Print VersionStay Informed
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
Monday, January 26, 1998 - 7:00 p.m.

Members present: Hagness, Klave, Hafner, Lucke.

1. Matter of encroachment agreement for Grand Forks Herald
building.
Al Grasser, asst. city engineer, reported that this matter had been approved by the Flood Response Committee and then on to council and that the city attorney had drafted encroachment agree-ment. Moved by Hafner and Klave to receive and file. Motion carried.

2. Matter of petition from Bible Baptist Church for annexation
and for connecting to city water.
Mr. Grasser reported this had been referred to Public Service from the Planning & Zoning Commission, this item concerned two items: annexation (that they like to have annexations run con-sistently from existing city limits out) and one of the areas served by rural water and some issues there re. buyouts. He reported that there is some past history on rural water, that there are some federal laws that prevent someone from taking over accounts already served by rural water account, and have to work out on individual issues but perhaps need to work on mechanism to work out buyout or how process worked out in the future because will be running into regularly. He reported that staff's recom-mendation is to do annexation (Parcels A, C, D and perhaps B) and would refer that back to the Planning Department, and recommenda-tion is to annex at least Bible Baptist Church which is Parcel A, and perhaps pick up C and D. He reported that Parcel E adverse to annexation at this time and rather than force issue. He stated that committee could make recommendation to annexation, but he is in favor of annexing the Church property and issues involved in providing water and fire protection, that both fire hydrant and physical fire protection from the department.

Klave questioned whether if property annexed would they have to install 62nd Street, only have private access road to the property, and when property purchased there was discussion as to who was to do maintenance. Ken Vein, city engineer, reported that they wouldn't install unless requested, City wouldn't maintain street unless up to acceptable standard, even if platted and within city limits doesn't mean that City maintains. (It was noted that Planning & Zoning not interested in pursuing and concerned about potential objection to annexation of all property, but based on water was to see if agreement for future annexation and provide water on cost basis.)

Pastor Custer stated that they had requested as a church to be considered for connection to the water system and for fire pro-tection, and had requested only for their property. He reported that there is a major entrance which turns onto frontage road which had been maintained by RDO. Klave stated he was referring to N. 62nd Street, not frontage road, to other properties.

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
January 26, 1998 - Page 2

There was some discussion re. rural water, Mr. Swanson reported City obligated to reach agreement with rural water. Hagness noted that New Vision Fiberglass and the Church are two requesting annexation, and would also like to annex Parcel E if annex other properties as they bid equipment with the City. Mr. Vein reported that our ordinances require that in order to be delivered sewer and water services have to be annexed into city, and that annexation needs to be tied to this because of future potential problems with tapping charges because not doing enough annexation and cost exor-bitantly high because City has to fund for these areas outside the city limits. It was noted that the existing city limits just west side of 55th Street, and that there would be gap from Chrysler Center to New Vision. Mr. Vein stated that if the City were to do an annexation would like to have annexation somewhat past that for 120 ft. so that if any utilities or street system or other infra-structure constructed would have a method of assessing that property. It was noted that the Church property doesn't have service but New Vision does have service as does RDO; Rural water would have to allow City to provide that service. Mr. Vein stated that if City were to enter into agreement for annexation at a later date only be able to enter into agreement with the Church at this time, but if look at annexation of a larger area would have to do that now or until individually asked, have an opportunity to annex this area and bring into the city that will not have at a later date if only enter into agreement with these property owners, would like to do annexation all the way to 55th but too large an area and would have protests. Paster Custer stated that New Vision would be interested in agreement for future annexation, other property owners not interested, and Church doesn't want to force anyone else in. Paster Custer reported that if they were denied access to city water, they would be forced to make a contract with Traill Water. Mr. Vein stated he has some concerns with the map, that the area of annexation only includes U.S. Hwy. 2 R/W, and areas of question are within the property lines and to include up through the R/W and hasn't been done in the past, and if look at areas of R/W plus property requesting annexation would believe be able to annex whole thing and still have more than 50% in favor, and would recommend that they annex entire area and would add 120 ft. wide strip adjacent to it so have ability to put in infrastructure, should it be requested, without a tapping charge. It was noted to Paster Custer that in the best interests of the city it does not work out to take individual lots and would take wider strip to help pay for utilities than what's requested.

Mr. Swanson reported they need to be aware that under our land use code have point system to be used in analysis whether property should or shouldn't be annexed, and that point system has never been filed and analyzed for this property and Mr. LeClerc's response was that it was unlikely this property would reach minimum point requirement; and his concern was that if there was sufficient protest and go to Annexation Review Commission, and can't assure

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
January 26, 1998 - Page 3

success in annexation. Mr. Vein suggested they go back and do calculations and make determination whether 50% or not and bring back in two weeks.

Mr. Vein asked if committee would be interested in allowing them to hook up to city water and fire chief has given letter that they could provide fire protection. Mr. Grasser reported there are two connections envisioned, one for water service and other for fire connection and on site plan, require that hydrant to go in, and would be responsibility of the developer.

Hagness stated his recommendation would be to do is to negotiate with Traill 5-year agreement and not protest annexation and that they negotiate with fire department for fire protection, with all expenses to be paid by Bible Baptist Church. It was noted that even if Bible Baptist Church not connected for water service, City would still have to negotiate with Traill Water because of service area. Mr. Grasser reported that in addition to their recommenda-tion they also suggested that staff obtain professional firm prior to address aspect of buyouts with rural water systems because this has been concern so not working one at a time so know in advance what agreements are and how proceed. He noted that as soon as get put together looking at how deliver utilities to South Middle School and one area is to run down S. Washington to 47th Ave.s. and several lots being served by rural water and will be handling these issues and more efficient to address at same time. Mr. Swanson also noted that Traill Water doesn't have volume to provide fire protection but potable water for non-commercial uses.

A rep. of Simplot was present. Hagness suggested Pastor Custer to contact Randy Loesle re. this matter to contact his own position.

Mr. Grasser reported they have an 18" watermain that will deliver unlimited water for their needs, and seeing a site development and water needs will be taken care of, will show where connection made, and may require fire hydrant at their own expense, main is there but lacks fire hydrants - so two connections, one for potable water and a line for fire protection (6" line with hydrant).

Klave moved to proceed to negotiate with Traill Water through the city attorney's office, or with understanding to use outside firm if city attorney's office unable to handle with present work situation; and to authorize entering into agreement with Bible Baptist Church to allow connection to the existing 18-inch watermain and being provided with outside fire protection subject to the consent of future annexation. Motion carried.

3. Matter of utility and temporary construction easements.
a) Utility easement for sanitary sewer located west of the intersection of S. 40th Street and 14th Avenue South, $1.00, Johnson Farms. Moved by Hafner and Klave to approve and authorize

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
January 26, 1998 - Page 4

proper City officials to execute the utility easement document. Motion carried.

b) Temporary construction easement for furnace/boiler room addition and concrete foundation wall footings easement for civic auditorium flood mitigation project, located between the civic auditorium and the First Bank building (formerly Metropolitan Federal Bank), $1.00, U.S. Bancorp. Moved by Hafner and Klave to approve and authorize the proper City officials to execute the easement documents. Motion carried.

4. Matter of high service pump repair/replacement.
Charlie Vein, Advanced Engineering, reported that in putting together DSR's and looking to repair number of pumps in the water plant involving 6 high service pumps and 1 transfer pump, and as looked at could replace pumps for not much more than servicing pumps, and presented cost information from Lunseth Plumbing who is mechanical contractor on the project, looked at cost to repair, cost to repair with same manufacturer, replace with same manu-facturer with different type of motor and replace with different manufacturer; and that for $20,564 can replace 7 pumps with new pumps (many pumps up to 40 years old) and his recommendation to approve the replacement of these pumps in the amount of $20,564.00. He reported they worked with FEMA and had to get letters from original equipment manufacturers for pumps and motors and they would pay for repair costs only and that's what was written in DSR. He reported they are looking at replacement with advantage that motors putting in are special motors with variable speed drives for electrical service and is a better situation; City would pay difference in price. Hazel Fetters-Sletten reported they would take monies from budget amendment out of cash carryover, and reported that Option 3, new pumps and motors, best option. Moved by Hafner and Lucke to authorize purchase for replacement of the seven pumps in the amount of $20,564.00. Motion carried.

5. Matter of completion of SWTR Phase I project.
Charlie Vein reported this project been on-going for about two years, basically completed except for programming part of the project prior to the flood, and lot of equipment damaged by flood-waters. He reported this is additional information and that there are two parts to the program: 1) involves some work that the water treatment plant staff was going to be doing, staff was going to partner with the programmer to do a portion of the programming of the project and what has happened is that the staff doesn't have time to do this any more (concentrating on repair work), and went back to the supplier, and they have given an estimate of $18,900 to complete that part of City's work. Funding will be taken from project contingencies ($50,000 in Contingencies) and 2) next part is as put project together at the plant with the asst. and supervisor control and data acquisition system that the plant will be utilizing, which is a computerized control system, and have some MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
January 26, 1998 - Page 5

work they would like to do at the filters to tie into system putting in, and does allow them to program the filters and allow better treatment of the water, it's an optimization of the filters which is becoming more of a key in operating the plant. He reported cost would be $13,470.00 which will be cost of approx. $2,000 filter and equipment not available when first did this. He reported that even if water treatment plant were going to move it would be 7-8 years away and these standards come into play lot sooner than that and allow plant to operate better than that.

Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve proposals for Instrument Control Systems, Inc. to provide software engineering programming services in the amount of $18,900 and $13,470.00 with funding to be taken from project contingencies. Motion carried.

6. Matter of proposal to modify WRS heating system controls.
This item pulled from the agenda (project eliminated).

7. Plans and specs. for various projects:
a) Proj. 4654.350/351, rehab brick sewers.
Tom Hanson, WFW, reported this is to clean brick sewers, one on 7th Ave.N. and N. 14th Street, to 8th Ave.N. and on 8th to St. Anne's, need to clean and get in and inspect, and debris holding oganics, est. cost $100,000 to clean; other sewer on Washington and 7th Ave.S. over to DeMers and underpass, and then to river on DeMers, and gunite removal during hydraulic pressure during flood, has been reviewed by FEMA and they have approved cleaning of both sewers. Project is to clean to determine extent of repairs and they have agreed to participate in that purpose, both are storm sewers, and appear to be sound. Moved by Hafner and Klave to approve plans and specifications and authorize call for bids. Motion carried.

b) Proj. 4671, Rehab. Lift Station #21
Mr. Hanson reported this station located at 24th Ave.S. and S. 20th Street (north of Bringewatt Park) and is an upgrade of Lift 21. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve plans and specs. and authorize call for bids. Motion carried.

8. Budget amendment (Wastewater Dept.)
Gary Goetz, wastewater div. supervisor, reviewed amendments which are for projects not completed last year, for Pump Station 38, which is in progress, for Pump Station 33 which will be behind Wal-mart to service new school and upgrade of wastewater treatment plant in the amount of $9,929,928. and amendment for upgrade of Pump Station 21 in the amount of $230,000. Moved by Klave and Hafner to approve the budget amendments. Motion carried.

9. Matter of negotiating wastewater treatment equipment package
with BioDigestor Technologies, Inc. (BDT).
Jim West, KBM, Inc., reported they have been working on plant

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
January 26, 1998 - Page 6

for year and half and worked with several suppliers and year ago suggested strongly to look at option of working with BDT, had gone through their system and looked at plant cost of approx. $13.1 million, their next competition was $16.1 million, and one of facts was when did soil borings out there, have to put deep foundations under everything (at least under any big water structures) and that weren't aware of; that at that time under BDT project it was est. $1 million for extra foundation costs and are still working on that under the $13.1 million budget they gave to the City in the facility plan, but when ended up negotiating with other supplier there was another $3 million on that, that under BDT concept were at $13.1 million and as negotiating, it is technology that has computer in it with sophisticated control work there is and suggested that no competition for them and was still within budget and asked for contract on this, and are in the contract language of approx. $5-6 million with them that they would like to work on, and end up with total price of in neighborhood of $14 to $14.5 million, and foundations became real problem for them. He reported they had their attorney look at whether bid this (Al Warcup who has had some conversations with Mr. Swanson, and read letter about City's con-cerns about not bidding the whole process equipment package pro-posed by BDT, about $5 million in equipment which involves computer processing and their logics for controls for the system, which would be installed; but rather they will provide contract through negotiation and have had their attorney look into this matter and he has indicated that there is no statutory indication that relates directly to this matter and have found that this type of contract has been performed in the past (Dickinson and in Bismarck), that Mr. Swanson had said that direct contracting can be done by council resolution, that the council will need to resolve that this is a sole source supplier and that the direct contract will need to include installation. Mr. West reported that they can bid and only one bidder for it, and other problem is that it will bring some suppliers back into raising more questions, etc. and suggested that it is their recommendation that there is a sole source supplier and no competition in the world, and best alternative is to negotiate them to a fair price on this and to sign a contract.

Mr. Swanson stated that they can do a sole source contract if council determines 1) there is no effective competition, and no competitor to provide, that's not to say there isn't risk, wasn't aware talking these kinds of dollars, and if someone out there who hasn't had fair opportunity to qualify for project, has more incentive to challenge. He stated odds are in our favor to survive such a challenge but won't won't say no risk.

Hagness questioned why are we convinced facility work here. Mr. West reported they went to Germany and looked at it, and competition not in same class, and because of soils want a plant with smallest footprint as possible because have to pile foundation out there, and trying to optimize type of equipment they are going

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
January 26, 1998 - Page 7

to use, and these people using flotation equipment rather than using gravity clarifiers and in the long run have better plant using flotation system than using gravity clarifiers; can go to other plant but pay more money. He stated they are trying to stay as close as possible to the $13.1 million, industry paying for it, City paying for, and want plant that has ability to be expanded at the same time. He also reported they have everything under shelter.

It was noted that the State Revolving Loan Fund money involved in funding this project and that no problem with State or bidding practices under state law.

Mr. Swanson suggested he didn't know what it would cost to bid it, but start bidding process and actually do some pre-qualifications of technology and then turn into a sole source; Mr. West stated that's what they would do. He reported that they have been on sole source type projects before and have won.

Mr. West reported they would break down into several contracts and working independently and to tie down process supplier so can't run away with price; want to be done bidding by end of August.

A rep. of Simplot reported he wanted to know where they fit in and how affected. It was noted that there had been some discussion re. Simplot's own plant and wouldn't affect this plant. He reported that some individuals will be coming in from Idaho for review; and reported that 50% of BOD from Simplot, and that they would probably ask for increase in BOD. Hagness stated it would be beneficial for City to know whether Simplot bring their own plant in or not. Simplot's rep. stated they would know within week or so.

Mr. West reported that they are asking for a performance warranty from the process supplier. He reported that they have a program for different bids at different times, different design periods, and now processing with process equipment supplier and if get suitable price, then enter into design basins, etc. and reviewed portions of the project. Mr. Goetz reported 7 to 8 additional more people to operate plant; and costs figures into rates.

Mr. West stated both and equipment is available from other suppliers, however, when take technology package and associated pieces of remote equipment that it's going to operate, they want integration and want warranty to cover the whole thing, doesn't want to break up and wants system responsibility on that provider.
Mr. West reported that the system provider done this on other systems they have done but haven't built one like this. He also noted that one of their potential bonding companies is Mitsubishi International.

Mr. Swanson reported their options are: 1) hold and review ways of

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
January 26, 1998 - Page 8

protection from potential challenging, 2) make decision and go ahead and make $6 million technology purchase, 3) move forward and not do sole source but do as a pre-qualification bidding process.

After further discussion it was moved by Klave and Lucke to hold for two weeks for further review by the city attorney. Motion carried. (comm. only)

10. Matter of advertising RFP for engineering services for study
and report on water supply and treatment.
Hazel Fetters-Sletten reported they are looking at engineering services for water facility as a whole including intake, alternate water supply, etc. and need to look at alternate funding sources, either continuing on with work with Advanced Eng. or stepping back and go through with engineering selection qualification procedure to pursue funding; that taking a step back now and going through request for RFP and formal evaluation of engineering services would be a good thing to do, and have that out of the way and have to do anyway. She reported that they will advertise for qualifications for RFP, then set up committee to rate and evaluate (C.Grotte, Keith Johnson, Hazel Sletten and two members of the committee).
Mr. Vein recommended it's a necessary step to do formal process.

Moved by Hafner and Klave to authorize request for proposals for engineering services. Motion carried.

11. Matter of agreements for engineering services for CPS, Projs.
4713 and 4714, storm sewer and paving North 55th Street from
DeMers to Gateway.
Held in committee.

12. Matter of consultant selection for RFP for engineering
services to overlay downtown streets and rehab/reconstruct
Belmont Road.
Mr. Grasser reported that these are two projects authorized for emergency relief funds, 80% federal share and 20% local, went out for requests for proposals, had 4 companies respond (KBM, Advanced Engineering, CPS and WSN), and recommended KBM as consultant for Project No. 4756, Belmont Road rehabilitation; and Advanced Engineering as consultant for Proj. 4757, mill and overlay downtown streets, and would like authorization to bring in engineering agreements.

Mr. Grasser reported that all firms were qualified, doesn't have selection process; that CPS work load very heavy, that WSN Minnesota firm and perhaps not as familiar with ND DOT practices, specifications, etc. Charlie Vein reviewed some of the qualifications of their firm, that they are 25 strong, and have hired individual, Bob Orthmeyer, who is specialist in this field and worked with City in evaluating streets damaged in the flood and worked in obtaining financing; that water treatment still 80% of

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
January 26, 1998 - Page 9

what they do but have dealt with clients and have to become full-fledged firm in doing all aspects of engineering.

Moved by Hafner and Klave to approve selection of KBM as consultant for Project No. 4756, Belmont Road rehabilitation, and of Advanced Engineering as consultant for Project No. 4756, mill and overlay downtown streets, and authorize staff to negotiate and bring in engineering agreements. Motion carried.

It was suggested by the committee that they have engineering firms give presentation to the committee, esp. for new members.

13. Matter of creating special assessment district for Proj.
4463, Dist. 387, storm sewer on S. 42nd St. from DeMers Ave.
to 17th Avenue South.
Held in committee.

14. Plans and specifications for various projects:
a) Project 4720, 1998 Sidewalk Repair
b) Project 4721, 1998, Concrete Street Repair
c) Project 4722, 1998 Asphalt Street Repair
d) Project 4724, ADA Curb Ramp
Mr. Grasser reported these are standard projects, they do have some DSR money available for repair of local streets, have gone through and evaluated throughout city. He reported they have bumped up street concrete from $160-180,000 to $300,000; asphalt from $20,000 to $60,000. He reported FEMA will pay for portion for damaged streets and whatever cost documented to make repair, and they are paying for repair and City pay difference.

Moved by Hafner and Lucke to approve plans and specifications and authorize call for bids. Motion carried.

15. Matter of Southend Drainway, Phase 1B, between Chestnut and
Washington Street.
Mr. Grasser reported that this has been negotiated with Bert Johnson and presented map showing area for purchase and lease; that they negotiated purchase of land in the drainway and bottom part of drainway City right of way, part of sideslope is going to be slope easement and temporary construction easement on the outside of that, and different dollar amounts for each. He reported that the Memo describes the cost and what doing, that this has been approved but unable to round up motions and minutes brought forth and to make sure everything very clear are looking for motion to authorize proper City officials to enter into agreements with Bert and Lyle Johnson and Allen Thompson for the purchase of the necessary land and easements in Phase 1B. It was so moved by Klave and Lucke. Motion carried.

16. Matter of proposed ordinance re. quick take of property.
Mr. Swanson reported that his office working for couple weeks

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
January 26, 1998 - Page 10

in doing research in what authority the City has in using imminent domain to acquire property easements and rights of way, whether for roadway expansion, utility installation, drainway construction or flood control projects, have authorize through Century Code to do imminent domain on all of those, however, except in very limited circumstances it does not have right for quick take but have to go through entire process until both land and payment handled, under quick take do advance appraisal, make offer to property owner and deposit that amount of money with the clerk of court, and they issue order giving City immediate use of the property for whatever project is, and determine whether or not appraisal is proper value, separate and apart from taking of the land. He reported they now have quick take in very limited circumstances and have been researching whether or not can under Home Rule Charter do an ordinance utilizing quick take for number of projects they don't normally do. He stated he would bring information to the committee at their next meeting for review and move forward through council but wanted to make certain can defend that type of ordinance if were to adopt, used and challenged. It could become important for future flood control projects if can use quick take as opposed to complete litigation.

Hagness stated that Corps has authority. Mr. Swanson reported that State doesn't have, if City acquires R/W all of costs of acquisition count towards local share, but if Corps does and becomes part of project cost and City would pay for in long run. He reported that he met with Mr. Vein but line so undefined as of now. He stated that in flood control projects, quick take enhancement, but looking 2-3 year period of time for acquisition; judge or jury would determine value if don't reach agreement, always be market value, but what is market value. He stated that eminent domain is not proposition taken lightly, because pay own attorney's fees, appraisals fee, own court costs and in addition paying opponents fees and court costs as well enhanced market value. Information only.

Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk

Dated: 1/27/98