Committee Minutes

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
Monday, February 22, 1999 - 7:00 p.m.

Members present: Hafner, Klave, Lucke.

1. Matter of Code compliance issue at 815 Duke Drive, Chateau Condo
Buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Code requirements from the Inspections Department (November 6, 1997) for most of the buildings and apply in the 1973 Uniform Building Code and the 1994 UBC (all noted codes are from the 1973 UBC) are as follows:
1) The garage shall be separated from the condo with a 3-hour occupancy separation.
2) The garage shall be sprinkled.
3) The whole building shall have an approved fire alarm system.
4) Exit signs are required at all exits.
5) All exit doors must swing in the direction of travel.
6) Exits must terminate at grade, yard.
7) All stairways shall be enclosed by a 1-hour fire-resistive construction exit enclosure. No storage is allowed under the stairway.
8) Exhaust fans in the garage shall provide one complete air change every 15 minutes.
9) Floor drains must have a sand and oil interceptor prior to pumping to the storm sewer.

Jerry Miller, rep. all 4 Boards at the Chateau Condo Complex at 815 Duke Drive, lives in Unit 118, Pres. of Condo Assn. 100, stated they were here re. demands made by the City Inspections Department in November 1997 for correc-tions for their buildings. He stated that a large number of the demands have been complied with or actually always were in compliance, but there are some that they feel are not applicable and are unnecessary and quite expensive. He stated that these homes were built in 1979, inspected and approved at that time, and they feel this is an attempt to retroactively bring them up to a different set of Codes that weren’t in place at that time or didn’t think applied to them at that time. He stated it’s a serious issue, that they have residents that are attempting to sell their homes because of this, residents who are considering selling their homes, have residents who had difficulty refinancing their homes because banks are being concerned about where this went. He stated they aren’t entirely sure that if did all these things that subsequently there wouldn’t be another list of things and the real bottom line for them is that they don’t think that any of these things are neces-sary, doesn’t make them appreciably safer and think that many of these things are Code items that were designed to deal with commercial operations and are being applied to them.

He reviewed the items listed: 1) 3-hour fire barrier which is being requested and has been in place; that they had substantial damage from the flood, three of their associations took a significant hit which from a financial standpoint is not good, but things like this they replaced at that time; that all four buildings are restored to their three-hour fire barrier in their garages (which are underground). 2) to sprinkle their garages - the City didn’t require the developer to install sprinklers when building was constructed, unlike commercial garages where work is being done in garages and maybe able to build a case if there’s significant danger, they allow no work to be done only place to park vehicles, and with the 3-hour barrier they are safe; the other issue is that if you think of what fire could occur in their garages (gasoline fire) there’s been expressed concern that if introduced water to a gasoline fire, the fire would spread, but would create
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
February 22, 1999 - Page 2

steam and weaken concrete and facing situation where reduce 3-hour fire barrier. He stated that the expense per building for doing that would be in
excess of $20,000. He stated that they have talked a lot about affordable housing and this is the affordable housing, these unit average $60,000 each and occupied by a large number of people who are on fixed income, lot of retired people, and as people from the City have suggested is that they could take out a loan and make these changes, but if they were to invest in things that aren’t necessary, the money will come from maintenance that is. He stated fire alarm systems are original equipment and all units were hard-wired smoke detectors in each unit; and they have added smoke-alarms to all the hallways and think they comply. Exit signs are installed and all exit doors swing outward, and there is a demand that all stairwells be enclosed by one-hour fire resistant construction, and this building was designed with open stairwells and was approved that way, they have a center foyer area with a spiral stairway, and not only would it be expensive to do this but would make these places ugly buildings because it was designed to have this open space in there, and don’t feel this is critical. Exhaust fans in the garages to exchange air every 15 minutes, 3 buildings have exhaust fans and carbon monoxide detectors, and one of the buildings because they got one of these letters, went ahead and installed a $32,000 exhaust fan system, and after it was installed they found that was not necessary, and with the installation they have in their building is to current code, and exhaust system would refer to an older system; all four buildings passed the test when they came out and checked for carbon monoxide. He referred to the floor drain issue, that they have a sump pump but don’t do any work in their garages, aren’t going to have major oil spills, and less likely to bleed water into the storm sewer system than an outside parking area because they sweep their garages (not practical to hose them). He stated that their argument is that they are homeowners, live in these buildings, and feel safe with the building the way it is, don’t see that there are practical applications to the things they haven’t done, and if did, would find money to make these changes; not cost effective to do it, don’t think City has a right to go back after the fact and after having approved the building when constructed and requiring changes now, and think it’s foolish to be put in a situation where have homeowners who are afraid of the City. He stated they are asking for permanent relief and this issue was visited once before and were informed that they were okay, but seems to come back but want to have finished.

Klave questioned why this was not taken to the Board of Appeals, that the Board is an independent board of private citizens. Bruce Melin, building inspector, reported that this came up after the flood and in checking files, found that this group of buildings had many outstanding violations, and reason they never suggested that the present group go to the Board of Appeals is because all appeals have been rejected back in 1979, 1981, this building was built in 1977 under the 1973 Building Code; and appeals were for the stairway enclosures and building permit given under consideration that they would meet all Codes, that they came in for variance on the stairway enclosure and were denied that variance, and stairway still unenclosed. He stated he understood they went for a variance on the sprinkler system or had a discussion on that in the garages and that was denied, as was discussion of extra windows, openings were denied, and request was that they come into compliance. There was a variety of letters sent to them over the years; and this is the case of a building that never was completed as of the Inspection Department, and had city attorney intervene. Mr. Miller asked if building
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
February 22, 1999 - Page 3

not in compliance when under construction, why wasn’t anybody informed. Mr. Melin reported that he has letters from the city attorney in file and inspectors in file, and city attorney received in 1981-83 area. Mr. Miller stated as one of the original owners, there was no information to anybody before they bought their units, and had every reason to believe that the building was fine with the City Building Code; and whether or not these so called corrections are going to make anything safer. He stated they can talk what the Code is but why sprinkling garages be worth the $20,000 cost, insurance companies don’t think that it’s a major benefit. Mr. Melin reported that was Code when that was built.

Hafner stated there are 9 items and asked which were in compliance and which not. Mr. Melin stated that each of the units is in different amounts of compliance.

Mr. Vein stated he’s not sure committee has any authority on this, and asked Mr. Swanson. Mr. Swanson advised committee that he has conflict of interest by law firm; and Dwight Kalash is on this. Mr. Vein stated this is an interpretation of the Code, and if it’s a change of Code from a procedure or policy standpoint, it would be before this committee, other than that not aware that this committee has any power to act on this. Mr. Melin reported that he had asked if there was any statute of limitations on the Building Code. Hafner stated they are suffering from fact that the original builder didn’t build the buildings correctly and City probably allowed them. Mr. Melin stated they have letters in file from 1979, permit in 1977, non-compliance letters began in 1979 continuing almost every year for next 3-4 years.

Mr. Vein stated that each building has their own set of Code violations, and maybe been to Board of Appeals, but probably take them in their entirety and settle this once and for all and take to the Board of Appeals. Mr. Melin stated that there's problem being there is as Board of appeals felt pre-viously, that in order to go to the Board of Appeals on a change of Code, must provide an alternate method in variance from the Code. Mr. Miller stated that he didn’t know what they would be. Hafner stated his inclination is to be lenient with the homeowners simply because this has gone on for so many years, that there is great expense although he thinks there are some things that could or should be done, but is concerned about if there's any potential liability on the part of the City if don’t enforce Codes, and if there is a fire, etc.; that current tenants could agree and then sell some units and have major fire, and concerned about that. Mr. Westacott, fire inspector, stated there hasn’t been a fire in the garage area but in the building; and no one would want to enter garage to attempt to put fire out, no ventilation, etc.

Klave stated concern re. letters from 1979, doesn’t have all the facts from 1979 to date. Mr. Miller stated that if they are forced to do all of these things, they will have people who will have t leave because do assessments and take out loans, reducing value of the property because of occupancy cost of the units. It was noted there are 36 units in each building. Mr. Vein questioned if there was a schedule for compliance so things could be done over a period of time that would allow because of massiveness could be very costly. Mr. Melin stated that their letters from City to the Condo Assn. were simply request to provide them with a timetable to provide these
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
February 22, 1999 - Page 4

corrections. Mr. Miller stated they were told they could negotiate that but that makes an assumption, that they don’t think these things are needed, that they don’t make that argument as if anybody on the other side really wants to listen to that. Mr. Vein stated that the council adopted the Code which the Inspections Department and the Uniform Fire Code which these individuals are tasked to implement and that is the Code that is before them and their interpretation of it. Mr. Miller stated they need to find a way to deal with this.

Committee stated they would like more information and set date to come back. Mr. Melin stated that the Inspections Department would provide information from their department as well as the Fire Department (it was noted that information should be provided to Mr. Miller also); and that he would also get back to the municipal attorney and advise them of a delay. Lucke stated he’s disappointed with vigilance that some of these actions have taken, not just this, but heard of others since the flood when there’s all the financial hardship on people, and here’s case where for 18 years there’ve been letters written and now taking people to court and fining them $500/day, and not happy personally with that approach. Lucke stated he’s hearing that we don’t have a right to let there be a violation of Code, and if that’s the case with the unusual pattern of this case, then try to find some kind of funding source at a low interest rate to make this work so that x number of years from now can start repaying a zero percent loan if City forces them to comply, be sympathetic enough to help with solution, and would like to see them look at. Held in committee and reschedule matter for agenda.

2. Matter of bids for photocopier for water plant.
Hazel Fetters-Sletten, supt. of water treatment plant, reported they came to committee with specs., received permission to bid, and received bid from four vendors, and when received bids it was pointed out that they were under the $5,000 amount and would not need to go to committee. She reported they reviewed bids and through oversight on their part instead of noticing the 550 sheet drawer, they were under the assumption with the Sharp model 2025 met the minimum requirements with the exception that after the fine print has been analyzed there was 50 sheets difference. She stated they did make the recommendation to purchase the GR Graphic Sharp model 2025, after that conclusion was mailed out to the vendors and received complaint from one of the other vendors and brought to the auditor’s attention and he recommended that they take it back to committee. In the meantime GR Graphics went ahead on the decision they had made and initiated bringing that model to town, and now asking for direction. It was noted that the discrepancy is 50 sheets, but there’s a difference in price of about $600, and all other criteria met. She also stated that in their cover they did say these are minimum specs but that they did reserve the right to reject or accept the bid that is the best interest of the City. There were no reps present however, they had been mailed notices of the meeting. Lucke stated that this be determined a minor discrepancy and go ahead with the 2025 in view of the fact that it meets the 28 copy per minute and they in good faith brought the machine here, and City in good faith awarded the bid, and go with the originally intended copier; seconded by Klave. Motion carried. (Committee only.)

3. Matter of landfill payloader bids.
Dick Newman, solid waste mgr., reported they have a problem with the bids, all three pieces of equipment meet specifications, all three would do
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
February 22, 1999 - Page 5

good job, but problem is in the enhanced warranty and monthly maintenance. He stated that two of the companies understood what they wanted as far as enhanced warranty or insurance policy if City were to do the maintenance on the equipment, that the enhanced warranty would cover all extraneous costs (engines, transmissions, fenders, alternators, etc., except fan belts and glass). He stated they had an option C for monthly maintenance and that was if the City didn’t do maintenance but hire the contract with the company supplying machine to do all the maintenance and pay on a monthly basis for the full 60 months, and in the specs. the monthly maintenance agreement was to cover everything except glass, tires and two-way radio. He stated there was some confusion on the part of RDO Equipment as to what they were asking for in the enhanced warranty and monthly maintenance. Todd Feland distributed copies of the specs. and pointed out numbers on the specs.

Tim Satler, RDO Equipment, stated that they understood that if the main-tenance option is accepted, the successful bidder will be responsible for all repairs and scheduled maintenance expenses, and they understood that to be maintenance expense repairs and not any sort of warranty work, hence the figure of $350/mo. and they stated that does require the extended warranty to be covered with maintenance costs so the figure of $64,500 is to be changed to $90,500, and taking that into account they are still low bid with total comparison by over $27,000. Hafner stated he wasn’t sure they could do that and asked if they were not going to stand by their bid of $21,000; Mr. Satler
stated that they can’t and doesn’t have the power to make that decision and didn’t understand what that meant. He stated it’s a little bit of gray area, and if it would have said that maintenance is accepted the successful bidder will be responsible for all repairs, and scheduled maintenance expenses; that they thought repairs meant rescheduled maintenance repairs. Mr. Newman stated the cost for comparison is the payloader, minus the guaranteed buyback or minus the current trade-in and monthly maintenance. Lucke stated they wouldn’t have both a buyback and a trade-in in any one instance; Mr. Newman stated they have a guaranteed buyback on the unit they are about to purchase and at the end of 5 years they guarantee that they will give City the amount on their bid, the trade-in is for machine trading in and that was a guaran-teed buyback from their previous bid. Committee asked if only thing they could deal with was the bid submitted to them, or have right to pull their bid. Mr. Swanson reported that he hasn’t seen bid documents, but as general rule of law cannot after date of bid submission to alter bids to lower or higher, can allow bid to be withdrawn. Klave stated that he would then consider letting RDO pull their bid if they so request because of errors on their part. Mr. Vein stated they have a bid bond and could force them to accept their bid or forfeit their bond or give them that as another way out.

Another gentleman from RDO Equipment stated that they might be missing the actual interpretation of that and way they interpreted and way written, so gray area and before giving them the option to pull their bid, there should be a ruling on what that actually said. Lucke stated he would like Mr. Swanson to look at specs and that he doesn’t see any place where it doesn’t say or does say that the City will accept C but not B, and have bid that’s lowest and best bid if they accept Option B and Option C, and doesn’t see in the specs. a real clear cut interpretation of what intention is there. Mr. Satler stated they have never changed their price of the bid but as chosen Options, it’s changed the price, when they handed their bid in the price of
the loader has never changed. Lucke stated that they’re changing it because
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
February 22, 1999 - Page 6

they’re merely saying they will honor the monthly maintenance amount that they quoted but assumed that City was going to buy the enhanced warranty from them as part of that same contract, and that leaves them with low bid with comparison of $90,500; they assumed City was buying the enhanced warranty when they asked what the monthly maintenance cost was going to be. Mr. Newman states that Item 22 of specs. stated what they were going to use in comparison, but does it by reference to guaranteed buyback of machine bidding and guaranteed buyback or trade-in of the machine they are getting rid of and the 60 months of the maintenance operation, and would normally take either Option B or C. RDO rep. stated it was their interpretation that if took C would be in addition to B, and look at monthly maintenance as daily upkeep, if it breaks down and engine blows up or transmission blows up, that’s an entirely separate issue, and called warranty issue.

Mr. Newman reported that they have done the monthly maintenance on Bomag machine, and it’s cheaper in the long run. Mr. Vein stated that the City reserves the right to accept or reject any or all bids or parts thereof and to accept one or more items on a bid without obligation as to other items and to waive any informalities or irregularities; and that it’s up to the committee to establish if it is or isn’t an informality or irregularity that want to accept or not; doesn’t believe Mr. Swanson would have to review this and if any State statutes that would not be in line, and would be up to committee to make that ultimate decision.

Lucke stated that if they buy the enhanced warranty and pay for the monthly maintenance, have exactly the same protection and guarantee that they’ll have a machine in operation for five years as if they just ignore the enhanced warranty and pay the monthly maintenance to one of the other two bidders, given $26,000 plus $21,000, or $47,000 and that’s less than $54,900 or $54,300, and trying to save the City money and assuming all three machines equal, still thinks RDO is lowest and best bid. Lucke moved to accept the bid of RDO Equipment in the amount of $218,500, with guaranteed buyback after five years or 10,000 hours, to accept Options B and C; and further to accept Butler’s guaranteed buyback of 1994 Caterpillar of $85,000. Klave seconded the motion.

Jim Eck, Butler Machinery, stated that in looking at these numbers, that you have a base bid, have a guaranteed buyback, have Option A which was a trade-in, Option B enhanced warranty, and that RDO indicates that it doesn’t cover engine and transmission, it does, that standard warranty was for five years, 10,000 hours power trained, and power trained is an engine transmission differential and where he’s coming through to come up with this other item, he doesn’t know. He stated that as a bidder feel that if you accept RDO’s bid, you should not take Option B and Option C, has no objection as a resident of the city or responsible bidder to be doing that, if you make a mistake on a bid, you live or die by it, and this should be the same, and one of the reasons they feel they are having problems in bids is maybe when a bid comes out and a bond isn’t right or bid isn’t turned in on time, rather than back off, say either accept it or deny and reject it, and it’ll end a lot of your problems with bids. He stated RDO had a problem with this bid originally, didn’t comply with the bond correctly on it, went to committee and decided not prudent and did open their bid, they could have at that time said their numbers were off and won’t provide City with that 10% bond, they

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
February 22, 1999 - Page 7

have an out there, and now coming back and asking for another out, and as a resident of the city recommend that you take their low bid and accept Items C and not Item B because that's the way he and Krider Equipment read the bid; otherwise not bid if going to do that.

RDO rep. stated that Option B does cover all mechanical failures such as axles, engines, transmissions, doesn’t cover monthly maintenance which is Option C.

Doug Benson, Krider Equipment, stated that it seems strange that two out of three people can read specs. correctly, and if it’s a gray item Mr. Newman’s office is open and if question, they should ask it; he believes that if the City is going to save the money and accept this bid, save your $26,000 because then it’s still legal, and if he or Mr. Eck had got the bid, there would be no reason in the world to spend another $9750 or another $7800 to get the same situation, why spend another $26,000 more to get the same situation.

Upon call or the question, the motion carried.

4. Matter of surplus property in wastewater department.
Gary Goetz, supt. wastewater, stated they have two pieces of equipment (old bucket machines) that were flood damaged and been replaced with flood funds, and would like the old equipment declared surplus for disposal (about $100). Moved by Klave and Lucke to declare the property as surplus and to approve sale of the property. Motion carried.

10. Matter of encroachment agreements:
a) Grand Forks Herald
Jay Bushy, engineer, stated they are asking for recommendation to enter into encroachment agreement with the Herald, that on 2nd Avenue North they installed private light pole to illuminate the Herald clock, that there was not an agreement on this item and came t know about it after the item was constructed and light pole was sitting on the sidewalk and are asking for an agreement to allow them to encroach into public R/W and leave the pole the way it is. Mr. Grasser stated that there was the existing city street light and they used the old base. Moved by Lucke and Klave to authorize entering into an encroachment agreement.

Mr. Vein stated that with an encroachment agreement there is a hold harmless, but asked if there was any part of this agreement that says that if for any reason that it is in the way they will be responsible for removing and replacing it, that will see the next agreement and there’s some importance to maintaining the public R/W for public use and not for private use, and if somebody in there and require of all utility companies and if in the way, have to remove them, relocate and so City doesn’t work around some of these encroachments, got to be responsibility to the property owner if an encroachment takes place, and not sure that’s a part of the agreement.
Committee agreed to include this in the motion. Klave stated that he was disappointed with the Herald over this, that this is the third or fourth after the fact that they’ve come in with and that some of these could have been seen lot sooner upfront during construction. Motion carried.

b) 4720 Gateway Drive, Arch Simonson
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
February 22, 1999 - Page 8

Mr. Simonson, 203 Park Avenue, presented request for an encroachment to a public utility easement (sign at 4720 Gateway Drive), stated that he agreed
with engineering department memo dated 2/22/99 and that he would like to suggest however that the statement that says “the encroachment agreement shall be contingent on the location of the utilities matching the footing plan.” He stated to the best of their knowledge, David Kratochvil from the City located these, painted them out and they took photographs of the site; that they have not opened up the concrete in that area and are relying on the City’s locations of those utilities in that area, and his only request would be to work with the City if those utilities aren’t where they were located at and to give them the required clearances that they need. He stated that on the drawing the beginning of the footing has a setback of 12 ft. off the property line and would be nice to have some flexibility in there. He stated he has no problem with holding the City harmless and agreeing to stay out of the City’s way if they need that. Mr. Grasser stated that this goes back to when they met with Mr. Simonson and other associates and recognized at the time that it’s very difficult to locate special water lines that come off valves and that the locations as painted were probably not exact and are in agreement with intent and if differences in locations, will be adjusting that in the field because the intent is to get a certain distance away from the watermain and centered on the sanitary sewer, etc. He stated the only other thing they could have done is required it to be dug up but seemed to be an additional expense, and if any errors shouldn’t be of such magnitude that it will be a big problem.

Moved by Klave and Lucke to authorize entering into an encroachment agreement for installation of a sign at 4720 Gateway Drive, contingent upon holding the City harmless, with responsibility for removal/replacement subject to requirements by the City. Motion carried.

5. Matter of fuel management system replacement.
Todd Feland, public works department, stated that in working with the finance department and with IS department, the fuel management system was item they felt was Y2K not compliant, and are generating reports, billing and inventory; and asked to move forward with an upgraded system at public works facility, bus maintenance facility with payment out of the Loan Stabilization Fund, and also that they don’t have a system at the landfill and for auditing reasons and convenience would request to add the landfill onto that with payment from landfill account. He stated est. cost $10-12,000 at public works fac., and other two sites smaller and est. no more than $30,000 total for all three sites, connections, etc.

Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve specs. and authorize call for bids. Motion carried. (Comm. only)

6. Matter of Proj. 4822, Public Works Facility renovation.
Mr. Feland presented information re. renovations with the current building and with moving wastewater and stormwater, water distribution out to the maintenance facility. He stated that in working with their architect, Johnson/Laffen, first came up with item that was over what was originally estimated at $1.5 million, asked architect to review and pare down some things to get closer to that estimate and got down to about $1.17 million. He stated they are looking at if go over what was budgeted would have to come from a cash carryover of the three utility funds. He reviewed differences
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
February 22, 1999 - Page 9

between the estimates and to get it back down to the $1,024 million, and
maps showing location of the departments in the facility. He stated that Mr. Grotte had est. approx. $100,000 for each department. He stated that they
needed some direction. He stated they would move water distribution first which would be on the ground floor, and wastewater on mezzanine above them. There was a question on architect’s fees which remain the same on all estimates, and it was noted that their fee was a not to exceed fee. Mr. Feland stated it would be difficult to bring the estimate down to a $1 million; he stated they would be looking at $100,000 for sanitation and $200,000 each from water utility and wastewater utility.

There was some discussion re. lowering of the contingency from 15%; Mr. Vein stated that until the project is bid they would want to keep it higher but once project bid and have a detailed plan with prices, then there’s a chance to reduce it because 15% is much higher than normally anticipate in a project like this, but harder when doing estimating. He stated they need direction to do it the way originally intended is going to be more than our budget and have identified a funding source that’s possible for that, but if rather not phase in over time, take the reduced cost. He stated there’s pros and cons to both of those, more efficient while contractors are there to do at one time, but if want to control costs as much as they can have to come in and add that back in later. Mr. Feland stated the architect is probably looking at is general guidance on where going to go.

Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve the est. cost for renovation at the $1.17 million with renovations meeting Code. Motion carried.

7. Matter of appeal hearing on violation of discharging hauled waste into
City’s sanitary sewer, PDQ Sanitary Services, Inc.
Mike Shea, environmental coordinator, stated there were no reps. from PDQ present, and further that he has not received any correspondence whatsoever from PDQ. Klave stated that as long as they gave PDQ an additional thirty days to correspond with answers and it has been unresolved, would go back to levy the the original fine presented to them of $4,000. Mr. Shea stated that he would suggest sending them a certified letter informing them of the fine, giving them a specified amount of time to pay the fine, and if they don’t pay it in that amount of time that we no longer issue them with a permit. Committee suggested shortest time to allow the enforced collection. Klave and Lucke moved to send PDQ Sanitary Services, Inc. a certified letter assessing them of a fine of $4,000 with ten working days for payment of the fine, and if payment of the fine is not made within that specified time to no longer issue them a permit. Motion carried.

The committee recessed for a 5-minute break.

8. Matter of geotechnical engineering for raw water intake lines and trans-
mission lines, Phase 2, Shannon & Wilson, Proj. 4769.
Wayne Gerszewski, engineer with Advanced Engineering, presented proposal for Phase 2 on behalf of Shannon & Wilson, Seattle, WA, and stated that this phase supplements Phase 1 proposal that was submitted and approved by committee by the city council on February 16; that combined two phases services form the overall geotechnical engineering design for the project. He stated that Phase 2 portion of the proposal will include the actual field drilling and soil sampling, field exploration activities, laboratory testing,
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
February 22, 1999 - Page 10

engineering analysis and report development from soil results, various site
meetings, review and consultation for constructability by Shannon & Wilson and by another consultant that’s familiar with the horizontal directional drilling process. He stated that also included in Phase 2 proposal, Shannon & Wilson included some optional services and at this time not recommending any of the optional services unless required at a different time, and would then come back to committee and explain why those services needed. He stated that the total geotechnical cost (Phase 1 and 2) was $168,069, and less Phase 1 of $14,000, total for Phase 2 is $154,069. It was noted that Mr. Grotte had reviewed the proposal.

Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve agreement for Phase 2 in the amount of $154,069. Motion carried.

9. Matter of notice re. non-protestable projects.
Mr. Swanson, city attorney, stated he needs some direction, that he thought he was drafting differed significantly from what he read the minutes of the committee when last discussed and asked for clarification and direction as to how to proceed in drafting; that he read the minutes that the committee had discussed that the notice had to be provided for all non-protestable projects; and suggested that there maybe reason that they don’t want to do that, and exception he has identified are those projects that are petitioned for by 100% of the property owners, by requiring the notice to all of those that have already signed the petition, will delay the projects. He stated he would suggest that they include in provision that projects that are petitioned for by 100% of the property owners would be exempt from that notice requirement. He stated that the other area he was uncertain as to what the committee’s direction had to do with notices being given for future special assessment areas and also discussion for future tapping areas. He stated that for purposes of drafting this particular policy if tying it to the creation of a special assessment district, you would not want to include tapping fees, which comes under a different format, or future assessment areas; those would be dealt with at a later time in the creation of a dis-trict; that as far as identifying what those areas are would be appropriate but to start providing notices maybe premature because you’re not creating that portion of the district. He stated that the other item that was dis-cussed very early on before committee considered this, is whether or not there should be either minimum or maximum size - if the project is of a particularly small nature, if they want all the notices given or if a particularly large nature, ie., 250 parcels, would they want notices sent. He stated he’s assuming that the length of notice, type of notice, mailed or publication, would include the same, and whether looking at adopting a policy
to be included in the finance office’s procedures manual, whether policy or ordinance. He stated he has six items he needs direction on.

Committee stated they were looking at procedural and not an ordinance, exception of projects where 100% of the property owners sign the petition.

Mr. Swanson stated there would be no need to adopt this policy for protestable projects as they have to follow steps, that he understands that it is committee’s intention is to adopt a policy to provide additional notice for non-protestable projects in nature similar to those that are protestable - would include sanitary sewer, storm, water, and some flood projects, some nuisance abatements, and ones clearly protestable are paving, sidewalks,
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
February 22, 1999 - Page 11

street lighting. Mr. Vein stated that it does take administrative time and
effort so know if doing this, do add to that workload, and again is the flood protection project which is non-protestable, and that would require that
every property owner in the city will be getting a notice. Mr. Swanson stated that was one of his questions as to whether they have minimums or maximums. Committee stated that if it were city-wide standard publications should do it. Mr. Swanson stated that as far as minimum projects, can’t envision a situation where you may only have 1 or 2 parcels being affected and not sure there’s a need and doesn’t have any recommendation for minimum size, but seemed there were significant reasons to look at some type of maximum size for extremely large project or proposal.

He stated his recommendation is not attempt to include this policy with respect to tapping fees or future special assessment areas as they have their own rules to follow; size of the project needs direction, and his recommenda-tion is if going to utilize a notice requirement that they make the same for both protestable vs. non-protestable with respect to mailing and publication.

Klave questioned if tapping and future assessment district, if own property that in tapping area that’s outside the city limits, if that property owner notified that there will be a tapping zone. Mr. Swanson stated they include that in publications because don’t create a district, and really what this notice is set up to be given at the time of creation of the district, not at the time of the assessment, and because not creating a district under the special assessment code, suggest don’t try to encumber the same procedures on tapping fees but there are notices given to property owners in a tapping fee. Klave stated that was his concern so that property owner knows there’s a future dollar denomination attached to his land. Mr. Swanson stated that the notice that is given now is primarily a publication of a map, which includes delineation if there is a future assessment area or a tapping fee area. He stated that the last item is whether or not want to include a maximum size for notice, whether above a certain level that not require notice.

C.T.Marhula, 5124 Belmont Road, stated he agreed with everything Mr. Swanson said, but he understood this is already policy and would be made into an ordinance. Mr. Swanson stated he was not aware that this was a formally adopted policy, and that was part of his question, whether policy or ordinance. It was noted that protestable notification is by Statute, but not individual notification but in the legal notice, and City has carried it a step farther. Mr. Swanson stated that the property owner will get in a non-protestable special assessment notice at the time the special assessment commission is to hear the matter and looking at individual assessment, but looking at giving an additional notice at the time the district is creating, and that would put on a similar footing as a protestable project in which a property owner now gets notice at a time the district is created and at the time the special assessment commission starts looking at individual assessments.

Hafner stated that if they make a policy the same as for protestable would be sufficient, wouldn’t want to make an ordinance for non-protestable which would be great and don’t have for protestable.
Mr. Marhula stated that he had legislation ready to be introduced that had been cleared by several departments in the city, at the request of several City officials, that he had bipartisan, urban and rural support, had a data
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
February 22, 1999 - Page 12

base built, had lobbyists that would have supported it, that he withdrew that
legislation trusting people that said they would bring ordinance forward and pass it, and was already told it was already our policy (looked back through minutes and it might not be officially adopted, but frequently referred to as our policy to notify people) and now passing what’s already in place, and if he misunderstood anything at meetings they’ve had, but it was his under-standing it would be an ordinance.