Committee Minutes

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
Monday, June 14, 1999 - 7:00 p.m.

Members present: Hafner, Klave, Lucke.

1. Matter of request to delay sidewalk installation at 1279 Burbank Circle
Dale Bergum stated he owns a vacant lot at 1279 Burbank and has plans t build a new house next year, that he received notice from city sidewalk inspector that they would like to have sidewalks installed this year, and with construction of his house next year, would like to postpone sidewalks until after the house is constructed. Mark Anderson, city engineer’s office, stated that they recommended granting the extension for a period of one year. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve extension of sidewalk construction for a period of one year. Motion carried.

2. Matter of professional services to evaluate public vs. private operations of the Wastewater
Treatment Plant, Malcolm Pirnie, City Project No. 5014.
Lucke stated the privatizing doesn’t seem like a logical first place for a City to begin and when looking at overall needs and with new technology, why start with this project. Ken Vein, city engineer, stated that the rationale has been that they haven’t had the same opportunity to look at privatization as before, most of the time if privatizing a utility it would have been to take existing utilities that has personnel, etc. involved and then have to look at eliminating employees, and since this was entirely new enterprise area that they were bringing on, and his staff members came and questioned whether they should look at privatizing this now and studying it. He stated that if it’s in their best interest can do it without all the human resource issues that come from looking at an existing department and that was basic reasons why they brought this forward. He stated there’s little opportunity to have to study it and have been open minded whether they should privatize or go public. He stated they’ve never been able to verify or justify because they’ve never done a comparison, and other concern was that if turn it over privately, could they be assured they would get the same level of operation and maintenance that the City would give, and would a private vendor come in and run without doing proper maintenance and City would be stuck with something after their contract was done. He stated there were some issues they wanted to go through and be assured of and that’s what staff came back and said that they are done all over so can assure that those things (maintenance, etc.) kept up and they can find ways possibly to do cheaper if not have to competitively bid and that’s point where he endorsed when they wanted to come forward to do the study to compare the two. He stated that he didn’t anticipate this to be as costly as it is and if there are savings, it may stretch to other areas but not envisioning that happening either. Lucke stated he questioned whether we’re addressing the wrong problem because getting involved with new technology, present employees and think we have very reasonable wage rates in this area, thinks that people do an excellent job already but with new technology felt there’s a fear of how this new plant is going to work and that was being solved by if we can privatize it and don’t have to learn it; and costs concern him also. He stated that the $100,000 for the study and that he didn’t feel they would get recommendation to privatize it, but when found out that the $100,000 is just beginning, that if the City decides to go ahead can invest another $200,000 in the specs, obtaining bids and seems like a payback would be a great number of years before could recover the $300,000. Mr. Grasser stated that the

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
June 14, 1999 - Page 2_____________________

rep.from Malcolm Pirnie stated they were going to look at what it would take to run it privately and what it would take to run it publicly which would mean staffing levels, that he supervises the electricians and that it would be valuable for the City to know is how many electricians it is going to take to run this plant, that they will need to hire at least one electrician to help cover that area of the plant but has little factual data and would feel more comfortable if a professional firm laid this out and that would help the City figure out its costs and staffing levels because if do get somebody in there, it’s very beneficial if get them hired on early in the process so they are familiar with the plant as it’s being constructed and would like to start that as soon as possible. He stated that the first phase of the study would be valuable to other departments and the rest of the City. Lucke questioned if that information shouldn’t be given with the $25 million, that they’ve got the process in place and won’t they be able to tell City what staffing levels they would expect City to have to effectively operate the system.

Hafner stated that costs are more than he thought, but the question of privatization comes up many times and the City gets accused of not looking in all directions and this is opportunity to do that and brings us what we probably should have received and even if City decides to stay and do way we are with public operation, going to be ahead in the knowledge that we’ve gained from the study and would continue to support it. He stated he didn’t think the subject of privatizing is going to go away and this is opportunity for us to have it on the record and have a good study done. Klave stated that he didn’t think privatization will disappear and will be looking at in the future and thinks we still need to move forward with this. Klave moved to resubmit it to the full council as with last motion out of this committee. Hafner seconded the motion. (The motion was .. “to authorize entering into a contract with Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. for professional services to evaluate public vs. private operations of the City’s wastewater treatment plant at a cost of not to exceed $98,466.00”. Motion carried; Lucke voted against the motion.

3. Matter of siting approval for Wastewater Lift Stations #1 and #5, Proj. 4809 and 4811.
Hafner reported that siting for Lift Station #5 is held.

Chuck Grotte , asst. dir. of public works, reported they reviewed presentation on what was involved with Lift Station #1, that there were several residents who came in with concerns and questions, some of that was discussed at the last meeting. He reported there was a letter from Rick Tonder, 818 Almonte Avenue, that a copy of that letter and response to those concerns had been presented; that the resident was contacted by telephone and was satisfied with the response, Mr. Grotte asked that they approve that site.

Geraldine Prue, 2816 Shadow Road, reported that her mother, Elsie Fried, owns the property where City plans to put the lift station at 1 Lincoln Drive, that this house has been named as one of the historical houses by Mr. Yeater, house was built in 1926 by her mother’s father, and he brought back from California architectural ideas and had an architect build the house; that the construction is mainly lathe and plaster, which isn’t the most sturdy and if they came to the point of moving it, and her question was if this house could be moved; that where it sits now and it really means a lot to her mother, she’s in her 80’s and grew up there, that they adore this house
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
June 14, 1999 - Page 3_____________________

and don’t want to see anything happen to it She asked if the lift station could be moved to the back of the house or some other area, that there's quite a lot of area and understands that No. 3 and 5 Lincoln Drive have been purchased by the City and if there would be any way the lift station could be put back so the house could sit in its present location because it may present quite an undertaking to even try to move this house (two story structure). She stated that they had improvements made to the house in October of 1998 (new roof, new ventilation system in attic to compensate for ice damming - insulation/ventilation solution) and had paint work done because if was their understanding that City was abandoning the lift station project, which they started in the front of the house. They were told by someone from the City who was working there that the lift station down the hill on Lincoln Drive was doing the job and wouldn’t need to be using the temp. lift station in front of their house, and because of what they were told and that she called the city engineer and was told they were on the dry side of the dike. She stated that because of the information they were given, they went ahead with the renovations on the house
and put a lot of money into this house and then told their house was going to be uprooted/tore down because of the lift station, and were wondering if there would be any kind of solution that could be made where the lift station has to be in that area if couldn’t be moved to the back yard or moved over.

Mr. Grotte stated he didn’t think that was a possibility as the dike alignment comes through that area and barely misses the house and with the 20 ft. clear zone between structures, it’s right on the edge of that, and as far as moving it back in the yard unless the dike is relocated. He stated that the Corps originally did show a lift station on that lot at the front of the house in same location as had the temporary lift station; that the temporary lift station was put in immediately after the flood so could provide sanitary sewer service to that neighborhood because the one at the bottom of the hill was not operable, was under water and that once the one at the bottom of the hill was reactivated, the temporary station was taken out of service but there always was an intent to put in a new lift station at that vicinity. Mr. Vein reported that as they have established the new alignments for the permanent flood protection project, it’s moved away from the river, and in almost every case it’s moved into areas that have development in them, much of it homes, some could be businesses, etc. He stated that in doing so have had to revamp the infrastructure system, streets, sewer, water, etc. and the most difficult ones to be storm and sanitary at this point and what’s going to be an on-going problem is to find a location for a lift station as it is relocated away from the river because now going to impact homes and with people living there who thought they had survived the levee alignments who are now going to have to be taken for lift station to serve other people, and going to be faced with some tough decisions as to siting of them having the least amount of impact, because not intending to take homes or properties but don’t have choices in some locations. Mr. Hanson, WFW, stated the sanitary and storm are at same location and would have to go to the south and cross underneath the storm , and this about only option have and chose small lot.

Carol Kelly presented letter to the committee stating they had requested at the last meeting if there might be any compensation from the City for the devaluation of their home property immediately adjacent to the proposed station, that the reply was that if they wanted
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
June 14, 1999 - Page 4_____________________

compensation, they would have to litigate; and asked City to consider their request for the following allowances: 1) that they be reimbursed for the damages to their home from the construction of the temporary lift station construction; 2) that any further damages to their property be repaired at City expense; 3) that the City install a ball valve in their basement to help prevent sewer backup in their basement; 4) that there will be drainage provided at the bottom of the proposed permanent dike for snow and water run-off to prevent water from pooling between the dike base and their house, which could result in seepage into their basement; 5) that most or all of the deciduous lilac hedge at their east property line be removed and replaced at City expense with a 4 ft. high bagged and balled techny arbor vitae “hedge” (3 ft. spacing), to provide an evergreen blind between their house and the lift station; that the hedge would serve to absorb sounds from the station, and cleanse the air of the hydrogen sulfide produced; and 6) that the City coordinate with NSP to put all power lines underground. Mr. Vein stated they need to mitigate negative effects where possible and they will work with property owners. Mrs. Kelly stated they would like assurance in writing that they are going to work with property owners; she stated that after the last meeting they were assured that a neighborhood meeting would occur but that hasn’t happened, that there’s some delay in keeping them informed as to what’s going on. Hafner stated he would like to see the City do whatever it can that’s reasonable to accommodate her request; that the City doesn’t have a lot of choice in the situation that the site is going to have to be pretty much in that location and even if do take extra measures to move it somewhere else, it’s going to impact some other residence so don’t know if as a City they have gained anything. Mr. Vein stated that as this project is completed, plans and specs. will come back and most of the details that can be worked out would be worked out, and those that don’t they have the opportunity to come back if want to have more than what staff has been able to negotiate with the property owners.

Frank Kelly asked what is going to happen to No. 1 Lincoln Drive, tear the house down? Mr. Grotte stated that at this point we don’t know what we’re going to do with the property, that they do have a Programmatic Agreement with the Historic Society in State and whatever is done with the house, would have to go along with that. Mr. Vein stated that the house is either going to be torn down or moved. Mr. Grotte stated that he didn’t believe it was an option to move the lift station from what he knows of the project. Hafner stated if it’s part of the mitigation could be to move the house. Mr. Vein stated to document it there are a number of mitigation things for historical purposes that we would have to do and we can’t specify what are going to be, but would be handled through the process. He stated the only basic question he asked Mr. Hanson was, what are the alternatives and is hearing that this is the site for that facility. Klave stated he would like to ask Mr. Hanson to review it and make sure that it is and to let committee know that is what it has to be and why.

Klave moved that we site Lift Station #1 at the site that has been selected with the conditions that Webster, Foster & Weston evaluate and make sure this is the correct location for and check into whether or not it can be moved either across the street or shifted around there and that we work with the residents on the list of items that they proposed to us to be best of our ability to accommodate them.
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
June 14, 1999 - Page 5______________________

Lucke questioned the urgency of making the decision tonight because of all the conditions in that motion, perhaps postpone for two weeks and get the statement that this is the only and best site. Mr. Grotte stated that it may not be urgent tonight but were trying to do because people are wondering what’s happening and talked about identifying sites for the three lift stations they need to move, another one they’ve held and another that they haven’t addressed yet, and another concern is that Lift Station #1 is on the wrong side of the new temporary levees that are being discussed and there is a desire to move it to the protected side of the levee in the near future, but don’t know that they’d start construction this year but would like the decision made relatively soon, two more weeks wouldn’t hurt them. Lucke asked how much communication they’ve done with the owner of the house at 1 Lincoln Drive; Mr. Grotte stated they’ve sent everybody in that neighborhood within 300 ft. a letter saying this was the site, that there has been some discussion between Mr. Yverrow of City’s staff and some of the relatives of the owner. Mrs. Prue stated they were not told anything, that the City came in and put in the temporary structure that is in front of their house, didn’t know what they were doing when digging in the roadway and berm, not a letter had been sent and nothing to inform them what was happening. Mr. Vein stated that was the temporary lift station, and are talking about the permanent one they are proposing. It was noted that was an emergency situation, and Mr. Hanson stated that work was done in the right of way. Mr. Grotte stated there was a letter sent re. the permanent lift station and that after they approve the site, is when they start negotiating with the landowner, and sometime have several different options and one site selected, but in this particular case it was narrowed down to one site but hadn’t talked to the owners about purchasing the property, but they did receive a notice that was the site of preference and some of the relatives may have also received a response to Mr. Tonder’s inquiries on the project.

Lucke seconded the motion, and that the resident has to know that we’re going to do the best we can to not take that house and if not move it, at least all those costs that have been incurred, we’ll enter into what they get for their property. He stated it’s hard to lose a house but the City will do what they can to alleviate that. Hafner stated that when they come back again, have answers to all the issues. Lucke asked that by next Monday that additional information be presented; Mr. Grotte stated he would review it between now and Monday, and should be able to say by the end of the week whether there’s another spot or not. Mr. Vein stated that the information they would pass on to the committee can also be given to the property owners so they have a chance to see what went into this decision making process.

Upon call for the question, the motion carried.

4. Matter of Special Assessment District No.14 for permanent flood protection, Project 4704.
Mr. Grotte distributed the Engineer’s Report along with assessment district map for our permanent flood protection project. He stated they are anticipating that the project assessment would be divided into two general areas - one the current assessment area which would be anything within the existing city limits and a future assessment area which would be anything within the project area and basically bounded by the levees along the River by the south tieback levee on the southend of town, which is approx. two miles or mile and half south, and bounded
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
June 14, 1999 - Page 6_____________________

by the English Coulee Diversion on the west which is approx. two miles west of the Interstate, and then by the English Coulee Diversion on the north which is about a mile north of town, and that would be a future assessment district so as those areas did develop and become part of the city, the assessment would be recalculated (not a tapping fee area) and not currently going to be assessed.. He stated that as areas are added, the total assessment would be recalculated based on the criteria established - that the people within the city limits would start out at a higher assessment and as other areas are added to the city, the assessment would go down.

John Schmisek, city auditor, stated that what will happen is that as properties come in , they will do an entirely new calculation just as if they were in the project from day one, and with their assessment, there’s a credit back and lowers the total for everyone in the city. It was noted that with a 20-year bond issue and that some of the properties in the future assessment area will not be included within the city limits, and Mr. Schmisek stated he would envision that even at that point they would do something such as saying there was a benefit to those and then at that point establish some kind of tapping fee that could go into a maintenance fund. He stated the reason for the 20-year bonds for this project is the interest, that the difference between 20 and 30 years saves somewhere around $25 million. It was noted that if someone prepays their assessment and more property is annexed, the credit would go back against the current property owner because when the value of a property is determined by the assessors they take the principal of assessments and apply that to the value, so you assume that the property owner was reimbursed that amount when they sold the property. It was noted that if assessment prepaid and current owner still owns the property, they would refund the amount.

Mr. Grotte stated that this is a district that would provide permanent flood protection and associated City funded improvements and now projecting total cost of the City’s share of the flood protection project to be approx. $63 million and some City funded improvements of $11 million and City administration at $3 million for a total of nearly $77 million, and approx. $25 million of other sources of income have been tentatively identified so reduced total and looking at about $52 million on the assessment, and feel there are some other improvements that will be desired as they go along and the cost of monitoring and coordinating a project of this size does require some funds, and tried to look at this as a total project cost.

Mr. Vein stated if the project gets delayed, the costs will change and the best thing to acknowledge is that it’s the probable cost is estimated to be approx. and could change in the future, lot of variables. He stated that he wanted to mention that there’s going to be some operation and maintenance cost and may in the future, look at some type of potentially city-wide district on how they would handle O & M of the levee itself and possibly parts of the greenway, and that’s not included at this time, Mr. Swanson thinks it could be designed and implemented at a later time. He stated that as Mr. Schmisek stated re. sewer lagoon fee that the City charged, that even though everybody in the city when that was implemented paid into that, and then each property that came in after that, continued to pay a similar cost as what the original people did, and there are some options about how adding people in the future into this district. He stated he understood that can refine this district if needs to be on an annual basis so some options ahead
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
June 14, 1999 - Page 7_____________________

available for them but this gets project started as trying to determine how they are going to special assessment the properties within and be somewhat of a lengthy process.

Mr. Vein stated the motion would be to approve the Engineer’s Report, approval of the timetable and the assessment district map. Mr. Grotte stated this will go to city council on June 21 and that in past action of this committee that when there’s a special assessment that affects a major area, that notices do not need to be sent to each individual property owner, and since this isn't a protestable assessment, those types of notices aren't required but will most likely have some kind of notice in the newspaper to inform public and will have some kind of special assessment commission some time in July. Mr. Vein stated this shows the legal process that has to be done, and if additional notifications and communications take place, that will happen. Lucke stated that if have some annexation that takes place between now - they would be in the primary district rather than outside district. He asked what best guess is for people to know what their specials in and have to start servicing that. Mr. Vein stated they will implement this fall and it will show up on people’s taxes in February, as they are having costs on this project now and need to come up with mechanism for payment on those. Mr. Grasser stated that the Special Assessment Commission will have a process that they will go through to determine the specials and may take some time so not to get hung up on a specific date; Mr. Vein stated he thought they would have various public meetings on this for public input process. Hafner stated that there could be more debate on how it’s assessed than there is the area that is going to be assessed. Mr. Grasser stated that this district may need to be amended in the future, where southend alignment near the river isn’t fixed in stone, and that is still being studied so that could probably amend it at a later date and if they decided to switch alignment closer to the river. Klave stated that the easterly border is the dikeline and as that changes that again becomes the easterly border of this map at any given time. Mr. Grasser stated they would have to an official revision of the map at that time based on whatever new information would be available.

It was moved by Lucke that we adopt a resolution creating the assessment district, approving the engineer’s report, including estimate of cost, an assessment district map, and that we declare intent to sell bonds to finance these improvements; seconded by Klave.

Bill Couchigan, 815 40th Avenue South, asked when the citizens of Grand Forks find out about the maps and where this dike is going to be, that if running a special assessment district throughout the whole city, don’t know where the dike is at. Mr. Grotte reported that the Corps is working on their levee alignment design memorandum and plan to have that done in June, 2000, and that should define very close to where the final alignments will be, maybe some changes made during the course of construction as they run into different things, and between now and then it is still subject to change. Mr. Grotte stated they will publish the map in the paper.

Mr. Vein stated they may want to modify the map if for any purposes the line moves closer to the river, then they’re outside this assessment district so should show everything to the river so it’s in the assessment district but doesn’t mean it has to be assessed (could assign zero benefit) and
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
June 14, 1999 - Page 8_____________________

gives us little more flexibility should the lines adjust. He stated they might want to include some of the areas between the proposed levee alignment and the river so don’t have to come back and modify the assessment district map. The committee agreed to change the assessment district map to show the river as the east boundary of the district; Mr. Vein stated they would revise the map for council. Mr. Grotte stated they should say as projected by the tie-back levees on the south and the diversion on the north so there’s no question as to where they go in those gray areas and would project those lines straight east from their location, and that way the area Mr. Grasser had mentioned on the south would be included and if becomes part of the plan, wouldn’t necessarily have to redraw the maps. Mr. Vein stated that impacts those in the city limits on the very north end vs. those outside the city limits on the south end. The movers agreed to this change.

Upon call for the question, the motion carried.

5. Matter of request by Crary Homes and Real Estate for lift station and infrastructure for development in 80 acre tract of land south of Adams Drive and east of Belmont Road.
Tim Crary stated he would like to make a formal request for permanent lift station south of Adams Drive and east of Belmont Road., and if that seems to be a problem he would like to request a temporary lift station with forcemains running out to 55th Avenue into the new lift station that being put in south of Mighty Acres area.

Mr. Vein stated that they don’t feel at this point in time that they’re ready to construct a permanent lift station in that area because too many unknowns as they’ve discussed, about where that easterly alignment of the levee is going to be to the east of his property. The ability to put in a temporary lift station is a potential and in the past temporary lift stations and temp. forcemains have been borne by the property owner and asked Mr. Crary if he was willing to bear those costs. Mr. Crary stated he was asking that the City would pay. Mr. Vein stated that’s a council decision, and that in the past they’ve talked about a temp. lift station being approx. $300,000 and assuming includes forcemain, and would have to go back and look at the sizing of the forcemain to see whether routing he’s suggested is even possible, and there would be other restrictions they would also place about some type of levee protection for the temporary development; that there are ways to develop but costs and other details that would have to be worked out and City has to be willing to take on those costs. Mr. Vein stated that Wal-Mart provided temporary lift station and supplied by the developer. Mr. Crary asked what timeline would be on a permanent lift station; Mr. Vein stated that the permanent alignment will be known a year from now and Corps should be able to establish what that is, and would know then where permanent one would be. Mr. Vein stated size and location would vary if more land that’s going to be draining or using this lift station and that’s where the unknown is, and if were going to develop this without that known, would have to do something temporary with the knowledge that it may or may not change.

Mr. Crary stated he would like to get started right away on the north 20 acres and if could get a temporary lift station to get something going. Hafner stated that one time before they received
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
June 14, 1999 - Page 9_____________________

and filed this similar request pending the dike line, and doesn’t know if anything has changed and that Mr. Crary had been before committee prior to the flood asking for a lift station before he purchased the property, and that he wasn’t promised a lift station at that time, and that he states in his letter that he was promised that and is questioning that. Mr. Crary stated he was assured there would be infrastructure out there before they bought the land, and that he was looking at this land before the flood, and were assured they would have infrastructure at that time., and that’s been a couple years. Klave stated that he didn’t know if he could approve that now without more information and would like staff to look at that northerly 20 acres of it to give committee an idea of what they can or can’t do out there. Mr. Vein stated if they’re going to build a lift station to serve the whole area and not just 20 acres, either select for the 80 as it is or if alignment were to change, where would it be and could be drastically different location.. There was some discussion re. using temporary lift station from Wal-Mart, whether anything salvageable - Mr. Hanson stated piping and controls - spend more money getting out of there . Mr. Crary asked if it would be possible to take the northwest 10 acres and dump that into Belmont; Mr. Vein stated with calculations that they can do that with the capacities of the line and sewer, that they did work with Mr. Hanson re. putting in the proposed sewer lift station areas as they see them now and in the future and this was designated and some of the area north of Adams Drive is also designated to go into this lift station area based on current design and capacities and forcemains, etc. but don’t believe can do that with existing. Mr. Vein stated they only way to handle this with the unknown of where the future station would be is to put something in temporarily, modify and/or expand in the future, could make some assumptions and put it in but is just going to take money either the developer has to pay as have done in the past with temporary stations or the City can pay for temporary and either convert to a permanent or build a new permanent one later.

Mr. Grasser reported this has been brought to various committees, either this one or CIP several times over the last number of years, and one of the problems is in this location, not just a lift station but there’s a long length of forcemain (approx. 1 l/4 mile) and that may cost more than the lift station, that lift stations installing with CDBG money are about $900,000 or $1 million and that includes the lift station and forcemain, and at one time were est. cost at $1.5 to $2 million, that bids coming in have been driving those numbers down a little. He stated that when the did the overall southend development scope, this was part of that development plan because they knew there were requests and need for lift station out there but keep running into same problems - where do you locate it efficiently without knowing the extent of the areas going to serve because if the dike line moves east to efficiently serve an area the lift station should be located about in the middle of the area going to serve - that if dike like moves east ¼ to ½ mile and lift station is on the west end, will run into trouble and won’t have enough grade to reach the areas to the east. Lucke stated that perhaps they can go back and look at temporary costs, define what the decision is for Mr. Crary and if there’s any share City could participate in, and whether feasible or not. Committee stated they need to know costs. Mr. Vein stated City can go ahead and do this but right now don’t have the staff to do it; Mr. Grasser stated if its going to be done would have to be done by consultant, whether City or developer hires consultant. Mr. Grasser stated he has a staff of 5 engineers counting Keith Johnson, but down to 2 as of last letter of
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
June 14, 1999 - Page 10____________________

resignation. Klave asked Mr. Crary if they would be willing to bear cost of engineering, Mr.
Grasser stated that if developer wanted to put together costs and alternatives, city can review. Mr. Crary stated he is ready to start developing and have plans for that area and that there’s a lift station being put in with CDBG money on Useldinger land and don’t know how long before that gets developed and questioned taking some of that money and move into their area where there’re ready to go now and if that was an option. Mr. Vein stated that they can’t move that money from that area to another, that council could modify that lift station, but it was noted that lift station was designed to service the west half of the golf course property and would go another half mile into Useldinger’s land. Mr. Crary stated that it would be 3 to 4 years before developing golf course land and they are ready to start developing his land. Mr. Vein stated that for any development he would strongly recommend that it would entail a significant amount of flood protection for that whole 80 acres prior to proceeding with the permanent flood protection and would request that be incorporated into it. Mr. Vein stated eventually with the addition of all the lift stations they are talking about in conjunction with the new ones, Corps project, etc. operation and maintenance costs go up and personnel costs will go up to maintain these facilities, will need cleaning and jetting of lines, operation of lift stations and people go out daily and on weekends to monitor and maintain, and in future budgets going to have show additional personnel and capital costs to continue to do what doing.

Moved by Lucke and Klave to table this request until Mr. Crary can provide additional information on estimated engineering, estimated construction costs of the temporary and proposal as to cost sharing for the design of the project. Motion. carried. (Comm.only)

6. Matter of request to write specs. and call for bids for traffic paint.
Todd Feland presented the matter of annual purchase of paint, $15-20,000, using same specs. as in past years with general specs. re. testing to make sure it works. Moved by Lucke and Klave to approve request. Motion carried. (Comm. only)

7. Matter of bids for cover material at landfill.
Dick Newman, solid waste mgr., reported they took quotes for cover material, Robinson Excavating was low at $2.98/yd, and recommended award to Robinson. Moved by Lucke and Klave to accept the low bid of Robinson Excavating in the amount of $2.98/yd for approx. 15,000 yds for total est. cost of $44,700. Motion carried.

8. Matter of price quote for truck box.
Mr. Newman reported they had asked for authorization for quotes from Reiter Industries, Inc. sole source for that type of box at cost of $8,854, and asked for authorization to purchase the box. Moved by Klave and Lucke to authorize purchase of the truck box from Reiter Industries, Inc. in the amount of $8,854.00. Motion carried.

9. Matter of surplus crane.
Mr. Newman reported that he had previously asked for authorization to have crane at landfill declared surplus and take bids, that they can’t find anybody interested (1965 crane), and asked

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
June 14, 1999 - Page 11____________________

that it be declared salvage and sell for scrap iron. Moved by Klave and Lucke to declare the equipment as salvage and sell for scrap iron. Motion carried.

10. Budget amendments.
Mr. Feland reviewed request for budget amendment for $1,500 for engineering department for purchase of Wastewater Lumina for cable locator. Moved by Lucke and Klave to approve the budget amendment. Motion carried.

11. Matter of 3-way agreement for various projects:
a) Railroad Crossing on 32nd Ave. S. west of Longview Addition
Terry Smith, general mgr. at R & R Contracting, presented map showing area where they want to put crossing across 32nd Avenue west from Simplot to Johnson building, and enclosed was a letter from John Thompson, traffic eng., stating several conditions that need to be followed for the industry that’s going in there - that this is a spur coming off Simplot and extended across 32nd; that they’ve talked to BN and Mr. Thompson has talked to the State, County and City and signals don’t have to be moved due to light volume (3 to 10 rail cars per week during daylight hours). Bert Johnson stated no problems with conditions stated in traffic engineer’s letter.

Moved by Klave and Lucke to enter into a three-way agreement for the 32nd Avenue South RR crossing project contingent upon conditions presented in the traffic engineer’s letter.

Mr. Grasser reported that Mr. Thompson has done some of the legwork and investigation that came with this request, coordinating it with the NDDOT and County, and his suggestion on the motion as Mr. Thompson is leaving City’s employ and due to lack of staff, that industry or developer put the agreement together but City can be signature to the agreement (this is different than normal three-way agreement) and that their attorney write up the agreement with the conditions presented, as the City will only as a signature to accept the County’s responsibility and upon annexation the industry shall prepare and present agreement to the appropriate County and City.

Motion carried.

b) Proj. 5038, 5039, & 5040 utilities in Country View 2nd Addition
Mr. Grasser stated this is basic request from the developer who will pay for the installation, and looking for authorization. Moved by Klave and Lucke to enter into a three-way agreement with the developer and contractor for installation of utilities. Motion carried.

12. Matter of amendments to engineering services agreements for various projects:
a) Amendment No. 19A (Staking Services), for Proj. 4886, Paving S. Columbia Rd. from 47th to 62nd Ave.
Lon Aune, GFEG, reviewed amendment to the engineering agreement, that there’s a small portion that needs to be rehabbed and paved near 36th Avenue and remainder of the project
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
June 14, 1999 - Page 12____________________

would go from 47th Ave. to 62nd, that they have approved plans and specs. and will be receiving
bids on this project on the 24th, this allows for additional engineering design services for that portion of the project. Moved by Lucke and Klave to approve amendment to the engineering services agreement with Greater Forks Engineering Group in the amount of $6,000, CDBG funding. Motion carried.

b) Amendment No. 23 (Construction Administration), GFEG, for various South End Development Projects (CDBG)
1) Proj. 4849, Pump Station #40
2) Proj. 4853, Sanitary Forcemain from Pump Station #40
3) Proj. 4923, Watermain on 47th Ave. S. from Washington St. to Belmont Rd.
4) Proj. 4904, Sanitary Sewer on 47th Ave. S. from Cherry to 11th St.
5) Proj. 4957, Sanitary Sewer on S. 42nd St. from 17th to 29th Ave.
6) Proj. 4926, Sanitary Sewer on 55th Ave. S. from Washington St. to Pump Station #39 and on 36th Ave. S. and S. 26th St.
7) Proj. 4927, Sanitary Sewer on 55th Ave. S. from Columbia Rd. to Pump Station #40
Mr. Aune reported this is to cover construction services for the projects listed except Proj. 4886 which is for staking services only and others are full construction administration services, and all of these carry authorization by the City so would have to be working with staff and are covering all of it under one amendment with the intention that they may be working on all of those. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve amendment to the engineering services agreement with Greater Forks Engineering Group in the amount of $8,800.00. Motion carried.

c) Amendment No. 24 (Design), GFEG, Proj. 4880, Watermain on S. 20th St. from 47th to 51st Ave. S. (CDBG)