Committee Minutes

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
Monday, March 8, 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 - letter from asst. city
attorney.
Dwight Kalash, asst. city attorney, stated he has been assigned by Mr. Swanson because there is a conflict in his office to handle this matter. He stated his letter will be sent as soon as his secretary comes back to work and will express the opinion that this is improperly before the committee; that he is of the opinion that this is more question of possible violation of City ordinance than a matter for consideration by the com-mittee and ultimately the decision making body of the city. He stated this has been a question of Code compliance in excess of one year and when given to him he was asked by the city inspec-tors office to contact reps. of the Chateau Condos Assn. to make inquiries about whether they had been brought into compliance since the letter to them of November 6, 1997 from Bruce Melin, building inspector’s office. He stated he made that contact and received message from the City Inspector’s Office saying that the matter was to be held in abeyance because it was scheduled before this committee, then received contact from city engineer’s office requesting an opinion and had he had a secretary today would have sent letter that would have expressed opinion that this matter should not be before your committee.

Lucke asked for an opinion on the statute of limitations on a Code violation that’s been pursued and not pursued on and off for 18 years. Mr. Kalash stated he could only express opinion about information he has, that last contact was made by city inspector’s office was in November, 1997 saying that the city inspector’s office was of the opinion that there were numerous code violations after an initial inspection of the buildings of the association. Lucke stated that if letters in 1979, 1980 and 1981 and every other letter mentions sprinkler code violation and every other letter does not mention it, asked if that doesn’t give indication that maybe this isn’t something we’re going to enforce and by not enforcing it have we tied our hands to enforce it now; Mr. Kalash stated that would be a matter for the judicial determination and his opinion as city attorney would be that it’s still a prosecutable matter, that a judge may disagree with him because the City has not pursued the opportunity to prosecute that it’s lost that opportunity, that he is of the opinion that the city inspector’s office has the
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
March 8, 1999 - Page 2

right to bring a complaint if they are of the opinion that there’s a violation, and he will take that complaint as city prosecutor if he’s of the opinion that he can prove the violation. Klave stated that information from the inspections department will be forwarded to him for chronological day one to present. Hafner asked if there was any recourse for the citizens; Mr. Kalash stated that if they are of the opinion that the Assn.’s buildings are in compliance with the ordinances and if he decides to take a complaint from the Inspector’s Office, they can defend the complaint if he concludes that there is no violation in his opinion he simply won’t take a complaint and won’t be brought as a judicial proceeding.

Reps. from the Assn. had no comments.

Moved by Klave and Lucke to receive and file the oral presentation by the assistant city attorney. Motion carried. (comm. only) (letter attached)

2. Matter of request to abate nuisance at 1003 2nd Ave.N.
Wally Helland, Health Dept., reported this involves a vacant home that has a large amount of junk and junked cars in it, the owner of the property is incarcerated in State prison in Bis-marck and have not been able to get any of that resolved. Mr. Manz reported he went through their files and inspection was done shortly after the flood that indicated well over 200% damage but that was primarily because the value of the house was so low, property is outside the 100 year flood-plain and at one time was potential candidate for the Phase III rehab or acquisition program, and after Health Dept. notified them in October of 1998 that it was unsecured in accordance with Sec. 13-0705 of the Code, sent letter giving 7 days to properly secure it, didn’t receive response and hired contractor to secure the house to eliminate any potential health threats. Mr. Helland stated that in accordance with the city ordinance they referred the matter to the city auditor to issue the proper notices so they could have the junk cleaned up, can’t arbitrarily go on to the property without going through the proper procedure; the city council has to enter a final order that the nuisance be abated by the City of Grand Forks after attempts to notify the owner either by cert. letter or as detailed in the Code. It was noted that if property cleaned up, any costs would be put on tax bill.

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
March 8, 1999 - Page 3

Moved by Klave and Lucke to receive and file as staff taking proper steps to resolve the problem and nothing further to be done at committee level. Motion carried. (comm. only)

3. Matter of elimination of carryout service.
Dick Newman, solid waste mgr., reported that before 1990 they had several different refuse rates (alley collection, berm collection, mobile homes and apartments), and after that date the public service committee asked that all rates be the same, that they worked out a rate schedule and at that time proposed to eliminate any carryout service. He stated there as discussion with residents and carryout service reinstated at a particular fee which has remained the same since that time; no new carryout services were offered since that time and number of carryouts at about 170.

Mr. Newman stated that about a month ago they sent out a letter telling people that the carryout service would be discontinued except for medical need and since the letters went out, have had 11 customers call and said they weren’t receiving the service at all because of houses that have changed hands, had others call stating they would cancel their service, and had another 11 people that have received signatures from their doctors saying that they aren’t able to take containers to the berm and would be required to have the service. He stated in order to go into a side-load collection system, which is a more efficient operation and to keep that efficiency, thought it would be best to cancel the services for anybody other than those that need it for medical reasons (elderly, handicapped, etc.)

Carpenter stated he referred this matter to committee, that he received a copy of the letter and wasn’t very pleased with the letter, that were going to eliminate it and give it a doctor’s notice if want to keep it and going to stop March 1; he stated he didn’t know why eliminate service to those who’ve been receiving it; that with only one person per truck, maybe more inefficient but maybe have to raise the fee if that’s necessary. He stated he would like to hear more information as to what it would cost, time delays and why shouldn’t be offering this if people want it and are willing to pay for it; and if costs too high maybe shouldn’t be doing even for medical needs.

Lucke asked what the monthly fee is and who are typical users that use this that don’t qualify under medical needs/exceptions.
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
March 8, 1999 - Page 4

Mr. Newman reported that min. fee is $3.30/mo. for up to 100-150 ft., add $1.00 for every 25 ft. thereafter (some in $5-6 or 7 range and up) and some reasons are because have long driveways. Hafner stated he thought it should be made available for those who want it, esp. for elderly or medical needs; he stated his objection to the letter was that it was arbitrary on March 1 and would make more sense that the day you get your cart would be day of transition to new way. Mr. Newman stated that was the intent, that he reread the letter and that they just wanted the responses back by March 1 but not cancel service as of that date. He stated they have informed people who have called that service will be cancelled when they receive new service. It was noted that one of the reasons for the automated system was partially workers comp., wanted to be able to eliminate the problems of hurt employees (lifting cans, etc.)and with one person on the truck, outside controls, etc. and were scattered throughout the city.

Mr. Newman reported what other cities in ND are doing about carryout service; Fargo and Bismarck allow for medical needs only, Minot doesn’t offer the service; Minneapolis provides for medical needs only; and no extra charge for the service. He stated one requires letter from doctor and signed certification that no one else in household can do this, one requires no proof at all, and one sends supervisor around to check on the need. Mr. Newman stated with lack of snow removal, no more of a problem than is now (wheels large enough to roll over rough terrain).

Committee suggested they send a second letter, that they agree for medical needs at no extra cost but not as a convenience; if not discontinue for those people, really need to look at rate structure and find out what that’s costing us and charge appropriately. Mr. Vein stated they would send a second letter to state that if not a medical needs case there will be a termination upon the distribution of the rollout containers. Mr. Newman stated they will provide the service for those who need that service.

Moved by Lucke and Klave to eliminate the carryout service fee for those that qualify under medical or handicapped exception
and introduce ordinance for first reading. Motion carried.


MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
March 8, 1999 - Page 5

There was some discussion re. size of the containers and Mr. Newsman stated they will have some 60-gallon containers in the future but want people to take the 90’s first, make sure they can handle them, and if can’t handle them, will replace with a 60/gal.; but because have a 90-gal container don’t want them to fill it up every time, reason for 90-gal container is so that they’re not stomping all the trash down to the bottom so when dump automatically the garbage will come out, that normally 60-gal would be sufficient for 90% of the people 90% of the time, but odd times when 90-gal is going to be needed and so drivers wouldn’t have to get out and add that extra bag or two sitting beside the can to the barrel on a regular basis or non-regular basis. Size of the cans isn’t that much difference, about 4” in height and 2-4” in diameter so size dif. isn’t all that great. It was noted that alleys will be handled same as streets, drive through twice to pick up each side; still more efficient to drive twice than to pick up by two people by hand. He stated they max. size of container, not minimum size; trying to stay away from having the driver getting out to reload the container so it can be dumped. He stated they have intentions of placing door hangers one week or two before receiving containers, instructions will be inside the container explaining this again; they will start with the Monday route and collection days will remain the same.

4. Matter of request for recycling project funds for Pembina Co.
Mr. Newman stated they used to have monies available for the Dist. IV Solid Waste Bd. for their operation and for recycling, those monies have been discontinued but suggested that any requests for recycling monies come back to committee for case by case approval, Pembina County has submitted request. He introduced Scott Nordin, recycling coordinator.

Mr. Nordin reported he received application from auditor in Pembina Co., they will assist the Pembina Co. Recycling Project in improvements and maintenance for roll-off containers, add locking device, new signage and touch up paint and containers placed in Walhalla, Neche, Cavalier, Hamilton, Drayton, St. Thomas and Pembina, etc.; and to provide clear instructions on the containers to reduce contamination; they need $3806 to do this project and they are asking for $1500, and asked that they grant the request. It was noted that the City’s landfill receives garbage from Pembina Co. and they have money set aside for these types of projects in the sanitation budget.
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
March 8, 1999 - Page 6

Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve the amount of $1500 for recycling improvements. Motion carried.

5. Update of hiring consultant for studying staffing options for
wastewater plant.
Mike Shea, environmental coordinator stated that back in November they requested permission to write qualifications for a consultant to evaluate the staffing options for the wastewater treatment plant, did that and received two proposals, evaluated those and have put together a committee consisting of three people from public works, one from finance and two council people, and will be working with the consultant they select. He stated they will be meeting with the consultants, look at estimate for cost and try to negotiate a contract and come back to committee. Information.

6. Matter of storm sewer study.
Mr. Shea reported they had submitted proposal for stormwater runoff study, that in April of 1998, he discussed the new stormwater phase II regulations and the six requirements for the city of Grand Forks, that they are looking at a study along with East Grand Forks because metropolitan area considered one area for the Phase II regulations, and are asking for $20,000 to go ahead with the study, study will be performed by a civil engineering graduate student from UND and he is asking for up to $20,000 from Grand Forks to rent and/or purchase equipment to do the study; whatever the City lab cannot do, farm out to an outside laboratory. He stated at present there is no data that would show what Grand Forks/East Grand Forks contribution to the water quality in Red River is, nothing to argue when regulations come out as to whether or not we are in fact impairing the water quality, this study would address that. East Grand Forks is committed for $10,000; equipment purchase will belong to whomever buys it; they have $4100 budgeted for sampling equipment of this exact type and the remaining $15,900 if needed would come from a budget amendment. He stated he didn’t think it would cost $20,000 but the original quote they received from the company to rent the amount of equipment necessary was close to that. If we are impairing water quality of the Red River, maybe treating stormwater a reality down the line.

Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve funding for the study in an amount not to exceed $20,000. Motion carried.

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
March 8, 1999 - Page 7

7. Matter of farm land lease in Turtle River Township.
Charles Grotte, public works dept., reported they had received letter from J.Peter Buck with a proposal to rent City’s property, they did advertise public notice and this is only offer they received, and in talking with Mr. Buck today he stated he’s not interested any more, and would like committee to approve proposal pending verification of that. It was noted there are 542 acres available for this growing season - probably too late in season; last year land was rented at $45/acre, and this is around $30/acre. He stated that it’s probably too late to rent for this year; and people know it’s for landfill and that’s probably negative also.

There was some discussion re. weed control, whether it was possible to enter into a share-situation on any type of crop (alfalfa for cattle). Mr. Grotte stated that Mr. Buck sent in letter concerning his availability as a custom farmer, and perhaps could hire someone like that to maintain the property - something for cattle farmer to cut and bale, etc. Mr. Vein stated there are other things that could be done (summer fallow - plant to alfalfa and rent out as hayland) He stated they could come back with a plan. Carpenter stated they have property division in the bank and lot of land where farmers giving up and if land is alkali makes worse if nothing done to it. It was noted that Botsford & Rice managed property before this, and perhaps have someone manage land for the City rather than someone from City trying to do it. Mr. Vein stated they could do that and will come back to committee with contract.

8. Matter of repair work at Storm Pump Station 84 (6th Ave.N.
and N. 55th Street)
Dale Bergum, WFW, stated they are adding a second module to the stormwater pumping station, designed for total of four, and this is second module; that during construction in December alerted to fact that had a leak in the forcemain out the west side of the building and with limited pumping, there was small amount of leakage. He stated they checked and determined that forcemain settled between the building and 50 ft. west of there, don’t have exact cause as to why it has settled (this project, backfill prior, storm sewer that was put in out there and other utilities throughout the area) and don’t have pinpoint cause. He stated they called for utility locations, marked and flagged it, US West stated they have fiber optic in the ground and to let them know when dig, fiber optic on top of forcemain (crosses
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
March 8, 1999 - Page 8

over the top of it), will have to dig and recompact this and relay a couple sections of pipe. He stated problem now is that ground frozen, US West basically telling contractors that have to dig by hand within 10 ft. of the line, (about 40 ft. where dig by hand and not feasible), and came up with idea to come up with temporary repair on it through the spring, and are trying to get preliminary approval to do change orders as soon as get numbers from contractors. Temp. repair involves pumping down existing forcemain, pull off 24” flange, apply 3 internal pipes which are rubber seal that expand, etc., total cost $4,065.25, reviewed it with city staff and feel reasonable price, permanent fix done after ground thaws out, est. $20,000 fix and part has to do with all the utilities in the area.

Mr. Grasser stated they wanted to accomplish couple things tonight, one is to get authorization before the work is done for change orders; and other is laying ground work because of response getting from US West and other fiber optic people, they’ve created a problem where not taking good responsibility for; City notified of the problem back in December where not lot of frost and work could have been done, but due to various delays from NSP still don’t have the work done, they are trying to dictate to us what terms our contractor should be doing; and he is looking at changing this around and if they weren’t there, could be doing the work. He stated that the temporary repair is caused and needed because those utilities are there and maybe pursue sending that bill to the utility companies, but wouldn’t know if accept or reject it. He stated he is concerned with fact that we have all these fiber optic companies laying fiber optic in the city right of way and long term some real problems for the City if we don’t get handle on this and get them to consolidate a location or into a common duct, and every time come into a berm, have most of berm with fiber optic; and need to recognize that we shouldn’t allow situations like this to continue to develop because of future ramifications that comes back to the City as a cost.

Klave stated that he has had several excavators approach him on the fact of fiber optics running in the R/W on berms and why they are not encased in something because driving up the cost by hand digging because not wanting to cut these things off; feels there should be something better because these go right down the berm because have sewer and water connections, and not only a City cost, it goes back to builder, etc. Mr. Grasser stated
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
March 8, 1999 - Page 9

perhaps need to go back to utility company because not have contractor do hand digging and that’s cost borne directly by the city and their utility that’s causing the problem. Mr. Grasser asked who would front-end those costs for common duct, etc; Klave stated that first one through the ground is required to put it in and if rest want to piggy-back and go through it, they can pay fee to the original installer.

Klave and Lucke moved to approve the change order for the temporary repair in the amount of $4,065.25 and to contact utility company for payment of cost of the temporary repair; and approve concept to pursue the permanent change order. Motion carried.

9. Matter of authorization to request appraisals for easements/
rights of way along S. 42nd St. from 17th to 29th Aves.
Jon Large, project engineer, stated the City does not have much R/W along 42nd Street and are asking for approval to get requests for appraisals so have R/W when utilities go in. Moved by Lucke and Klave to approve request. Motion carried.

10. Matter of easements for various projects:
b) Along 40th Ave. S. in Perkins 4th Addn. for Proj. 4979,
watermain in Perkins 4th Addn.
Mr. Large stated this is a zero dollar easement. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve temporary construction easement with a zero dollar cost. Motion carried.

a) Along Ruemmele Road for Proj. 4845, storm sewer on S. 34th
St. and Ruemmele Road from 32nd to 40th Aves. S.
c) Along Columbia Road, 62nd Ave. S. for southend development
projects.
Lon Aune, CPS, presented listing of temporary and permanent easements confirmed with property owners, paperwork in hand, and are asking for approval of easements; are low cost easements. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve the easements. Motion carried.

11. Matter of reimbursement agreement with Williams Energy Group
for Proj. 4779, relocate Williams pipeline:
a) along S. Columbia Road and south of 40th Ave.
Mark Lambrecht, CPS, stated they have the reimbursement agreement with Williams Energy Services, which covers work that Williams Pipeline Co. would do to relocate their pipeline south
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
March 8, 1999 - Page 10

of the drainway and east of Columbia Road from 40th to 47th; and separate part of it also accomplishes the relocation of pipeline where it crosses the new golf course south of Ulland Park, and that would be done independently; total amount of this agreement is $420,312, and of that amount $326,435 is attributable to the City’s southend development projects along Columbia Road from 40th to 47th; $93,877 is cost of lowering of the pipeline through the new golf course area. He asked that they acknowledge a few things in the minutes because this agreement is a little bit different than customary, that in one major respect, the Williams Pipeline Co. requires the payment to be made upfront before the work is performed, we deposit the funds with them and they draw against the funds as they contract for and perform the work and provide us with a system of vouchers showing how the funds have been used. He stated they do have special insurance requirements that we must undertake as part of this agreement and the easements for the areas are also a part of this agree-ment, and they have been, on behalf of the City of Grand Forks, negotiating for the easement. He stated they should also acknowledge there will be CDBG funds used for this purpose and this document has come quite recently and should also be subject to the city attorney’s review before entering into it and authorize the appropriate City officials to sign it. He stated that the interface site which is the site of some typing and valves located where Columbia and 47th Avenue meet and very close to road intersection, will be moved one-half mile north and sitting on R/W of the drainway, will be away from that intersec-tion in a better location.

Klave questioned whether $420,000 a reasonable price - non-negotiable price, and have at end of project, see receipts. Mr. Lambrecht agreed non-negotiable price, and that they provide a system of vouchers where they show how the funds are expended; that this goes the other way as well, they do not guarantee that amount as an upper limit either. He stated they give a recap of how they arrived at their budget and accounted for each of their est. costs; they will give a recap as they progress of funds expending in relationship to how they budgeted, but if run into things more difficult that they had foreseen, the cost would escalate as well; this is based on their best est. of actual cost and corrected up to be actual expenses incurred by them. He stated they have budgeted land R/W and all of their contractor work and would have to rely upon them as having done

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
March 8, 1999 - Page 11

the work and insured as good est. as they can possibly do. He stated that the City is the sponsor of the whole project.

Mr. Grasser stated there was $320,000 initially budgeted in the cost matrix for the southend development and approval given at Flood Response Committee and the Park District is going to build the southend drainway as part of the golf course; the agreement that was made is that the City basically would pay the Park District and back the value of that work which was calculated to about $1.2 million, and as part of that next phase of the drain-way included costs of relocating the Williams Bros. Pipeline to about $100-150,000; that $320,000 to come out of the CDBG budget and remaining balance to be paid by the City under the project that the Park District is going to build. (The City is paying for the value of building the drainway as part of the golf course and is part of that drainway construction; would have to be done whether the golf course going in or not; and those costs figured into the total assessable amount of work on the southend drainway.) He stated that even though did drainway in phases, looked at what it would be if they had done the work at one time and tried to calculate the costs back that way.

Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve the agreement with Williams Energy Services and authorize deposit of $420,312.00, contingent upon review of the document by the city attorney; that $320,000 will be paid through CDBG allocation of the $15 million for southend development, and balance from Southend Drainway, Phase III. Motion carried.

12. Matter of utilities in Perkins Addition:
a) 50% up-front funding
b) 3-way agreement for sanitary sewer
Mr. Large stated that the City Code requires that any developer for assessment project provide 50% upfront money or letter of credit, that Dan Stauss is asking for a letter of credit to be approved for the utilities on the development, and that sanitary sewer will be public sewer that is privately constructed. He stated that Mr. Stauss would like to enter into a three-way agreement on that sewer and tapping fees set up on line so if in the future if someone taps the line they will pay for that. It was noted that if the letter of credit is not received and reviewed by the city attorney prior to the award of the contract that contract will not be awarded.

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
March 8, 1999 - Page 12

Moved by Klave and Lucke to accept letter of credit for 50% of upfront funding meeting guidelines and to approve three-way agreement. Motion carried.

13. Matter of agreements for eng. services, various projects:
a) Design eng., CPS, Proj. 5001 and 5002, watermain and
storm sewer on 36th Ave. S. from Columbia Rd. to 30th St.
Mr. Aune reviewed agreement with CPS for engineering services to install watermain and storm sewer along 36th Avenue, and agreement is for design and bidding phases and have included the limited construction phase, which gets them through the pre-construction conference (consultant’s review of shop drawings and make sure that’s in compliance) and pass off to engineering staff if they choose to take over or enter into another amendment to do further construction services.

Moved by Lucke and Klave to approve the agreement for engineering services in the amount of $12,401.00 for each project. Motion carried.

b) Design eng., CPS, Projs. 4995 thru 4998, utilities and
paving in University Village (CDBG)
Mr. Aune reported this is for engineering services for these projects, looking at extension of Cambridge to 10th and over to Columbia Road, and would include paving, street lighting and all underground utilities (watermain would have to be extended to Gateway and storm sewer line would be running along 10th to the English Coulee); that this is design phase services through bidding and limited construction services.

Moved by Lucke and Klave to approve the agreement for engineering services in the amount of $83,635.00. Motion carried.

c) Design eng., CPS, Projs. 4991 thru 4993, sanitary sewer,
watermain and storm sewer in South Pines Addn.
Mr. Aune presented copies of the agreement for engineering services for area off Cherry Street behind Mighty Acres for design bidding, prelim. construction or limited const. phase.

Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve the agreement for engineering services in the amount of $13,569.00 for Project

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
March 8, 1999 - Page 13

4991, $6,796.00 for Project 4992 and $7,871.00 for Project 4993. Motion carried.

14. Matter of amendments to engineering service agreements for
various projects:
a) Amendment No. 3B (const. adm.), GFEG, Proj. 4851, sani-
tary forcemain from Pump Sta. 39 (CDBG)
Mr. Bergum, GFEG, stated this is construction phase services for project that is south of All Seasons connecting up under Columbia Road.

Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve Amendment No. 3B to the engineering services agreement in the amount of $77,303.10; project CDBG eligible. Motion carried.

b) Amendment No. 7 (const. adm.), WFW, Proj. 4866, restore
storm sewer in Area 4 (CDBG)
Mr. Bergum stated this is construction and operation phase services for this project, area is bounded by the River on the east, following along Columbia Road to 32nd and over to Washington Street, basically 20th Ave. S. to 55th Avenue S.

Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve Amendment No. 7 to the engineering services agreement in the amount of $144,371.00, project CDBG eligible. Motion carried.

15. Matter of CDBG Engineers reports for various projects:
a) Proj. 4995 thru 4998, sanitary, water, storm and paving
in University Village.
Mr. Aune presented Engineer’s Report in the amount of $1.6 million as est. project cost, with CDBG budget of $1.6 million, and anticipated bidding in June, 1999; will be forwarding to Urban Development so they can proceed with environmental review process. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve the Engineer’s Report, project CDBG eligible. Motion carried.

b) Proj. 4757, downtown curb and gutter replacement
Lisa Johnson, Advanced Engineering, reviewed CDBG Engineer’s Report for this project in the downtown area. She stated this project is a part of larger project, ER funded project; that overlay project has been postponed to the year 2000 as they want all underground utility work completed before doing final overlay, but will do curb and gutter this year and
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
March 8, 1999 - Page 14

coordinate with streetscape project. She stated areas proposing to replace are within the mill and overlay area bounded by Minnesota Avenue, University Avenue, 5th Street and Red River, est. project cost is $160,845, and one of the conditions for the ER is that the City will pick up 20% of all eligible costs and 100% of the non-eligible costs, and only one item that was not eligible - City administrative costs just under $4,000, and asking for CDBG budget amount to be $35,333.00.

Moved by Lucke and Klave to approve the Engineer’s Report, pro-ject CDBG eligible. Motion carried.

16. Matter of plans and specifications for various projects:
a) Proj. 4757, downtown curb and gutter replacement (CDBG)
Ms. Johnson presented final plans and specs. for the project. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve plans and specifications for the project. Motion carried.

b) Proj. 4915 and 4916, sanitary and water on N. 48th St.
(Gateway to 17th Ave.N.)
Mr. Lambrecht stated they are doing this project on behalf of Strata Corporation, project privately funded, however, there are some City costs participation in an oversized watermain in City R/W; area located north of US Hwy. 2 and west of I-29 where Strata Corp. is building their new yard, main office and maintenance facility (behind Simonson’s who is redoing the former Big Sioux Truck Stop) and asked for approval of plans and specs.

Moved by Lucke and Klave to approve plans and specifications for the projects. Motion carried.

c) Proj. 4986, UND steam line replacement
Mr. Large reported that rep. of UND was present but had to leave, that UND is restoring their steamlines and presented plans and specs. because had four crossings of City’s R/W, City eng. is reviewing plans and specs. and have seen where UND has four crossings of University and Columbia where they had put expansion loops under the street; City is going to require that they remove the loops from under streets and have a straight through crossing in those areas, and asked for approval. Mr. Grasser reported that City asking for removal of loops that are needed in the steamline because of heat in lines and causes paving to deteriorate, perpendicular crossing easier to handle.
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
March 8, 1999 - Page 15

Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve plans and specs. contingent upon changes as noted by the engineering department. Motion carried.

d) Proj. 4999, sanitary sewer lining under South Jr. High
Held in committee.

e) Proj. 4892, 1999 traffic loop quotes.
Mr. Large presented Engineer’s Report as they will be using some CDBG funding, they have several loops that need to be placed, listing included on Engineer’s Report along with funding sources; est. project cost $37,000 ($5,000 CDGG funding).

Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve plans and specifications, project CDBG eligible.

17. Matter of consideration of const. bids, various projects:
a) Proj. 4908, 1999 concrete street repairs
c) Proj. 4907, 1999 sidewalk repairs
d) Proj. 4910, 1999 ADA curb ramp construction
Mr. Large presented tabulation of bids of these projects, and noted that Specialized Contracting of Fargo was low bidder on these three projects in the amounts of $ 191,948.00 $128,917.50, and $43,640.00, respectively; that City of Grand Forks has never worked with them before and in preliminary contracts learned they’ve only been in business for two years and talked with some people that there’s doubt they have the equipment and power to do $400,000 jobs for the City of Grand Forks; and were asking to hold this for two weeks while do more checking into their ability to perform that work. Klave stated they used Specialized all last summer, performed projects for them, that they do have equipment and manpower, and installed between 16-20 basements for them plus flatwork and were never slowed down because of Specialized. He stated he didn’t receive any complaints from inspectors. It was noted that they do provide performance bond and prior to this owner of that company was employed by company equal to Strata here, doing same type of work down there.

After further discussion it was moved by Lucke and Klave to approve acceptance of the low bidders on these projects, subject to further engineering review. Motion carried.

b) Proj. 4909, 1999 asphalt street repairs
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
March 8, 1999 - Page 16

Mr. Large presented tabulation of bids and low bidder was Nodak Contracting in the amount of $18,750.00. Moved by Lucke and Klave to accept the low bid of Nodak Contracting in the amount of $18,750.00. Motion carried.

e) Proj. 4964, watermain replacement on N. 5th St. (Univ. to
7th Avenue)
f) Proj. 4978, watermain replacement on N. 6th St. (2nd to
6th)
Mr. Large presented tabulation of bids, Duckstad Contracting was low bidder on both projects in the amounts of $152,258.50 and $143,626.00, respectively.

Moved by Lucke and Klave to accept the low bidder of Duckstad Contracting Company in the amounts of $152,258.50 and $143,626.00. Motion carried.

g) Proj. 4942, 1999 casting quotes
Mr. Large presented tabulation of bids, Fargo Water was low bidder in the amount of $19,425.69.

Moved by Klave and Lucke to accept the low bid of Fargo Water in the amount of $19,425.69. Motion carried.

h) Proj. 4928, box culvert southend drainway at S. 18th St.
(CDBG)
Mr. Aune presented tabulation of bids submitted by 9 bidders ranging in price from $70,560 to $158,800, engineer’s est. was $68,000; project installed in the drainway at 19th Street location where 20th veers to the west; R.J. Zavoral low bidder and reviewed bids. Moved by Lucke and Klave to accept the low bid of R.J. Zavoral & Sons in the amount of $70,560.00. Motion carried.

18. Change orders for Proj. 4669.3, Southend Drainway, Phase 2B
C.O. #1.
Mr. Lambrecht reviewed first change order for the project, R.J. Zavoral working on Phase 2 of the drainway and doing excellent job; that if water coming into city from the south this spring this will be in place and functional to help protect from overland flooding. Change order in the amount of $20,400, and that at the time of design the location of proposed utilities was not available and now because of recent platting the location of the future watermain under the drainway at S.
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
March 8, 1999 - Page 17

20th St. and Rummele Road has been determined and Eng. Dept. has requested that they provide insulated casing pipe beneath the drainway for future installation of watermain at these locations.

Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $20,400. Motion carried.

19. Matter of encroachment agreement policy.
Mr. Grasser stated they have a large number of encroachment agreements that come to committee (RR crossings, signs, lights, buildings, etc.) and if City is looking for finding a place for additional revenue, this might be something they want to look at. He stated that the City has a valuable asset in R/W and have obtained that R/W for the use and benefit of the general public city at large, and now finding that various private entities in order to save costs or make things more convenient or provide better visibility, etc. wish to encroach in those easements; there’s a number where they do have opportunity to accomplish some of the same things on their own site, but choose to use the City's R/W, that there's no charge, no cost and City has generally approved them. He stated he wanted to present to committee to see if they should pursue setting up a fee structure where charge for encroachment agreement, either upfront one time charge, or an annual type license; pros and cons to doing either way. Mr. Grasser stated that there are costs to the City whenever there is an encroachment: administra-tive staff time trying to work out and negotiate and do paper-work, ie., RR crossing maintenance type costs that may occur or if general public sees a problem, they will call City, on-going costs. He stated he has no recommendations but presenting to committee whether they should pursue. Klave stated if costs involved that City having to bear, should do some research; concerned when GF Herald came in, built new building and came in three times for encroachments. Mr. Grasser stated he spent quite some time working on that, but didn’t know if could make cost a big factor but they had the opportunity of making those grade changes inside their building, but cheaper and more convenient to do on public R/W and see that periodically on a number of buildings. Klave stated that probably City continue to grant encroachment but costs being borne; private engineers have billable hours and these are billable hours also. Lucke questioned whether other cities were charging for this. Mr. Grasser stated they may want to consider: upfront adm. costs of
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
March 8, 1999 - Page 18

working out alternatives, some on-going maintenance costs that City may incur, and whether try to recoup something for the value of that structure being located in the City R/W. Committee asked engineering to research and come back to committee.