Council Minutes

MINUTES/COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Monday, March 24, 2003 - 7:00 p.m.________

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, March 24, 2003 in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 6; absent: none.

Mayor Brown announced that when addressing the committee to please come forward to use the microphone and give your name and address for the record, and advised that the meeting is being televised live and taped for later broadcast.

COUNCIL MEMBER GLASSHEIM PRESENT

Mayor Brown commented on various events during the past week and upcoming events.
1) He stated that this week UND Writers Conference, welcome to all the writers, that for 34 years the Writers Conference has been nationally renowned and held in Grand Forks, honored to be host city for this annual gathering of world-class writers, that it starter with the vision of John Little, and the conference has continued to grow and turned into a signature event for our community and the University.
2) The Home Show, congratulations to the organizers of Home Show life-style expo this weekend, attendance was in the thousands and exhibits seem to be getting better and better, and good job to the staff from fire, urban development, inspections, planning, greenway, engineering and public information offices.
3) Artwise - would like to encourage everyone to stop by the Artwise Artfest at the Alerus this week.
4) Thank you to CVB for printing up official Grand Forks city postcards, great our destination city has these postcards that our guests and our residents can spread the word about some of the attractions and community opportunities we have here.
5) He stated how proud he is of all our troops who are in Iraq and surrounding areas, that we will continue to support them and hope for their safe and speedy return, that the war is real and dangers are real, and to support them is to support their families, and please make the effort to do something for someone who may need a little help in this tough time.

SUSPEND AGENDA

Mayor Brown stated he had a request to suspend the agenda by some citizens who would like item 3.16 moved forward. It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Kerian to suspend the agenda to consider Item 3.16 - bids for Project No. 4948.3, Residuals Force Main, Phase 3 before other items on the agenda. Carried 6 votes affirmative; Council Member Hamerlik voted against the motion.

3.16 Matter of bids for Project 4948.3, Residuals Force Main, Phase 3.
Mark Walker, asst. city engineer, reported that two bids received that were unopened, bids of Robert Gibbs & Sons and of United Crane - as there was some question as to the proper acknowledgement of addendum. The bid from Robert Gibbs did not contain information on the envelope acknowledging addendums and bid of United Crane indicated on the face of the envelope that it received 2 through 2, usually indicate 1 through 2. He stated in the past where there was no acknowledgement of addendum, return those bids unopened and does not recall instance where they've had acknowledgement state 2 through 2 or similar to that.

Council Member Brooks stated that the recommendation to council is to return the bid from Robert Gibbs & Sons and open the bid from United Crane because terminology used would be minor irregularity, and asked if they define what a "minor irregularity" is.

Howard Swanson, city attorney, stated bid specifications do not define minor irregularity, that under the bid documents as well as ND law is left to the discretion of the city council; the intent of requesting that the bidders acknowledge addendums on the outside of the envelope is to ensure that whatever bid is submitted contemplates any pre-bid changes, whether that be in the procedure, in the specifications or in quantities in some cases. The law in this case would leave it to the discretion of the council as to whether or not you find that it is an irregularity. Your options are to reject both, to accept one and reject the other, or to accept them both; whatever position this council would take would occur at your next meeting and would need a motion specifically on the question as to whether or not you would open those bids and then if you were or were not your subsequent motion would be to take whatever action is appropriate on the bids.

Council Member Kerian stated she would remind us all that there are two kinds of fairness here, and one of them is to the citizens of the city as well as to the bidders and need to balance both views here, disagrees that they are equivalent, clear that on the bid that we have no assurance that they did consider the addenda, and if two addenda and they say 2 through 2, that's perhaps the only 1 they would consider here.

Council Member Christensen asked if there was a process where you can ask if this bid includes the addenda and if no, the City will give them the opportunity to withdraw their bid. Mr. Walker stated he doesn't recall that they've ever had that discussion after the bids were opened, typically they never open the bids if the addendums aren't acknowledged on the face of the bid envelope. Mr. Swanson stated there are different occasions, post-bid conferences with apparent or successful bidder, under advise from his office they are rather cautious on what types of discussions occur at those because you cannot entertain post-bid negotiations, the concern with an addendum is that the bid document itself will not reflect necessarily whether that bidder has or has not acknowledged or contemplated and incorporated whatever changes occur.

Council Member Christensen asked if the City accepted the bid, would bidder be at risk that he had bid the project with the addenda but had not indicated that the addenda had been attached and his problem because accepting lowest bid. Mr. Swanson stated it was difficult to determine if it's their problem or our problem because it always seems to come back to us in one form or another, but the bidder would be at risk, either for their bid bond or for performance provided that the City didn't ultimately change the terms of the contract - one of the concerns you would have is if a bidder didn't acknowledge that they had failed to acknowledge an addendum up front and was agreeable to enter into the contract under the terms of the bid they submitted, and may have a contractor down the road opportunistically looking for opportunities to ask for change orders to bring up issues of change orders, and again that's a matter of how firm the engineering review is and this council's fortitude on change orders. The bid should say they acknowledged addenda's 1 through and there's no question, but here you have a question.

Council Member Hamerlik stated there are three concerns - 1): taxpayers, 2) the two bidders of bids not opened; and 3) other bidders who did it right, and recommendation seems to be most appropriate.

Council Member Kreun stated the issue is if one of them is a minor irregularity and the other is not, He stated that the AGC has intervened many times in how a bid process takes place and under their guidelines, they would probably indicate that no having any indication of the addendum would be more than a minor irregularity and more than likely the word 2 of 2 or 2 through 2 would be considered a minor irregularity and would suggest that we take and authorize the opening of United Crane's bid for that reason.

Al Grasser, city engineer, stated he wanted to point out that we want to be very cautious about our bidding procedure and looking at short term costs vs. long term costs, one of his concerns is if we relax our bidding standards and start allowing incomplete bids to come in, open them and accept them and then start trying to sort after bids opened and after they go to council, thinks opens up the potential for 1) lot of staff time and 2) for potential perceptions of after-bid negotiations or improprieties and strongly suggest that we maintain our standards to the highest degree we can, and to open a bid only have to have four basic items: 1) contractor's bid bond, 2) contractor's license in the bid bond envelope, 3) on outside of the envelope state project and addendums; that it's a fairly simple process and not unreasonable for us to assume that we maintain those standards, and thinks 2 through 2 obviously makes a difference in making it a minor irregularity.

Mr. Walker stated he had one additional item - that if there was any desire whatsoever to consider the bid of Robert Gibbs & Sons, would like to get the opinion of the State of North Dakota as they are partially funding this project, assuming they would have some reservations about doing that, that he will acquire that information and disseminate it.

Council Member Kreun stated they could place this item early on the agenda for discussion as to whether they want to authorize opening bid(s) and if did so give staff time to look at the bids and award it later on the agenda as don't want to delay this; is a suggestion. Council Member Hamerlik explained his no vote because he doesn't think we should change the agenda unless there is an extreme emergency - suggested getting items in the right order on the agenda, that sometimes people are waiting for a topic to come up and if late on the agenda they may not be here or other people in the audience are waiting because we made an adjustment.

Russ Melland, attorney on behalf of United Crane, stated that he has the bid pack for this project, that the advertisement for bid requires addressing the addenda issue on the envelope, requires envelope plainly marked to indicate the contents and acknowledge receipt of all addenda, that it does identify addenda 2 through 2 and if had an opportunity to do it over would write 1 through 2. He stated that the bid pack does address this in Article 16.01, where it says that bids will be opened at the time and place indicated in the advertisement for bids and unless obviously non-responsive and that is the most clear issue that he saw in the bid pack relative to the issue of whether or not or what kind of acknowledgement was required by the bid proposal, that this is responsive as an acknowledgement of a receipt of 2 addenda. He stated they were there for the fairness of the citizens and United Crane and think the citizens would probably benefit by the opening of their bid, the bid form is addressed in a little more detail and the bid form itself which is in the envelope which doesn't get opened if it is not responsive but the bid form has a separate space to indicate the acknowledgement of the receipt of the bid forms, appreciates their consideration and hope you will make a decision to acknowledge receipt of this bid on behalf of United Crane as compliant with the bidding instructions, the advertisement or if deem it to be an irregularity that you waive it as minor irregularity.

There was some discussion on how bidders are notified of addenda. Mr. Walker stated that anybody who requests plans and specs. for the project is put on a list, whenever there is an addendum put out, everybody that is on that plan holders list is given a copy of the addendum through mail or fax dependent upon timing (mail addendums not sent out by certified mail); and have not had a problem in the past . A rep. of the consultant stated the addenda were issued early enough and were mailed, not sure about addendum 2. It was noted notices by mail, not followed up; but on short notice of addendum potential bidders are faxed or called with follow-up. Council Member Christensen stated they should review our process.

Dennis Wagner, Wagner Construction, apparent low bid on this project, stated that he has never had a problem getting addendums; and that on the third page of that addendum, it says ".. the bid submission check list is attached for the bidder's use to assist in insuring all portions of required documents for bid submittals are included". He stated instructions are clear and can be followed and should have been followed and for the credibility of the bidding system and the fairness to United Crane, Robinson Excavating, Wagner Construction, Molstad Excavating, you have to award this to Wagner,

3.1 Resolution supplementing and clarifying Resolution No. 8239, re. community aquatics center. _________________________________________________
Council Member Hamerlik stated the resolution gives them two years for the construction of the Aquatics Center and after that say the land isn't yours, this says commencing to the process of building, it is correct now. Council Member Christensen stated at last meeting had a resolution that was drafted during the day and e-mailing to council persons and giving their comments; and at meeting were penciling in some notes as persons were talking and Council Member Kreun read it into the record but were redundant in the line that is being deleted, and reads better "..within two years from date of this resolution.." so have start and finish date and this is a matter of clarification.

Council Member Kerian asked does this include or does the committee come back and is part of scope and planning some estimate of cost and some proposals of how it would be paid for, is that assumed to be part of this resolution. Mayor Brown stated the task force will come back with recommendations and options.

Council Member Christensen stated he and Council Member Kreun, having been appointed, and are in agreement on that issue that they will be looking at how this is going to be financed, as they know there are three vehicles - private, public sales tax and public property tax and will explore all three.

Council Member Brooks stated in terms of bonding issues, which have to go to a vote of the people. The city auditor stated the only G.O. bonds that would have to go to a vote of the people would be a general obligation bond that would exceed our state tax limit and we're not at that point yet. Mayor Brown stated that this resolution siting the designated site offering $2 million from the City and forming a task force.

Mayor Brown stated that the only debate tonight would be about the changes that have been made to the proposed document.

Ross Weiler, 701 North 3rd Street, stated we are already out of schedule because of some irregularities in the agenda, that he came here several weeks ago to speak to the water park issue and several other issues and was told to keep his issues to the water park, which he did, and was hoping at the beginning of the regular meeting to be invited up to speak to the other issues again, came last week and was not here in time to get an agenda card filled out before the start of the meeting so missed another week, tonight he got here in time to fill out an agenda card and his intent was to speak as a citizen request and address the water park issue, not this issue, and if have to put this off on procedure, can live with that, but is here to talk about a lot of issues. Mayor Brown stated he would like it to be relevant tonight - changes made to the resolution.
and next time would get him a citizen request card.

Mr. Weiler stated he doesn't think the aquatics center is a bad idea, not in favor of funding or timing, but very concerned with the location in that it doesn't really well replace the Riverside pool or the north side community.

3.2 Capital Improvements Program policy statements.
Council Member Hamerlik stated he had wording change to make for clarification - on page 18 of the policy statement, Committee Organization, it says " the mayor shall preside at all committee meetings but shall not be a voting member of the committee. and sentence he has trouble with - "The mayor, president of the city council or vice president of the city council shall preside at the committee meetings in his/her absence." and has no problem with that structure because follows city council structure, and asked who presides and at what order and would suggest that we put down the mayor shall preside and in his/her absence, the president of the city council and in his/her absence, the vice president of the city council shall preside, in that order because the way it states now don't know the order in which they take over, and that is what trying to clarify. He stated the second item, it is a concern he has and need to make sure we understand and know what is happening, have deleted in several places the words "city council" and put in the CIP and if delete the city council does the CIP have control over and make the final judgment at any time or at that meeting, procedurally it would go to committee of the whole and then onto council for passing, and if we make some of these changes, the way it is worded, it says the CIP will determine this and does the city council act after that or not and need to know if the CIP is the final authority or does it go to the committee of the whole and then to council.

Council Member Christensen stated the CIP is the council at all points so it would be as Council Member Hamerlik suggested the other day, that they would meet this 5th week this month if wanted to get into the CIP process but for the public the CIP committee is to listen to staff, tell them what capital improvements are needed and why they are needed, amount of money, urgency and prioritize them, they then find their way into the budget in different departments and in the process once they categorize the projects and what year they are going to be done based upon funds, then as they rise in the year they are supposed to be done and find their way into the budget and as part of the budgeting process, approve the budget and approve projects that are in the budget at the time based upon how they fit in the CIP project process.

Council Member Gershman stated on page 13, thinks at the bottom of that page, No. 2, his notes don't show that they deleted that (Grand Forks/East Grand Forks Transportation Plan Update, 1999) that is fairly recent and took out some of the studies that were done in 1970. It was noted they took all of them all out. Mr. Potter stated that they need to add in the specific elements and that's last thing they need to do on that because they haven't completed their review of all the specific element documents of the Transportation Plan, that they were going to put in all the specific elements and then once done with the long range transportation plan update, they will put that in.

Council Member Christensen stated his notes reflect that item 1 was deleted and 2 on page 13 - and that Mr. Potter's comments were right and as the MPO comes to us with final process, will have it included.

Council Member Kerian stated that in the past there were some things that did come to the council in deciding this, that they may have made this less transparent and hasn't looked at it with that in mind and would hope that they could do that - that the budget process too is somewhat arduous, lots of stuff going on at the time and wondering if there are some things here that they would want to return in which they may want the discussion at a city council level, and might be doing this on the 5th Monday and then have it open for discussion, and that there aren't that many 5th Mondays and there are some CIP decisions that they would want to carry forward.

Council Member Hamerlik stated on page 21 on CIP - says "each year" and struck "city council" and added in "CIP" will establish storm sewer rehabilitation fund, and below that on page 20, again in F. it does the same thing, and A. the same thing, and based on these three could buy into it because all they are doing is establishing a fund, but didn't after he got through that and tried to look for any other where they needed some other approval and that was his concern so that they don't get wrapped up in this at a later time which and who does what because the same eight people are at those meetings and get mixed up at which meeting they are really at sometimes.

Council Member Brooks stated the CIP develop ultimately rolls into the budget which comes to them for approval, that they can go through the whole CIP and when they complete their documents, bring it back to themselves to approve it, and why not just let the staff do the CIP and roll it into the budget that comes to them and they don't have to figure out what the correct wording for the council or committee or program or whatever. Council Member Kreun stated it maybe something to consider as they go through if do the planning.

3.3 Budget amendment for Fire Department.
Council Member Brooks stated this is coming out of Contingency Funds and is an increase in revenue or cash carryover. The city auditor reported it was entered on the wrong form and should be a budget transfer and can do administratively.
3.4 Application for moving permit to move single-family house and detached 3.5 Create special assessment district for Street Improvement Project No. 5446, District No. 91, mill and overlay 1800 and 1900 blocks of Cottonwood Street._____________
Council Member Gershman stated he liked the process where they had the meetings for the residents even though few residents showed up, nice presentation and was helpful and they took information back and commends engineering department for doing that.

3.6 Create special assessment district for Sewer Project No. 5444, District No. 415, sanitary sewer to serve 2700 and 2800 blocks of 36th Avenue South__________
Cindy Voigt, asst. city engineer, stated they had this project through the whole process but after having discussions with the developer of the Dairy Queen property, and went through private sewer vs. public sewer and they decided it was in their best interest to install public sewer within the public utility easement and be assessed for that and that way they can spread the sewer cost over the 20-year life and they are requesting the City do that. She stated because this is a special assessment project they can't add the additional work to the project and need to start over from the beginning, and have discussed time schedule with the property owners and tight schedule for them, we will get the sewer in the ground and they will hook up to it and then open the building, and need to have this go forward for them.

3.7 Bids for Paving Project No. 5408, District No. 589, paving South 20th Street (44th to 47th Aves. S.).------------___________________________________________________________
3.8 Bids for Project No. 5431, District No. 139, 2003 street lighting in Southern Estates 1st and 3rd Additions.____________________________________________________
Council Member Christensen stated this has to do with accepting a bid from a bidder that apparently is the low bidder but having a problem with this bidder on another project (item 3.13) and asked if having a problem with the bidder, would they have the ability to reject because of how they performed on a project, isn't that ground even though they may be the lowest to reject the bid and take the next bid. Mr. Swanson stated he has not researched the exact issue on the item that appears on page 77 to see what the relationship would be. Council Member Christensen stated supervision, they didn't perform as supposed to and incurred more engineering fees. Mr. Swanson stated he can review that and give an opinion at a later time, but noted that there were two different types of projects but one of the questions that does have to be asked in the award of any contract is whether or not the contractor or apparent low bidder is a qualified applicant or qualified bidder. Council Member Christensen stated they would have a qualification issue here as had a problem with this bidder one project but yet they maybe the lowest bidder on this project but maybe spend $4500 in additional engineering fees because that person perhaps didn't perform according to the specs. on the other project - doesn't know, that it is an observation but appears to be a qualification issue or performance issue and would like to know why accept this bid in light of the fact that having problems on another project, and would like to know for next Monday. Ms. Voigt stated that the work that has been done by Ron's Electric has been acceptable in the past, the item they are discussing is with the lift station and last item they have on their council is where the lift station upgrade on 19 and 25, their work was delayed but was acceptable - and on quality of work round they have no reason to recommend that you don't award it to Ron's and encourage you to wait for Mr. Swanson's opinion. 3.9 Bids for Watermain Replacement Project No. 5417. 3.10 Bids for 2003 CDBG Watermain Replacement Project No. 5450.
Council Member Hamerlik stated they bid this project even though the engineering estimate was over our budget and is concerned, and explanation states that however, it is $40,000 less than the estimate but budget was exceeded and if this practical thing for us to do - to put out bids when we are over budget. Ms. Voigt stated they bid this with a lot of work to insure that the CDBG dollars that were awarded for 2003 could be spent. Bids sometimes come in higher, sometimes lower, and were delous on having enough work so that they could take advantage of the CDBG dollars as could only spend those in that LMI area and wanted to make sure they had enough work to spend every dollar, they knew they had watermain replacement dollars but didn't know how those bids were going to come in but did in both projects they had a paragraph in the bid that if the project came in over budget it was at our discretion to delete portions of the work to bring it within budget and never our intention to go in and bid something that we knew we didn't have a way to pay for it. The watermain replacement project came in lower than what they had thought and the CDBG project could have come in lower just as easily as the watermain replacement project. There are also contingency funds in the watermain utility fund that could have picked up some of the overage on the CDBG project, there's small pockets of money that they could have scrambled if they came in slightly over - this came in quite a bit over but can cover it with the watermain replacement project funds and still under the total budget for the two combined and still getting all the work done that wanted to in 2003. Council Member Hamerlik stated he was not fully acceptive of that, just because want to spend all the money, there seems to be a concern of his on that, and need to take a good look as council if the engineering estimate is over let a bid go forward, however, that can be reduced pretty quickly by the engineer or architect.

3.11 Study and Report Engineering Services Agreement for Project No. 5465, University Avenue storm sewer study.________________________________________________
Council Member Gershman stated that $44,776.00 to study the storm sewer capacity seems to be high and knows that it lacks some capacity but what is the scope of work and what are they going to do for the $44,000. Ms. Voigt stated $44,000 is a reasonable amount for a study this size, Lift Station No. 89 storm sewer study that they did was 2-sq. miles and could easily have spent double that amount but got the bare minimum kind of study - engineering study with not a lot of alternatives and recommendations - this study is almost as big an area and expect to get a report that has different alternates, more cost variations on alternates (Lift Sta. 89 studied the obvious and did one cost estimate and was Cadillac approach). This should have enough in it to model all the structures, the pipes, computer modeling, generator reports, present their findings at city council, possibly hold a meeting - and goes quicker than you think when you put the staff on it full time) and is a reasonable amount for this type of study.

Council Member Brooks stated several items included fee schedule for consulting engineers, and noticed that they have different mileage rates, can't they get them at the same rate from one engineering firm to another - 45 cents/mile is rather high and where have consistency in our contracts with our engineering firms, minor, but when see different rates for vehicles - federal is 36.5 cents and just dropped theirs to 36 cents/mile.

3.12 Location listing for Project No. 5409, 2003 Sidewalk Repairs.
Council Member Hamerlik asked if letters had been sent out (have not) and that explanation they received their packets or if a lot of the same information explaining to property owners, and the explanation about the process, etc. is very good, the public should understand what that process is about and as long as it is in there, feels comfortable because it is good process and have opportunities to do it themselves, repair mainly because of a hazard. Ms. Voigt stated that the letter they send out gives them their detailed cost breakdown individually and gives three weeks to respond and if they don't respond, the City crews will do it.

3.13 Amendment No. 2 to engineering service agreement with Webster, Foster & Weston for Project No. 5229, Upgrade Lift Stations 19 and 25.__________________________
Council Member Gershman asked for explanation - that this was not a problem that was created by the City and why should the City pay anything. Ms. Voigt stated that the hours they are trying to get liquidated damages from Ron's Electric - had full amount from Hobbs the $3,139.77 to deduct from the final payment estimate, and the City is holding that in the utility fund and Hobbs has signed off on that. She stated they are trying to come to some agreement with Ron's Electric on these additional engineering services, the remaining $3,200.00 would be to 1) final out Ron's contract and also any final punch list items, calls under warranty (2-year warranty period) and might need WFW to go out with staff from Wastewater Department and trouble shoot something and assist them with that, and some of those hours are built in there so that they don't have to come back again and get the exact dollar amount they've spent to date, and anticipate there may be some, and if their contract hadn't gone over the completion date, WFW's contract would not have been exceeded and they wouldn't be here. Council Member Gershman asked if the project had been completed on time and no delays, would they still have the $3200 cost. Ms. Voigt stated no. Tom Hanson, WFW, stated they were proposing they were going to collect $7,170 from the contractors and contractors not completing on time and understanding was that if they run over completion date, collect the additional expenses to the City from the contractor and that is what they are in the process of. Council Member Gershman asked why is the City paying the $3200; Mr. Hanson stated that they (WFW) can't get it from the contractor as don't have a contract with them and the City withholds from the contractors who are late and turns around and pays them for the effort it took to keep track of them after completion date.

Mr. Swanson stated that contractually our contract is with WFW but whatever services they provide, we are responsible to pay them, and in this case they are proposing to amend the contract by $3200 and the City has the construction contract with Hobbs and Ron's Electric, we have imposed liquidated damage clause under our contract with those two contractors and are proposing to collect from them just under $7,200 and of the $7,200 which is a liquidated damage clause, and what you have not included is the cost the City has incurred in enforcing the liquidated damages, the engineer cannot impose their additional costs directly against the contractors, it has to go through the City's contracted contractors, ultimately this sum would be covered by the receipt of the liquidated damages from Hobbs and Ron's Electric.

Council Member Brooks stated he was having trouble approving an amendment to this contract as Ron's Electric is sitting on what we have billed this wondering if they should do what Hobbs did, and not inclined to approve this amendment in essence saying we've already amended it to increase the amount, and if we have by doing this amendments said we would increase it by that amount, doesn't want to do that until this has been resolved with Ron's and premature in approving this but after Hobbs reduced their final bill by that amount which is a little under $3200, we don't need an amendment for $3200. He asked if this is Amendment No. 2 and wondering amount of Amendment No. 1. Mr. Hanson stated that Amendment No. 1 is for the construction phase engineering services at a designed bid.

Mrs. Voigt stated our contract with WFW and are penalizing them because Ron's is in a separate disagreement with us, and he has had these bills for 4 or 5 months and not fair to the consultant engineer to hold it off on a separate issue.

Mr. Grasser stated they hired an engineering firm, WFW, and first contract is for the design specifications, Amendment No. 1 generally follows would be to do the construction inspection, and we hire them on an hourly rate not to exceed and that we had a not to exceed contract of $117,000, the cost now to complete the project is $120,000, by good management by WFW had the contractor not over-run our cost of the City would have been anticipated $113,000 and we are looking for liquidated damages is difference from the $113,000 to the $120,000 and because they had a not to exceed of $117,000, we only need about $3,000 more to get us to that higher limit. Council Member Brooks stated the fact that Hobbs reduced their bill by that amount doesn't that make the $3200 -- Mr. Grasser stated that will take care of the $3200 but there is also the questions of the $4,000 that we would have under-run the engineering and basically that's the $4,000 that you're looking at getting from Ron's Electric. He stated that the liquidated damages is for $7,000 and it puts us back to where we would have been - because we are dealing with the not to exceed only have to include the not to exceed by $3,000 to get us to the total and that means there is still $7,000 of expenses incurred by the City.

Council Member Hamerlik stated this whole situation is about Ron's Electric, and asked is there a chance this will be settled before next Monday before we have a vote on another item. Mr. Hanson stated he delivered the response to their request for information to their attorney this morning. Council Member Hamerlik stated if it does come through before next Monday would like to have that info.

Council Member Kerian stated we do not want the engineer to eat this and appreciates the engineering staff going ahead after this as requested and have confidence they will do that, and need to take care of the engineering consultants and then be sure the coffers are replenished.

Council Member Christensen stated that if they add the two items on our sheet, $3139.77 and $4,030.47, that is $7,170.24 and had we had no problems would have had an engineering bill of $113,346.76 and thanked the staff for doing this because this is the path they set staff on 6 weeks ago and glad enforcing liquidated damages clause and hopes the message gets back to Ron's Electric and questions asked on the other bid and performance issue. 3.14 Amendment No. 25 to Greater Forks Engineering Group for in-kind services, Project No. 4820. ____________________________________________________
3.15 Viking Gas Transmission Company, relocation for Phase III, Permanent Flood Protection Project.___________________________________________________ 3.17 Consideration of bids for Project No. 4948.6, GFWTR Site Improvements Part B, underground construction._______________________________________________
3.18 Trailblazing and Wayfinding Report.
Council Member Kerian stated this is the right direction to go but has a comment on the graphic - and what does it mean. Earl Haugen stated this is the logo that the Downtown Leadership Group has and that's why it was chosen - simplified version. Council Member Gershman stated you're driving in your car and not a lot of time to look at anything - logo should be something very simple - easy to read - and engender a thought, and express some of our concerns on it. Mr. Haugen stated that traffic engineers are concerned of that and they have reviewed this logo and have approved it - could be better perhaps and he will go by traffic engineer that made the decisions of appropriate logo for use in the roadside. Council Member Christensen stated if it isn't too late and 2 out of 7 think it's a little busy, what do they do to get the logo redesigned. Mr. Haugen stated send this back to the committee that created this for you and ask them between now and the 7th of April to come up with another logo design. Mayor Brown stated that this is committee of the whole so can't make policy but can make recommendation and that is what they would like to see. Mr. Haugen stated if they have suggestions of logos you would like us to consider, please forward them. Mayor Brown stated that would be their recommendation.

4.1 Financial Management February Cash Report. ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR COMMENTS

There were no comments by Mr. Duquette.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Brooks stated he read e-mails about CIP meeting and only time there isn't something scheduled might be on Monday night and would actually be able to do the CIP issue in front of the public. Mayor Brown stated that normally the CIP typically meets in the committee room downstairs, and our contract is to televise city council meetings, Mr. Swanson will have to check to see if the contract could include televising CIP meetings and can look at that further.

2) Council Member Hamerlik stated they could call Committee of the Whole and ask for the CIP to meet.

3) Council Member Kerian stated for people who are not directly involved with a street in front of their property that is through the para processing and may not be aware of some of what the City goes through, reminded of that again because there is a street south of 17th Avenue that the city engineers had looked at, that street roller-coaster and problems and they held a hearing and that was the right thing to do and people then decided that they really didn't want to support that and cover the assessments for that and that was within their right, but that other people in the city or who are not in the city who drive down that street say the City doesn't take care of their streets, so that's the good news that people can decide whether or not they want the street maintained in front of their property, the bad news is the people can decide they want the street maintained - it's an awareness thing that when you want to call somebody up and say that streets awful, do something about it and just drive down it and don't live there, there's other people who have some say in that - just a comment.

4) Council Member Christensen stated it was his understanding that the last meeting they had a proposed ordinance for the Park District re. the 8% park ordinance that is now being referred back to Planning and Zoning for review of the ordinance, who drafts the ordinance and how get some input into that before it gets here. Mr. Potter stated the ordinance was drafted by the city attorney and it will go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission, they are meeting on April 2 and Commission as a whole will look at that document and if they deem there's changes needed to be made, they would make those changes, and will come back to the city council for public hearing on April 21. Mr. Christensen stated there would be plenty of time for comment and Mr. Swanson's opinion will be disseminated.

5) Council Member Christensen stated that when they were reviewing the item tonight on page 107, bid for our residual forcemain, it occurs that maybe the time has come for a review of our water projects for the council, because have the wastewater treatment plant that is just about done and is supposed to be coming on line and have a proposed solution to the second half of the wastewater treatment plant which maybe $3 or $4 million and have other projects, one is the new water treatment facility and have a bid process going on here for $9.5 million for transmitting what comes from downtown out to the clearwell that will be working on - and would appreciate it if we could have a council update as to the 3 or 4 projects, what the projects are, the status of the projects, where at in the bidding process and when we can expect these things to come on line as far as bidding and what we're going to be doing as far as fees to pay for the proposed cost. He stated he would like to have that within four weeks so they have an idea about that when they start talking about fees, fee increases and other things that are coming to the forefront and giving Todd Feland and Rick Duquette a heads up that he would like that information. Mayor Brown stated that he would agree that we get that information to help them make policy.