of 5 ft. and some manholes shorter than that at $6,340.00 to lower to full depth so aren’t subject to frost movement, and group of items carried on priority repair list $79,645.00; and total change order is $87,685.00. Moved by Lucke and Klave to approve change order, CDBG funding. Motion carried.

e) Proj. 4687, Sewer Cleaning & Televising, C.O. #7
Mr. Hanson stated they’ve been working with the engineering department to locate some lines, one is terra cotta line which runs on 1st Ave.N behind old Valley Bank building down to river, that line was causing back flooding whenever flooding condition and would get tremendous amount of flow in sanitary sewers in this area, working with Viking Pipe Services and have established rate of $210.00/hour which allows them to run a special transponder, either camera or jet and follow along on surface to find out where it is. He stated this probably won’t be FEMA funded but there are CDBG funds available to do this. Committee asked if these were private storm sewers, and Mr. Hanson stated it’s really gray area, started as private sewer but served old Park E-Z, Security Building, etc. and only one left is Valley Bank building, so conglomeration and to get solved, decision has been made to consider that a public sewer. He stated would probably be less than 20 hours to do project. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve change order in an amount not to exceed $5,000, CDBG funding. Motion carried.

f) Proj. 4848, CO #1, 1999 Lift Station No. 39, Sched.B
Mr. Hanson reviewed change order in the amount of $1,592.00, access road changes, and with weather impossible for them to do sub-grade preparation because can’t compact material because of moisture content, traded sub-grade compaction for two additional inches of recycled concrete material so can get built over the winter and have better chance of surviving long term, with fabric
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
December 16, 1998 - Page 16

underneath mfgs. say can build on top of peat swamp, etc. so by putting more material on increase odds that it will be survivable facility at no cost, and to lower the 18” culvert in the church driveway in the amount of $1,592.00. (Construction Engineers, Ltd., contractor)

Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve change order in the amount of $1,592.00. Motion crried.

c) Proj. 4225, paving S. Wash. St. Phase I, CO #7
Mr. Large reported this is an increase of $27,362.25, they had an excess of dirt after the final grades were cut and ran into 6 large concrete foundations that needed to be removed, and with an increase of 12 calendar days to do change order.

Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve the change order in the amount of $27,362.25. Motion carried.

d) Proj. 4655, paving S. Wash. St. Phase II, CO#1
Mr. Large reviewed change order is that contractor requested that he be able to use a pre-cast manhole in lieu of cast in place which was originally on the contract and that he would take a $3,000 deduct and they agreed to allow. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve the change order in the amount of a $3,000 deduct. Motion carried.

g) Proj. 4746, paving S.Columbia Road, CO#3
Mr. Large reviewed change order, that there were 3 gate valves that were left below grade according to Wastewater Dept. when paving was done and covers cost of raising those to grade, $405.00, Nodak Contracting, contractor. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve the change order. Motion carried.

Moved by Klave and Lucke to adjourn; meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk

Dated: 12/16/98