Committee Minutes

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
Monday, January 11, 1999 - 7:00 p.m.

Members present: Hafner, Klave, Lucke, Lunak.

2. Matter of water treatment plant vicinity selection.
Steve Burian, A/E, stated that most of the audience had been at his previous meeting and rather than reiterating that, other than any questions they had, he briefly reviewed memo he sent out. He reported that the City did authorize Advanced Eng. & Assn. to develop a concept plan for the water system that was comprehensive, looking at water supply, water treatment, water distribution and water treatment residuals management, and further authorized a committee to look at weighing and evalua-ting the different site alternatives out there, and that com-mittee consisted of Klave, Dennis Potter, city planner, Charles Grotte, Hazel Fetters-Sletten and Charles Vein. He reported they met two times (Jan. 6 and 7) to review information, weighing of criteria, look at other site possibilities to make sure ones looking at were ones wanted to evaluate, look at criteria for evaluating and to weight the criteria. He reported they reviewed master plan activities prior to the flood, reviewed impacts of the flood, discussed basis for the City authorization of the concept plan, reviewed site and vicinity selection process, considered information and discussed alter-natives. He stated that the group concurred that none of the additional site alternatives seemed practical and that the three sites under consideration appear to expand the range of alterna-tives of the city. He stated they reviewed the results of the draft concept plan and did review the worksheet format. He stated that when they started the meeting on Thursday discussed any questions that the group had about the supplementary infor-mation that was attached to the worksheet, did discuss two other alternatives, having a water plant in East Grand Forks, Mn as well as the County Fairgrounds, and both of those had dis-advantages that strongly outweighed the advantages and were eliminated from consideration. They agreed to look only at the three sites in the city that were presented in the draft concept plan, approved the 12 issues in the weighing factors and individually completed the site and vicinity selection criteria worksheet. He stated that in the Memo that was presented, can see the results of the site and vicinity selection worksheet or evaluation process that’s presented on page 3, and that he explained the evaluation process (awarding of the 12 criteria to the three sites), took rankings of each committee member and determined that the preferred site was Industrial Park vicinity.


Page 2
January 11, 1999

He stated that it must be stressed that the site selection committee has only identified the vicinity of the Industrial Park as the most desirable long-term location alternative for the water plant, additional work is anticipated in the immediate future upon City approval to define the actual site within the vicinity, giving consideration to land availability, soil con-ditions, truck access, rail access, transportation conflicts, interaction with the raw water supply works, interaction with the distribution system, residuals management alternatives, emergency water supply alternatives, est. cost, etc. He stated that with the information given the committee has asked him to respectfully ask for your concurrence on the recommendation that the Industrial Park site be the recommended alternative to the city council.

Lunak questioned cost on the three alternatives. Mr. Burian reported they looked at 24 alternatives so somewhat confusing in nature, and there were 8 elements within each alternative (raw water conveyance, water treatment, clearwell, temporary sludge dewatering, long term sludge dewatering, distribution improve-ments, new distribution expansion and distribution bottleneck elimination), and if take all eight of those components and assume one of the treatment technologies (using membrane filtra-tion, which is what studying heavily now), the existing site was about $151 million over the long term, the Purpur Arena site was closer to $160 million and Industrial Park was at about $156,000 million; each site is very real money but the cost ranges from $151 to $160 million given assumptions and est. procedures used in the concept plan.

Lucke asked what short-term costs are and how those numbers layout. Mr. Burian stated zero to 5 years as short-term and has to do with implementation plan, and reason looked at that was because knew that because of other financial challenges facing City (levee, Aurora, etc.) knew that was something City wanted to be cognizant of; it’s not necessarily money that’s going to
be wasted, just looking at what’s shortest term alternatives, and were looking at getting the water out to the Industrial Park site or Purpur site, it’s having whole facility up and running, and if were to build a clearwell and least expensive from capital outlay standpoint, stands to reason that would be located directly adjacent to the existing treatment plant, with

Page 3
January 11, 1999

a short transmission pipeline; if wanted to build a sludge plant, whether temporary or final, if convinced this is right site and right technologies it will be no more expensive than building at existing site, esp. from temp. standpoint, and that’s what they evaluated as short-term costs.

Mr. Burian stated that the long term costs considered all of the short-term, that it’s not either or in matrix they had, the short-term is the component of the long-term cost that’s going to happen from zero to 5 years, and the long-term cost for the total cost would happen over the 25-year period. That it was that difference in knowing that the existing site could be built the least expensively, esp. in the short-term but a lot of that difference became much less as moved into the long-term.

Lucke asked what the short-term cost is, used $150 million for long term, and what are short-term costs as an option. Lucke stated that with the intake project still going to be taking houses; Mr. Burian stated that both Option A and Option B of the intake project would take 3 houses (some maybe more historic or located in better location) but each has 3 houses.

Mr. Grotte reported on the short-term costs: to do short-term work est. $35 million to do existing site; at Purpur Arena $42 million and at Industrial Park about $47 million and that’s difference in transmission lines, raw water intake, clearwell and temporary selection facility. Lucke stated that if continue to use the present plant, $35 million will make these plants operable again. Mr. Burian stated that if doesn’t address any of the past city issues, doesn’t address any of the infrastruc-ture issues, doesn’t address any of the regulatory challenges, all that it does is those immediate --- that have identified such as flood replacement project things, $35 million would get you back to today, but probably better intake, whereas if these ests. are right, the long term is going to cost $150,000 at each location as address those other three concerns for the facility.

Lucke stated his other question would be for Mr. Schmisek, because you can wait 20% for cost and the people in this audience would like that approach, but the rest of citizens of this town that are going to be paying for this, what is it going to do to water rates, real estate taxes, that he is for a $150 million new plant in the Industrial Park for the future of Grand

Page 4
January 11, 1999

Forks when can pay for it, but what do for rates and how pay for it. Mr. Burian stated that with the sophistication and rate model and all of the uncertainty going into this work, that is something that has not been analyzed at this point, event with the existing $35 million that they are looking at there is a lot of indecision on whether the levee or $26 million in overlap, but will that become a levee cost or become a water utility cost; that there’s big question on how much CDBG money can be used for infrastructure vs. how much is gone and had been used for other things. He stated that not only is the rate model extremely sophisticated if you know all the numbers, but at this point haven’t had luxury of sitting down and trying to get all of those numbers because about ten questions that need to be answered before can run the analysis. This is something that’s the very next step.

Lucke asked whether it was important to make this decision tonight vs. 60 days from now. Hafner stated that they are only deciding on site selection if they do indeed build a water treatment plant; that the question of whether they build a water treatment plant is at a future date (not voting whether going to build the plant, but matter of site could build it at). Ken Vein, city engineer, stated that ultimately they needed to do was in spending the CDBG funds and in doing long range planning at the water treatment plant, so didn’t spend money foolishly now but needed to make a long term decision on where that future location would be, but it does have immediate impacts. Mr. Burian stated that the clearwell that’s been needed for years, are looking if choose the Industrial Park site, that would be logical spot where build that clearwell in anticipation of building the treatment plant out there, and it’s going to take some time in getting that project started; that CDBG money has tight window on it and was given in the spirit that we were going to lose all these things due to the flood as when some of
the distribution improvements we’re looking at, they are dove-tailing with where the water is going to come from ultimately.
Mr. Vein stated that one of the questions would be on a short term, the time it takes between going from the short term to the long term, that once they did the short term improvements, if there was any specified time where have to start doing long term. Mr. Burian stated that the regulations could be one constraint, the EPA has currently created two windows that we’re aware of, one ends in 2003 and one ends in 2007, and because

Page 5
January 11, 1999

there’s so much work to do in Grand Forks, they’ve alredy
extended the fact that they would not be ready for that until 2007 and if they provided more leniency that would extend, as he indicated in his presentation, possibly longer. He stated from a capacity standpoint if the peak day from 1989 were to reoccur with the ongoing increase that have an average day, your treat-ment plant would not be able to meet city of Grand Forks’ water needs; how much ration is acceptable one day, three days a week, that’s something that the policy makers and staff will have to
decide, but ultimately your average day is going to continue to grow to where if have dry summer you will not have enough capa-city in the treatment plant to meet that, and as constraints start to hit you’ll be needing to respond to those. He stated from an infrastructure standpoint they respond to those as need to be responded to and guess if picking a site that not at the treatment plant now, water treatment staff as well as public works department, are going to become much more conservative in way spend money at the plant, that if band-aid won’t hold it together, they will spend capital money otherwise not try to spend as much money at the existing site if decide to move forward with the future right. Lucke asked when soonest would have completed plant, 2007, so would put an 8-year band-aid on a problem. Mr. Burian stated that 20 years is equipment term that one uses in engineering and would have to be difficult decision if going to put a 20-year pc. of equipment in, how accomplish that, and sometimes band-aid will be truly a band-aid and other times could do all of this and probably do for 8 years by replacing part of equipment instead of whole pc. of equipment. It was noted that the intake project will be done in 2001 or 2002, as well as temp. sludge work.

Lunak asked what immediate impacts it would have. Mr. Grasser
stated they have CDBG money now allocated to repair and improve number of watermain systems throughout the city, and have money allocated to repair streets and rehab streets, etc.; that a lot of the decisions they are trying to make now are dependent upon where the water treatment plant sits; so logistics of trying to coordinate all different things that are going on here and to best try to judge where to spend the money. He stated there are still going to be some spots where digging up streets sooner than would like but sooner get this decision made when working on bigger puzzle. Mr. Vein stated that’s a part of it but the other most immediate impact gets to be the most efficient use of CDBG funds, and problem run into is that when start going into
Page 6
January 11, 1999

major infrastructure designs and have already gone more than a year, want to make sure don’t run out of time, and in order to go through a sophisticated design, bid process and have con-structed within the timetables that allows us to make max. use of CDBG funds, that’s why decision making process has to be made sooner, rather than later. He stated that also not only the use of CDBG funds but as look at the sequencing for the replacement features of the water plant (sludge plant, clearwell and some of the intakes) have to be up and operating in a different location prior to being able to put the levee in along that current alignment, and these decisions have to be made now although the actual decision to build a new water treatment plant has a much longer timeframe to it, and makes good planning sense that we plan for the future even if not to build this for 20 years but know where that location is so more efficient and work more economically with moneys that we have at this time.

Lunak asked if about 3 months ago they didn’t get $27 million from government for repair the water plant. Mr. Vein stated no, they got $4.9 million of EPA funds but not aware of anything additional besides that. Mr. Burian stated that FEMA paid most of the $7 million of emergency repairs, and only other money was that they did apply for some SRS loan dollars that could be approaching that dollar amount but all low-interest loan at 3% and not grant money.

Klave stated that $150 to $160 million is lot of money and some interim costs there to maintain the plant where it’s at, but need to look at where the final location for that plant will be and what is in the best interest of the city of Grand Forks, and that was task they were chored with, that they had to address, not for 1 to 5 years, but for 20 years and out, and numbers in packet from A/E were presented, and received that at least month ago. He stated can understand on short term what it’s going to cost to keep plant where it’s at, and what if decide they are going to move this, how can they maintain plant where it’s at for the least dollar figure, and if major things have to be put
in, are they things that can be transferred to a new plant. He stated they have to continually apply water to the city of Grand Forks and in the meantime be able to build another plant, can’t have a down time. He stated that aside from the dike this is
probably one of the biggest tasks they are going to be presented with as a council and as a city, had flood to deal with and now



Page 7
January 11, 1999

have plant that is out-dated that needs major repairs, major expansion, information shows that do not have room to expand at existing location for the entire future of the city, need to move forward on this, and is a site selection to establish so that staff and council know what direction going for the future of the city as to how trying to spend and place things in the future that is best for the future of the city.

James McKenzie, 607 S. 5th Street, stated that he has been living at that address since 1964, that the most important thing need to consider, that plant is not in a good place for even short term flood planning, will be up against new dike, and if it goes, the city goes.

Moved by Klave and Hafner that we advance to city council the site vicinity of Industrial Park.

Lucke stated if motion says that if going to relocate water plant to Industrial Park site, doesn’t have any problem with that, but it seems to him the option of that is that it stays where it is, so not sure what voting on here tonight; and 2) he remembers there was a study and there were costs as high as $200 million, so enormity of the decision they are making here, still has to ask Mr. Schmisek how they are going to pay for that, and not ready to make that decision until they can tell the rest of the people in this city. He stated the only calls he has had are from people saying we’re going to drive them out of town, that as soon as say have no option and that this is something have to do for the long term future of Grand Forks.

A resident at 412 S. 5th Street stated so many studies were done and one of the main factors in investing in downtown and one of the main reasons why the City should really be concerned about keeping downtown as a vibrant part of the community was the fact that they actually had people living there, and wanted to really encourage you to look at long term best solution for the city. He stated that everybody knows that’s not a great site for the water treatment plant right now, and this is decision is if have enough reason to move it, this is time to do it and encouraged to do that for everyone in the city.


Page 8
January 11, 1999

Peg O’Leary, 907 Oak Street, rep. Historic Preservation Commission as interim coordinator, stated she needs to remind committee that there are two properties in the area near the downtown facility which are on the historic preservation national list, that several more are eligible and the cost of removing these certainly has been factored in and doesn’t affect your concerns in this matter but affects many of their other concerns. She stated that the neighborhood in general would be destroyed in many ways by the loss of these properties, and on a personal note would like to say that the safety factor weighs heavily, the current route down DeMers and down 4th goes past University Lutheran Daycare and Phoenix Elementary, those are important places along with all of the other homes.

Upon call for the question Klave and Hafner voted for the motion, and Lucke and Lunak voted against the motion, and recommendation will go to council with a split vote.

3. Public hearing and project concept report for Proj. 4807,
paving S. Washington Street from 40th to 47th Avenue South.
Mark Hoffman, KBM, reported this is a statutory public hearing for the purpose of introducing this project to the Public Service Committee for their review and also for addressing the public and allowing the public to provide input on any aspect of the project; the project is the reconstruction of South Washington Street from 40th Avenue South to 47th Avenue South. The public has been invited by legal notice in the Grand Forks Herald, and all abutting property owners have been notified by direct mail. He stated he will address the basic project features, any issues that deal with financing will have some assistance from city engineering staff.

Mr. Hoffman located project area on the aerial map. He stated that the purpose of this project is to extend the major thoroughfare of South Washington farther south to provide safe access for the new school west on 47th and the development that will continue to housing, residential, and commercial development that will continue to grow in that area. He stated the project is set up to remove the rural section and replace with urban section consisting of two lanes southbound and two
lanes northbound, exactly identical to what’s been done on South Washington Street so far. There has been an award of a contract to bring the work that started last year all the way to 40th, and tie in at 40th Avenue South; this project will be paved with
Page 9
January 11, 1999

concrete paving, curb and gutter, turn lanes and will be putting roadway entrances at 42nd, 44th and 45th to facilitate the development of the adjacent properties.

Mr. Hoffman stated that as far as alternative for a project of this nature, no major alternatives, could make roadway smaller but the intention of the City is to be consistent and extend South Washington all the way with the same sort of geometry that they have to the north. This project would require very little R/W acquisition, there is a small strip on 44th that would need to be acquired if 44th were extended west, and actual project
falls within 260 ft. R/W and that’s wide enough for the project itself.

Mr. Hoffman stated that the project cost at this point as pro-ject concept report states is at $3.4 million, and 80% of that would be paid from monies passed to the City through the State from the federal government and 20% of cost would be handled locally.

He stated that in this procedure there is a 10-day period in which anyone here or the public may still continue to make written comments that will be included in the project concept report. He stated he has copies of a form that anyone can pick up at the back table if they would like, with his address on it, and if anyone would like to make a comment and have it included in the report, get to his office within the 10-day period and will be included. He stated that at this point he would defer to anyone for questions they may have.

C.T. Marhula, 5124 Belmont Road, asked if the 20% be locally assessed; John Thompson, engineer, stated special assessments would be 20% local share with 10% city funds. Mr. Marhula stated that the area from 40th is an agricultural area, and asked if will have tapping fee. Klave stated they are not the Special Assessment Commission, that they can say yes to move forward with the project, establish the district and then it goes to the Special Assessment Commission and up to them to establish the value. Mr. Grasser stated that they were talking tapping fee for the southend drainway vs. tapping fee and/or special assessment for the storm sewer, that the entire area south of 40th Avenue South is in the tapping fee area of the southend drainway and those properties will pay a tapping fee when they are developed, that there is a storm sewer that also goes along
Page 10
January 11, 1999

with this project, and sewer itself is part of the project and will be special assessed as part of that 10%. Mr. Hoffman stated they will have a storm drain system that will tie into the southend drain also.

Mr. Hoffman stated that if there is anyone here on this issue that there is a sign-in sheet in the back and would like to have names written down.

Vincent Brey stated he owns 3 blocks at 4202 S. Washington
Street, and stated that the original plat shows an avenue between the two lots that he did purchase, and under the new proposal that the City wants to take one of the lots that has not been platted yet and purchase from him, and there’s dead space between his lot and where street is now and where his house sits, that his garage doors are facing the proposed avenue or avenue that’s there now and want to change it so have to put in an over 100 ft. service road to get to his property, and asked who would maintain it and keep snow removed, and is here asking for full consideration that the original avenue shown on the plat be used in future development as the avenue could cross South Washington and be used in service on the east side of South Washington Street. Mr. Hoffman showed location of Mr. Brey’s property on the map, on 42nd Avenue aiming right past his house and he has bought an additional 100 ft. lot to the north which hasn’t been platted and he’s calling that to our attention and asking for some consideration; that the location of 42nd Ave. S. is in accordance with what the City engineering staff has recommended and could be shifted. Mr. Hoffman stated this is matter of decision where 42nd would be aligned.

Mr. Hoffman asked if there were any other comments or questions from the public, from the committee; there were no additional comments and Chairman Hafner closed the public hearing.

Hafner stated they would go onto the project concept report for Project 4807.

Mr. Hoffman stated this is still in draft form, and all comments from this meeting will be incorporated, comments from the Highway Department will be incorporated and comments from the city engineering staff will be incorporated before it’s finally submitted for signature by the mayor.

Page 11
January 11, 1999

Mr. Grasser stated they are running under a compressed time schedule, wouldn’t have hearing and approval of the concept report this quick, but need to have City approval before can send this to the State for review. He stted they can bring it back once have all the final comments, and appropriate to bring back to committee (DOT has requested some additional traffic studies and all that data isn’t gathered up yet, and will have to make some decisions based on whether signalize 47th Ave. S.) and bring in as a draft approval for the DOT, and bring final back for City approval.

Moved by Klave and Lunak for approval of project concept report. with consideration that it does come back to committee. Motion carried.

1. Matter of license for storage of dirt/soil for Southend
Drainway Proj. 4669.2, Phase II-A and Proj. 4669.3, Phase
II-B.
Mark Anderson, Eng., reported this includes Park District’s draft of terms for storage of dirt and soil, and is an agreement for the stockpiling of the excess excavated materials from the drainway construction sited on two tracts, a 10-acre tract in the vicinity of 20th St. and 40th Avenue, and tract two is just east of the South Middle School, agreement has 5-year lifespan and cost approx. $1,420.00 annually for the 15-16 acres, and requested authorization to enter into the agreement.

Moved by Klave and Lunak to approve agreement with Park District for $1420.20 annually. Motion carried.

4. Matter of agreements with CPS for engineering services
(design) for Proj. 4957, 4958 and 4959, sanitary, water and
storm on 42nd St. from 17th to 29th Aves. S.
Mark Lambrecht, CPS, Ltd., stated this is a project that the city engineering department asked them to consider providing assistance for the design of the infrastructure along S. 42nd Street from 17th Avenue to 29th Avenue South and on sketch drawing in front of them shows location of watermain, storm drain and sanitary sewer; this is infrastructure that’s planned to open up this area of town for the potential of future development.

He stated that the engineering agreement that have in front of them lists the fees for the project and they are of the upper limit hourly arrangement, and total of all fees $101,209.00 and
Page 12
January 11, 1999

listed separately by each of the three projects ($$32,818 for Proj. 4957, $31,370 for Proj. 4958 and $37,021 for Proj. 4959). He stated this is different that most of the agreements in the past, and some additional services (design and preparation of construction document, includes some construction period services where the City would do certain tasks, but in this project also includes the land acquisition where they would figure land needed to do project, prepare easements, hire through Grand Forks Abstract title search and actually par-ticipate in the R/W negotiations (every-thing except what the city attorney would do). He stated this was in response to Ray LeClerc’s retirement and not having his resources available, but well versed in that and familiar with property owners along the route. He reported that this connects to existing watermain both at north and south ends and at 24th Avenue S. as well, that near 29th not far from southend water-tower and at 24th water in place by the new Valley Memorial Homes facility and at northend connects where city put in new waterline that goes across the Interstate and should loop all of that together.

Moved by Lunak and Lucke to authorize entering into agreement for engineering services with CPS, Ltd. in amounts of $32,818 for Project No. 4957, $31,370 for Project No. 4958, and $37,021 for Project No. 4959, for a total of $101,209.00. Motion carried.

5. Matter of amendments to eng. services agreements for various
projects:
a) Amend. No. 10 (design), GFEG, Proj. 4875, storm on
Columbia from 40th to 51st Ave. S., Proj. 4924, storm on
Columbia from 36th to 40th Aves. S., Proj. 4928, box
culvert on Southend Drainway at S. 18th St. (CDBG)
Lon Aune, GFEG, reviewed area of projects on map he submitted to the committee. He presented matter of request for approval of design services agreement with GFEG to prepare plans and specifications, do preliminary engineering as well as limited construction services and through bidding phase. He stated this is minor portion of construction engineering services, basically looking at pre-construction, reviewing shop drawings and carrying up to the point of where can hand it off to the city engineering staff; that if they go beyond this
point, then would have another amendment that comes back for
full construction services which would include surveying, on-site inspection, etc.

Page 13
January 11, 1999

Klave asked about 20th in addition to 18th Street and asked if that didn’t cross proposed 20th. Mr. Aune stated that 20th put in with the drainway. Hafner stated that Planning & Zoning did some annexing on 20th but not on 18th because there wasn’t any development going on 18th. Mr. Aune stated this will be done within easements that have been obtained for the drainway, so don’t need to go outside of that R/W. Moved by Klave and Lunak to approve amendment No. 10 to the engineering services agree-ment in the amounts of $34,270 for Proj. 4875, $22,640 for Project No. 4924, and $7,335.0 for Proj. No. 4928. Motion carried.

b) Amend. No. 11 (design), GFEG, Proj. 4894, sanitary on 20th
St. from 36th to 40th Ave. S. (CDBG)
Mr. Aune reported that not long ago they agreed to do Lift Station 33 and this sewer would carry the wastewater from along 20th to the lift station, and also extends back to where the temporary lift station is located along 36th Ave. S. (behind Wall-Mart area); the lift station project will allow them to eliminate the temp. lift at the sanitary sewer project, and from there to the new lift station. He reported agreement is for design services, bidding phase services and same limited construction services for this project, and tied in with southend development as previous amendment. Moved by Lunak and Klave to approve Amendment No. 11 to the engineering services agreement in the amount of $23,500.00, CDBG funding. Motion carried.

c) Amend. No. 12 (design), GFEG, Proj. 4929, water on 20th
Street from 36th to 40th Aves. S. (CDBG)
Mr. Aune reported this is basically the same agreement for design, bidding phase and limited construction phase services. Moved by Lucke and Lunak to approve Amendment No. 12 to the engineering services agreement in the amount of $15,025.00, CDBG funding. Motion carried.

6. Matter of GFEG 1999 rate schedule for southend development
projects.
Mr. Aune reported that when the original agreement was prepared with GFEG and the City, there were some provisions that
they would have an annual review of rates with the City, that they have reviewed and are requesting some minor increases from 1998 to 1999 rates, did submit letter to Mark Anderson in mid-
Page 14
January 11, 1999

December and chose until now to bring to committee. He stated they have attached to the letter a comparison of 1998 and 1999 rates, from 3 to 5% and this will be working with all projects in 1999 and which do not have “not to exceed amounts”. It was noted that staff has reviewed the 1999 rates. Moved by Lucke and Klave to approve adjustment of professional engineering rates for 1999 (copies attached). Motion carried.

7. Matter of CDBG engineers report for Proj. 4779, relocate
Williams Pipe Line on Columbia Road from 40th to 47th Ave. S.
Mr. Aune presented engineer’s report for review, that previously they had approved an agreement to complete some paperwork and steps that have to for Williams Bros. for relocation of their pipeline along Columbia Road Drainway to 47th to keep process moving and to notify Urban Development of the dollars that need to be transferred. Moved by Klave and Lunak to approve the engineer’s report in the estimated cost of $320,000. Motion carried.

8. Matter of plans and specs. for Proj. 4866, restore storm
sewer in Area 4 (CDBG)
Tom Hanson, WFW, reported about 2/3rds or 3/4th FEMA and other portion CDBG funds, and is sewer repair project, and brought map showing work in Area 2 with both sanitary and storm projects shown on one map and shows intensity of amount of work being done on the projects. They propose to open bids on February 17, that he doesn’t have complete estimate at this time but close to the others for storm work in Area 2 and anticipate approx. $3 million, major portion of the work will be done using no-dig technology. Moved by Klave and Lunak to approve plans and specifications and authorize call for bids. Motion carried.

9. Matter of consideration of bids for Proj. 4911, sewer plugs
for second line of flood defense.
Mark Anderson submitted summary of three bids received, and are asking that the low quote of Hurco Technologies be accepted in the amount of $41,513.47 for supplying 66 sewer plugs utilized for flood fight, sizes vary - from 6” to 60” plugs. Mr. Grasser reported that the second line of defense they brought in, have to make sure underground utilities crossing underneath are plugged, CPS put together report which identified what utility services they needed to address if were building that line there, and plugs are only a part of that, thought that 60” would be on Belmont Road and Elks Drive; that lot are
Page 15
January 11, 1999

sanitary sewer plugs and found out today that they qualified for funding from State Division of Emergency Management and about $40,000 of this project as flood hazard mitigation, that they budgeted in wastewater and stormwater departments and looks as though get majority of this funded. Moved by Lucke and Klave to accept the bid of Hurco Technologies in the amount of $41,513.47. Motion carried.

10. Matter of change orders for various projects:
a) Proj. 4719, restore san.sewer Area 2, C.O. #2 (CDBG)
Mr. Hanson, WFW, reported there were some minor differences covered by unit price work, $3,730.00 to match drawings.
b) Proj. 4860, restore storm sewer Area 2, C.O. #2 (CDBG)
Mr. Hanson reported this is manhole work in storm sewer in Area 2, when did design work on this they did test run and looked at 50 manholes on the system and didn’t inspect all of the manholes but looked only at those labeled poor or bad, ran into some bad ones, went back and inspected all the manholes in Area 2 and results in another $15,120.00.
c) Proj. 4439, pump station #38, C.O. #7
Mr. Hanson reported there were delays in contractor starting project because gravity sewer wasn’t available and no way to get water there to test the station, and during that period there was a lightning strike and surge protector was destroyed (protected everything else), and should reimburse contractor, $498.75.

Moved by Klave and Lunak to approve all change orders. Motion carried.

11. Matter of rates for construction plans and specification
documents (information only).
Mark Anderson reviewed Memo from Al Grasser to the Mayor re. laying out what the costs have been recently and continue to
cost to produce plans and specifications for bidding, it appears
as though the current price of $15.00 per set is substantially low and $40.00 more appropriate (cost in private sector $50 to $100/set). Move by Lunak and Klave to receive and file. Motion carried. (comm. only)

12. Matter of engineering department flood loss summary (infor-
mation only).
Mr. Anderson reported this information should give grasp of some of material losses within the department, that there were
Page 16
January 11, 1999

things that were not included in the listing, but compilation is of lost materials that were FEMA eligible. He stated he had conversation with Sarah Hellickson’s assistant this afternoon and he advised that of the $45,000/46,000 has been compensated to the department for the replacement of these materials, that with insurance, funding, etc. that’s about as far as will get to pay for items listed. He stated that expenditures on-going and they will continue to replace items. Mr. Grasser stated he wanted committee to get effect on department, lot of items have not been replaced, have been fighting to see how much can get from FEMA and insurance, and biggest problem is that City wasn’t carrying any contents insurance for flood and FEMA stated we should have carried insurance. He stated they will have to make good some of these losses in 1999 and 2000, and aren’t in the budget and will likely spending down some of their budget carryover money to handle this. Hafner asked if they were going to replace the blueprint machine ($8,000); Mr. Grasser stated that was old technology, used ammonia which is a hazardous toxic substance and that created problems, so they looked at it and said doesn’t pay to replace that with cost of ducting, etc. to make safe is more than cost of the equipment so last summer pur-chased printer/platter/scanner through eng. department budget. Klave questioned matter of safety cones lost, Mr. Grasser stated that in confusion and when cleaning crews came in were lost; it was also noted that construction signs, cones haven’t been replaced and will do before next construction season. Moved by Klave and Lunak to receive and file. Motion carried. (Comm. only)

13. Matter of specs. and authorization to bid landfill pay-
loader for sanitation department.
Dick Newman, solid waste mgr., reported he had come in asking to write specs., received that and handed out draft copy
of those specs, and also sent copy to three local bidders so they have chance to review and comment on the draft, he received some minor comments and nothing major as far as specs. con-cerned. He stated local bidders able to meet specs. are Krider Equipment with a Case 921; RDO Equipment with a John Deere 744; and Butler Machinery with a Cat 966 machine. He stated that part of the specs. bids equipment without tires, can save about half cost of the tires if purchase separately, and also asked that he be allowed to purchase tires through the State contract. Moved by Klave and Lunak to approve specs. and authorize call for bids. Motion carried. (comm. only)
Page 17
January 11, 1999

14. Matter of authorization to write specs. for used 2.5 ton
generator truck for wastewater department.
Gary Goetz, wastewater supt., requested authorization to write specs. for 2.5 ton truck as well as the generator, they did do some preliminary drafts on trucks; truck used if have major power outage and can run truck out to pump stations; new style pump stations 480 volt. He stated they do have some smaller generators in the shop which they use for 240 volt stations. Mr. Goetz stated they are looking for a used vehicle and are asking for something from 1995 to 1998 (on 1995 go up to 150,000 mi. and 110,000 on 1998). Mr. Goetz stated they have scope of work and take bid that’s in best interest of the City, would look vehicle over themselves.

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

15. Matter of specifications for 1999 engineering/public works
department fleet vehicles:
Todd Feland, public works, reviewed specs. for the following vehicles:
a) 2 - four-wheel drive vehicles (wastewater supt. and
sanitation supt.)
b) 1 - one-ton four-wheel drive truck (stormwater utility - and included deduct if take without air conditioning, trade-in of ½ ton pickup)
c) 1 - ¾ ton four-wheel drive truck (landfill, and added in alternate deduction for the manual 5-speed transmission, kept air-conditioning for vehicle because of dust, bugs, etc.)
d) 1 - ¾ ton two-wheel drive truck (central garage - and added deduction for no air-conditioning)
e) 2 - ½ ton four-wheel drive trucks (street dept. and water treatment, and provided an alt. for no air-conditioning, trade-in of 1991 Lumina, however, Mr. Grasser interested in purchasing vehicle for electrical locator in eng. dept.)
f) 1 - compact, extended cab truck (electrical department, trade-in of 1984 Chev. Impala)
g) 1 - mid-size automobile (public transp., and changed from std. spec. to four-cyl. 2 liter car, and down-graded vehicle, trade-in of 1989 Celebrity)
He reported that some departments do not have vehicles for trade-in; and that sanitation and street dept. they are asking to retain vehicles for summer workers.

Page 18
January 11, 1999