City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us


	MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE Monday, March 9, 1998 - 7:00 p.m. Members present: Hagness, Klave, Hafner, Lucke. 1. Request from Solid Waste Integrated Systems of Pennington County to utilize City's landfill for disposing of waste from Itasca County Transfer Station. Dick Newman, solid waste mgr., reported that last August SWIS Corp. started hauling more refuse in, and this past week brought to his attention that they were bringing in materials from Itasca County, and possibly from Mahnomen and Hubbard Counties as well, and do not have authorization to take these materials, only have contracts with Pennington, Marshall and Red Lake Counties to take their refuse; that without contract wasn't prudent to take without committee/council action. He also stated he wasn't inclined to take this material, past practice to take from market/service area of the city, and these areas pretty border-line; and have had some problem with SWIS Corp. paying their bills on time, that at one time $70,000 behind, some rumors left other landfills without payment, that these rumors but don't have concrete evidence, left up to proper people to be checking on that. He stated this material coming from long distance, don't know business and what kind of materials being hauled in and by allowing materials to come from as far away as Minneapolis, leaves door open for other companies to do the same; hate to turn down money for this material but in light not inclined to take at this time. They are paid up to date; that if bills not paid in 60 days cut off at landfill, but want paid up to date in 30 days. Mr. Newman stated they know that businesses around here not including hazardous materials, do random inspection but not on every load. Klave stated that he's been involved in new landfill, concern what goes into it because City and County held responsible for whatever goes into it, once taken have full responsibility, and this is out of our area and should stay with areas of trade. Rick Nordhagen, president of SWIS Corp.in Pennington County, stated his request was made for unprocessible or unusable portion of refuse from the transfer station they operate in Itasca County, and will be done handling that operation the end of April and request would be to use City's landfill for this bypass material (inert materials such as couches, furniture, carpet, etc.) not garbage; that all counties they service have hazardous waste collection programs and any waste they bring already has been processed, not raw garbage, and probably cleanest waste they are getting; that their request is to use City's landfill for Itasca County bypass through end of April. He reported that in January brought 1558 tons, February brought 1202, and in March 411 tons, some of this is up from previous when making fuel on a continuous basis, now fuel market been put on hold and some of that material now being landfilled, only bringing waste paper and some of the unusables (carpeting, old clothing, furniture) and after April 1 won't operate that transfer station, but still want to use landfill for MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE March 9, 1998 - Page 2 Pennington County. Mr. Vein stated that one of things they are doing is to get landfill closed off, and asked whether acceptance of this was asset or detriment to closing of landfill. Mr. Newman stated that until he found out only to the end of April thought detriment, that even though closing off to municipal solid waste, still continue operating that facility for construction and demolition and other inert type waste; should be able to operate for 15-20 years, but with such an influx of materials, 5 to 7 years until closure but didn't know only to the end of April. Mr. Newman reported that they could operate that landfill as an inert facility without having to buy materials to fill it, but fill for next 10-15 or 20 years, but only buy closure materials. Hafner and Klave moved to allow SWIS Corp. to utilize landfill for disposing of inert refuse through the end of April. Mr. Newman would like to see them pay April bill in advance. Mr. Nordhagen stated they (Pennington Co.) will continue using landfill after April, that they fell behind as made debt payment of $200,000 on facility and now current. Committee asked if he could pay half of bill on Itasca waste in advance and that be included in the motion. Mr. Nordhagen reported they have different trucks coming in from Itasca so would know difference. Comm. expressed concern re. payments, that if 30 days past ter-minate contract; Mr. Newman reported if he had problem he would be back. Motion carried. 2. Matter of consideration of waffle plan. re. flood protection. Chairman Hagness reported that council had received letter, as well as other entities, and that he met with Mr. Vein, etc. so have right people looking at on basin-wide area. Mr. Vein reported when they made recommendation on permanent flood control one of the things they wanted to look at was basin-wide flood mitigation efforts and request from EERC fits that, at least research required, for at least one type of basin-wide water management. He stated that one thing he wanted to make recommendation on was that while looking at technical process, they also incorporate political process. He stated that the technical merits appear to be excel-lent but that doesn't work against political process if not brought together at same time, and include a consensus building process that includes the political input at the appropriate level and that the political process should include the appropriate entities such as County Water Resource Districts where doing this type of research, and if in MN the Watershed Districts and also ND State Water Commission and the DNR in MN and include the International Joint Commission who should be one of the major entities that MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE March 9, 1998 - Page 3 pursues basin-wide water management, and possibly Red River Basin Board who has been working very closely with the International Coalition. He stated that he's in favor of this but his concern is that not get too far out with technical before bringing political process along with this at same time, and would make recommendation to support this proposal. He stated that if the committee concurs, they would write into resolution to be passed by council. Committee stated they would like to see resolution before sending to council. Hafner stated he concurs, but that there needs to be political groundwork laid before they start doing technical studies, if do right everyone will cooperate, and asked what agency could promote doing this, paying for studies, funding, etc. Mr. Vein stated that the proposal from the EERC is not a funding request, only asking for letter of support, and will go after other funding sources which is good advantage to having them involved in this and might be able to find some of those sources; but he does believe that in order to implement something like this, it's huge issue and possibly take International Joint Commission; and assuming our letter of support to EERC one of many that would justify funding from other sources to continue their investigation into the waffle plan. Committee stated they would like additional information and held the matter for two weeks and instrucedt appropriate staff to draft a letter of resolution for committee to take to council. 3. Matter of creating special assessment district for parking ramp for downtown corporate center. Mr. Grasser reported this was referred from council, that Urban Development is putting together corporate center, and will assist in putting together map for district, but they will have to provide information to us and present plan and justifications. Hafner asked where is Parking Authority in this, that there should be meeting with Authority. Mr. Grasser reported that the last time issue like this came up, it came through the Parking Authority and Mr. Tingum was assisting Authority, and Engineering helped in preparing maps, etc. Dick Jackson, Parking Authority stated that a study is being done. Mr. Grasser suggested that they have meeting with Parking Authority, Urban Development and a rep. from the engineering department. Held in committee. 4. Consideration of specs. for truck, compactor and containers for automated side-load collection system (approve plans and set date for bids). Held in committee. 5. Matter of implementation plan for automated side-load collec- tion. Held in committee. 6. Matter of engineering selection for various water plant projects - studies and reports. MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE March 9, 1998 - Page 4 Chuck Grotte, asst. dir. of public works, reported that the selection committee was composed of Hafner, Klave, K.Johnson, Hazel Fetters-Sletten and himself, that they reviewed four proposals (two from Grand Forks and two from Kansas City), and submitted memo re. results for evaluation of proposal for engineering study and report services for various water projects and asked that they be allowed to negotiate with Advanced Engineering for agreement to study the three projects (1) water treatment plant expansion and improve-ments, water quality master plan, Proj. 4770; 2) new intake and transmission lines, prelim. eng. report, Proj. 4769; and 3) backup water supply, prelim. eng. report, Proj. 4771). Hafner stated selection process was interesting exercise and all came up with same conclusion after independently studying the information. Ken Vein, city eng., brought up comment that has surfaced recently and that is the fact that Advanced Engineering has a principal that is related to him, his brother, and wanted to reiterate that fact, and have tried to devise a process to keep any type of conflict from being there. Moved by Hafner and Klave to accept proposal of Advanced Engineer and to authorize staff to negotiate a contract. Motion carried; Lucke voted no. (Committee only) 7. Matter of engineering reports for various projects: a) Projs. 4705, 4706 and 4707 - utilities to serve the new middle school. Mark Lambrecht reported they have written report which will be reviewed by the engineering department and filed in final form after that. He reported that the watermain is planned to come down Washington Street, is at 40th Ave.S. now and will go south on Washington Street to 47th Avenue South and west to the new middle school, will be 16" main with enough capacity for fire protection. He reported the storm drain will drain into the new southend drain-way when it reaches 47th Ave.S. and needs to be coordinated project between next short phase of the drainway and the stormsewer to the school; that re. sanitary sewer the School Dist. and Park Dist. are working together to have School Dist. use Park District's lift station by Ulland Park in the near future until the sanitary sewer arrives there. He stated that the project has some things to be worked out yet, Mr. Grasser is working on memo of understanding or agreement as far as financing where School Dist. potentially has some money for the off-site utilities coming to the School. Mr. Grasser stated that the report is in a draft form and will give one in more final form, some things still developing, there are some absolute minimums they need to get utilities to the school and are proceeding on that, and later will create district. He stated they are addressing that the School Dist. has $1.8 Million for DSR to bring utilities out to the school and will be meeting tomorrow as to how those funds should be allocated and coming up with agreement with School System, that they are looking at looping MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE March 9, 1998 - Page 5 watermain back up along 20th Street and up to 36th Avenue. Hafner asked how much of 16" line School needs, Church going up out there, etc. Mr. Grasser reported that sizing of line follows City's standard layouts that have been developed; that number of years back WFW did water system analysis and recommended that on section lines they put in 16" lines, at half mile lines put in 12"s and idea is that you create a net so can deliver water almost indefinitely, but 16" line can't really allocate to school but based on pipe size in that location. It was noted that School needs 8" line, that oversizing picked up by the City, and he is proposing that through the DSR process School pick up what City's share would be in the 16" main and minimize impact on City water budget and thinks they have money to do that. Mr. Lambrecht reported that 16" line meets what School needs for fire protection, that fire insp. asked for 2500 g/m at school and WFW's firm doing city-wide computer model of the water system so they helped by plugging the pipeline into the new city model and came out to 2900 g/m. Mr. Lambrecht presented report to committee. Moved by Klave and Hafner to receive and file draft report. Motion carried. (Comm. only) b) Projs. 4713 and 4714, storm sewer and paving N. 55th St. from DeMers to Gateway. Todd Pfenning, CPS, reported that the project is between DeMers and Gateway and is now 24' wide gravel section; several things need to be addressed - RR crossing is approx. 150 ft north of DeMers and has wood plank crossing,whih will have to be replaced by concrete crossing, RR does work and City reimburses for time and materials, that it has existing pavement returns at both ends that are 42 ft. wide, and existing storm pump located north of 55th and 6th Ave.N. and that's what intend for storm sewer to drain into and pump northward through forcemain that exists. He reported that storm sewer project will include only mainline stormsewer catch basins and leads would be put in under paving project. He stated that choices are limited for storm sewer location within existing R/W with lot of existing utilities, both public and private. He reported that re. paving they have had borings done, for determina-tion of cross section along with projected traffic, that they have received traffic projections to the year 2020 from City's traffic consultant and will be used with soil tests. He reviewed struc-tural design based on soil conditions, will probably have 15-18" gravel geotextile over the subgrade, 15-18" gravel base, drain tile and 8" concrete pavement section. He stated that this roadway would be between 37-51 ft. wide, dependent upon traffic projects and experience with similar classified streets in the city. He reviewed cost estimates (using 51' wide), and cheaper with narrower section. Klave noted this will be 80-20% on street and 100% on storm sewer special assessment, and asked how Congressional 1 and 2 being addressed, selling with specials being paid and there's no way of this project going in without their being MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE March 9, 1998 - Page 6 addressed as part of the special assessment district. Mr. Grasser reported they talked with Urban Development about that, but they are supposed to do similarly with what Crary and those are supposed to be doing, that the internal utilities are being delivered free of special assessments but are supposed to make buyers aware that there are other special assessments that may come onto those pro-jects. Klave asked Mr. Grasser the urgency of doing this project in 1998. Mr. Grasser stated that one thing to address, storm drainage, and roadbed very soft because of soils; lot of concerns with dust in trailer park, and many times in spring close road down, etc. Hafner stated that he talked to developer of trailer park, and asked if they have asked for street development; Mr. Grasser reported they need to have somebody develop a plan and submit to engineering for review which is in accordance with City policies, and their intention is that they will not give authori-zation to proceed until have acceptable plan and phasing out there. Hagness stated he has some problems with leap-frog development because 55th Street is going to be $3 Million with storm sewer and doesn't know if they should both go in same year unless want another problem like 20th Street unless no intention of putting any other utilities under the paving. It was noted that storm sewer leads would have to go under the paving. Mr. Grasser reported he's envisioning that they're too late to get all in this year, and that the storm sewer will go in, with paving base to go in so have good base to work on, let sit over the winter, and do concrete work in 1999. Moved by Klave and Hafner to receive and file preliminary engineering report. Motion carried. 8. Matter of agreements for eng. services for various projects: a) CPS - Projs. 4706 and 4707, water and storm sewer to serve the new middle school, Amendment No. 1 to include design engineering services. Mr. Lambrecht reported this is amendment No. 1 to engineering agreement, that original agreement was study and report, and this will be design agreement and take through bidding of the project, and then decide on workload of City staff and their own staff if City would like them to do construction phase and continue to provide services there. He reported that this is hourly style agreement not to exceed costs, Watermain Project 4706, $20,533 and Sewer Project 4707, $12,911.00 for total of $33,444.00. Mr. Grasser reported that the committee is going to see lot of engineering amendments to contracts, and in this specific case, couple amendments that will come up as this only addresses water and sewer to the school, that if they proceed with concept of tieing things up on 20th Street that would come in as an amendment to this contract because additional design services and if elect to have CPS do staking and construction activities, that would be an amendment to this contract. He stated they are bringing in small MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE March 9, 1998 - Page 7 pieces but creates realty of lots of different amendments, could originally wing large numbers, but most prudent in holding down City's costs to bring in phase at a time as work gets identified. Moved by Klave and Hafner to approve Amendment No. 1 to the engineering agreement in amounts not to exceed $20,533 for Watermain project No. 4706 and $12,911 for Sewer Project no. 4707, for a total increase to the agreement of $33,444.00. Motion carried. b) CPS - Projs. 4713 and 4714, storm sewer and paving N. 55th St. from DeMers to Gateway, Amendment No. 1 to include design engineering services. Mr. Lambrecht reported this is identical explanation and dealing with N. 55th Street project, paving and storm sewer, amend-ment that covers design phase of those projects. He reported that design fee for Storm Sewer Proj. 4713 is 5.2% or $23,711.00 and 3.3% of est. construction cost for Paving Proj. 4714 of $53,958.00, for a total amendment cost of $77,669; and that this is hourly not to exceed style agreement. He reported fees cumulative and 1% of fees in study and report project; that 5.2% and 3.3% are on design work for this agreement only. Mr. Grasser reported that when hire consultant to do work, this is part of the special assessment markup of 28% (8% to engineering) but when do in-house don't have overhead that consultant has, so engineering costs go up; but what see in special assessment projects coming up is that change the special assessment markup such that they include engineering from consultant in the project costs and when do the special assessment markup, will bring that in at 22% and reduce the engineering from 8% down to 2% to cover the in-house engineering and consultant's engineering becomes part of the construction cost; other option would be is to put in 20% to cover all other adminis-trative costs, 2% for city engineering and add their engineering fees as per-centage on that, and would take 28% to 30%; can do either way, but have put their engineering as part of the project and City's engineering as part of the markup. Moved by Hafner and Klave to approve Amendment No. 1 to the engineering agreement in amounts not to exceed $23,711.00 for Storm Sewer Project No. 4713 and $53,958.00 for Paving Project No. 4714, with total increase to the agreement of $77,669.00. Motion carried. c) CPS - relocation of Williams Pipeline. Mr. Grasser reported this is part of southend drainway, that Williams Bros. Pipeline's line which is behind Perkins property and follows 32nd Avenue.S. to 47th, then across Ulland Park, and that pipeline is in the way for everything they are trying to do out there (water, drainway and paving) and in the way for several developers; it makes sense to move it in some manner but need someone to work with that on City's projects, developer's projects MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE March 9, 1998 - Page 8 and identify costs and reasonable place to relocate that line, and are asking CPS to do, don't have contract available and it's not so much an engineering contract as letter of agreement, and are looking for $8,000 to do coordinating effort between us and Wms. Bros. Pipeline and Wms. won't review plans until they are paid to do plan review. He stated that Williams Bros. telling us it would cost $100,000 anytime you break that pipeline and maybe better to spend more money to do other relocations and cost share with developer and whole make operation efficient. Mr. Lambrecht reported that there wouldn't be lot of engineering work with this but more legwork in bringing people together. Mr. Grasser reported they have to address under Southend Drainway. Moved by Klave and Hafner to approve entering into agreement with CPS, Ltd. in an amount of $8,000. Motion carried. (committee only) d) Pribula - Proj. 4710, land acquisition for emergency clay borrow pits. Mr. Grasser reported this is another project in the cost matrix, that there is about $400,000 to acquire land for emergency borrow pits and in the secondary line of defense identified need for three different pits to be able to manage all contractors working and have tried to identify land but weren't able to develop any good sites. He stated he talked to Mr. Pribula who is local land surveyor (and engineer and farmer), and is asking for authorization for $2,500 and letter of agreement for him to help identify those borrow pits and assist us in some of the negotia-tions with the property owners. Moved by Hafner and Klave to approve entering into agreement with Mr. Pribula in an amount of up to $2,500.00. Motion carried. 9. Matter of creating special assessment district for various projects: a) Proj. 4708, Dist. 259, watermain on 17th Avenue S. from Lynwood Circle to Industrial Park. Mr. Grasser reported that in Industrial Park that water served off DeMers Avenue and what comes south off DeMers are a couple of 8" lines, one down 46th and 48th, and with development coming in, esp. Cirrus, and looking at fire fighting requirements, found out that there is an inadequate supply of water for fire protection and have been required to put in sprinkler systems, and fire department telling him that sprinkler systems are only marginally acceptable now (wanted letter from fire department, and can have before council) and had concern when brought in FEMA trailers re. ability to fight fires. He reported that this project would pick current line on east side of the Coulee, through Coulee and tie into new main on 42nd and through Interstate into the Industrial Park. He reported that the cost breakdowns in report, cost of construction, $511,600, less City share of $124,012 from 8" to 16", tapping fee with net total assessment and tapping fee of just under $500,000, and reviewed assessment district map (using theory of assessing project against the adjacent subdivision because subdivision didn't MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE March 9, 1998 - Page 9 have to put main in and picking that cost up now). Moved by Hafner and Klave that we adopt a resolution creating the assessment district, approving the engineer's report, including estimate of cost, an assessment district map, and further that we pass a resolution instructing the city engineer to prepare detailed plans and specifications, and that we declare intent to sell bonds to finance these improvements. Motion carried. b) Proj. 4706, Dist. 260, watermain on S. Washington St. from 40th Ave.s. to new middle school. John Schlieman, CPS, reported that this will be future assessment district, and setting up costs of construction with the consulting engineering fees included, less City share for size markup and special assessment markup is 22% (est. future assessment cost, $392,000). Moved by Klave and Hafner (adopting same motion as noted above). Mr. Grasser reviewed difference between tapping fee and future assessment district - tapping fee can be spread over length of time before depreciating that - and with future assessment district, are required to depreciate over the length of the bond which is not more than 20 years; and reason they are looking at future assessment district here is probably anticipation that much of the area is going to develop in relatively short time and/or annexed so can create the assessment districts before getting into lot of depreciation on the project, and reason doing this is because tapping fees are getting to be real administrative nightmare because so many, and is question of how many going to miss in collecting fees. Upon call for the question, the motion carried. c) Proj. 4713, Dist. 392, storm sewer on N. 55th Street from DeMers to Gateway. Todd Pfenning, CPS, reported that the est. here doesn't agree with the cost in the preliminary report distributed earlier, and difference is the special assessment markup and will be straightened up in final version of the report. He reviewed map of the assessment district because wanted to include entire sub-divisions and 300 ft. for tapping fees for drainage area because not within city limits. Mr. Grasser reported that for tapping fees only like to assess to adj. 140 ft. but in this area can identify that there are 300 ft. calculated to go into the storm sewer. He reported that if they think that development (trailer park) going to occur rather quickly may want to change tapping fee to a future assessment district and then pick up when get annexed; and committee may want to make that recommendation to change to future assessment district. MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE* March 9, 1998 - Page 10 Moved by Hafner and Klave (motion noted above) with change in the engineer's report to change tapping fee on the assessment district map to a future assessment district. Motion carried. d) Proj. 4669.2, Dist. 386.2, Southend Drainway Phase 2A Mr. Grasser reported this creates tapping fee area for the next leg of Southend Drainway from Washington Street over quarter mile and north to 47th Avenue S. and is part of land negotiations with Park District (and will be coming up later in meeting), and have created in phases: Phase 1A from River to Chestnut Street; Phase 1B from Chestnut Street to Washington Street, and now Phase 2A to 47th (and rest of Phase 2 goes north to center of Section 21 and west to Interstate), and actually a Phase 3 which will go south and over to the Interstate; and what they are trying to do to properly assess this is calculating as if the whole project were done as one project and have taken total projected construction cost for Phases I, II and III which is $9.1 Million, added engineering construction costs for design and construction and special assessment markup (21%), land cost of $2.6 Million, but total project cost of $15 Million and subtract out District 386.0 and 386.1 (cost assessed under those phases) and leaves $12.432 Million under this entire district. Hafner asked where all water coming from; Mr. Grasser reported getting water from pipes under Interstate near KOA campgrounds and drain down ditches to 32nd Ave.S., pipe under 32nd couldn't take water, then built up in ditches and started to overflow and that water comes across; this leg of drainway puts in 48" pipe under 32nd Avenue which will allow more water to pass without building up and this phase of drainway will also intercept that flow and rather than coming into English Coulee will direct it to the River. Moved by Klave and Hafner (see motion above to create district). Motion carried. 9. d.1) Matter of tapping fee policies. Mr. Grasser distributed copies of tapping fee general policies which were developed in 1995 and wanted to discuss Fee Collection: where it states that the tapping fees will be collected by the City Inspection Department on the lot or lots to which a building or site improvement permit is issued and about how to calculate that area; that his concern is that they have created many tapping areas and is concerned for residential builder or buyer to come in and ask for building permits they will get hit with significant amount of tapping fees and no matter how legally they present that data, most people aren't going to know that it's coming; and would like committee to consider a change in policy where at council's recommendation the tapping fee could be collected when the utility is connected to (in this case) the Southend Drainway. Example: when Mighty Acres 2 coming in, propose that when developer puts in storm sewer and ties into drainway City would collect those drainway MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE March 9, 1998 - Page 11 tapping fees at that time as part of that project and that cost gets passed on directly in the cost of the lot or if the developer asks that it be special assessed it becomes part of the special assessments but property owners know costs are there, and would make on a case by case basis with recommendation from the engineering department and concurrence by the city council. (Copies will be provided to committee) Moved by Hafner and Klave to approve changes in the tapping fee policies. Motion carried. 10. Matter of plans and specs. for various projects: a) Proj. 4758, watermain repair at S. 5th St. under RR tracks. Keith Johnson reported this is watermain failure at this location, that there are two parts to the job: 1) that there is 16" line under tracks and propose to put 8" connection between north and south side of the tracks using old watermain as a casing pipe under the RR at est. cost of $15,000 - didn't manifest itself until after flood and could be part of sewer cleaning, etc.and recommendation is to take from Watermain Replacement Fund but there's $100,000 in cost matrix for water repairs and this is substantial enough to make worthwhile to go through CDBG funds. Mr. Johnson reported there is 16" line that goes from Water Treatment Plant to Gateway Dr. and connects back into system there, and would like to connect that at 2nd Avenue North and North 7th Street, est. cost $6,000, so total est. project cost of $20,000. Mr. Grasser stated this would fall under same fix; but could take out of Watermain Replacement Fund. Moved by Klave and Hafner to approve project with funding from CDBG and if problem take interconnect portion or est. $6,000 out Watermain Replacement Funds. Motion carried. b) Proj. 4463, Dist. 387, storm sewer on S. 42nd St. from DeMers to 17th Avenue S. Mr. Lambrecht, CPS, reported this is project they were working on before the flood to serve South 42nd Street and Aurora, City had already bid watermain and sanitary sewer projects which were put in last summer. He reviewed drainage area for the project, taking to Drain #9 and north through swale through Ray Richard's Golf Course, includes outlet which goes to the legal drain along 17th Avenue South; and are asking approval of plans and specifications and authorize to advertise for bids, est. construction cost at $1.1 and total project est. at $1.3 Million. There was some discussion re. property owners along English Coulee who are concerned that with Aurora and rain runoff have problems on Coulee, that bridge under RR tracks really small. Mr. Lambrecht reported that he didn't think there would be problem, that English Coulee Diversion was very effective in taking that drainage area routed through the city. Mr. Vein reported that drainage area cut MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE March 9, 1998 - Page 12 in half, and will get lot of instantaneous runoff because so close to Coulee but mostly miles and miles before even getting here. Moved by Klave and Hafner that we pass a resolution approving the plans and specifications for this construction and further that the city auditor be directed to advertise for bids on the project. Motion carried. 11. Consideration of construction bids for various projects: Mr. Grasser reviewed bids received on the following projects. a) Proj. 4720, 1998 sidewalk repairs. It was noted that R & H Landscaping, Frazee, MN did not enclose contractor's license in the bid bond envelope as required under State law. Moved by Klave and Hafner to reject bid of R & H Land-scaping and to return the bid unopened. Motion carried. Moved by Hafner and Klave to accept the low bid of Sherlock Con-struction in the amount of $139,960.00 on a unit cost basis. Motion carried. b) Proj. 4721, 1998 concrete street repairs. Moved by Klave and Hafner to accept the low bid of Opp Con-struction in the amount of $293,195.00. Motion carried. c) Proj. 4722, 1998 asphalt street repairs. Moved by Hafner and Klave to accept the low bid of Valley Con-tracting Company in the amount of $53,380.00. Motion carried. d) Proj. 4624, 1998 ADA curb ramps. Moved by Hafner and Klave to accept the low bid of R & H Landscaping,, Frazee, MN in the amount of $49,650.00. Motion carried. e) Proj. 4671, rehab Lift Station #21 Tom Hanson, WFW, reviewed bids which had been opened on Thursday, lift station located at 24th Ave.S. and S. 20th St.; had Schedule A which was combined general/electrical and Schedule B which was separate general and electrical; and recommended approval of low bid of Smith Construction Company in the amount of $280,267. Mr. Hanson noted that engineer's estimate in the amount of $288,000. Moved by Lucke and Hafner to accept the low bid as recommended. Motion carried. f) Proj. 4654, clean brick sewer Mr. Hanson reviewed bids and had two bidders who did not have contractor's licenses; low bid is about half of new low bid. Moved by Klave and Hafner to reject bids of Pipe Services Corporation, Carver, MN and Municipal Pipe tool Co., Inc., Hudson, Ia who did not have contractor's license in bond envelope and MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE March 9, 1998 - Page 13 return bids unopened. Motion carried. Mr. Hanson reported that the low bid of Spruce Valley Corporation, Middle River, MN in the amount of $117,280.00 is about half the next bid. He reported they met with reps. of Spruce Valley and reviewed required materials, OASHA confined space and other issues, Davis Bacon wage requirements, his plan to accomplish work, com-pletion date and they stated they hadn't made an error and wanted to proceed with the project. He reported they called references and company innovative and hard-working but only done open-end culvert type projects so spent time re. safety issues, etc. Moved by Hafner and Klave to accept low bid of Spruce Valley Corp., Middle River, Mn in the amount of $117,280.00. Motion carried. 12. Matter of land purchase from Park District for Southend Drainway Phase 2. Mr. Grasser distributed copies of minutes of Park Board meeting and reported that Hafner and Hagness had attended meeting with Park District, that they discussed making change in routing of Southend Drainway, Phase 2A, in which they could expedite getting drainway in and get storm sewer in for the school. He showed map showing drainway easement, slope easement and construction easement for the drainway; that result of meeting is that the Park District would sell to the City 6.85 acres of drainway easement at $10,000/acre at same rate they are purchasing land for; that permanent easement would be donated to the City and construction easement would be donated and there's also stockpile site (6 acres) but would be within half or mile of drainway and would pay agricultural rate for that lease for up to period of five years; and recommended approval. Moved by Hafner and Klave to authorize purchase of the 6.85 acreage west of South Washington Street at a price of $10,000/acre, accept donation of permanent easement of 1.9 acres, and acceptance of con-struction easement and rental of stock pile of 6 to 8 acres at an agricultural rate for up to period of five years. Motion carried. 13. Matter of annexation policy. Mr. Grasser stated that committee has heard some of the concerns of engineering and auditor's re. tapping fees, that some of this is coming to a head now because of Park District and School District developments south of town, that Dave Broxmeyer put together Memo re. annexation policies and information. He stated there is some disagreement as what says, that 11.1.3 "...to encourage the implementation of an aggressive annexation program concerning existing land uses on the fringe of the city.", that Planning and Zoning and R/W Officer interpret that to be only property that currently is developed that has structure on it; and engineering interpreted to mean annexing adj. R/W and have paid for; on page 2 is proposed annexation policies and would have to go MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE March 9, 1998 - Page 14 to Mr. Swanson for interpretation, and would be more clarification to current policies, and say that if property is contiguous to existing city limits will annex all the existing development near the annexation request, will annex all the dedicated or statutory R/W and difference on dedicated or statutory is that dedicated under a plat, statutory would be the section lines. He reported that 3) would be to annex a 140 ft. wide strip, the depth of a single-family residential lot on both sides of the dedicated R/W for 157 ft. wide strip of property on both sides of statutory R/W, annexes property immediately adjacent to any R/W in which putting in utilities. He reported that annexation requested by property owner NOT CONTIGUOUS to the existing city limits, which is essentially what's happening by Park and School Dists. and would annex all existing development near the annexation requested, annex all dedicated or statutory R/W along a route by which city services can most effectively be provided, and annex the 140 ft. wide strip of property on both sides of the dedicated R/W or 157 ft. wide strip of property on both sides of statutory R/W; and reviewed attached various options included. Option #6 is what R/W Officer interprets existing policy to mean - only annexing parcels that are developed, and would result in City covering most of costs as tapping fees. Option 1 is what was voted on by subcommittee; Option 5 is essentially what engineering interprets of how annexation should proceed under revised recommendations, taking strips adj. to all dedicated R/W or statutory R/W, incl. Washington Street, 47th Ave.s. and gives City ability to put utilities in. He reported that Mr. Broxmeyer is supporting Option 5 and would like them to consider Option 7 which gets them closer to getting pro annexation high enough so that it can't be protested out (25% to protest out and go to Review Board). Mr. Vein reported that there are different points of view on how annexation should take place; that over past few years City has gone from annexation to tapping fees and because of that city has picked up those costs and not assessed to property owners and City as a whole has had to pick up those costs and many have been incorporated into utility rates which then have to cover these costs. He stated they are proposing that those costs should go back to the property owners and assessed to infrastructures even if didn't pay assessments, now helping to finance much of this property and no push by developers to develop it and most property owners adj. to the city receive free utilities and hold onto the land until get highest value for it and no reason to develop; therefore, would recommend council doing some of the larger annexations at this time, and put developer in position to look at development more favorably. He noted that sewer and water are not protestable, streets are protestable and just because annexed doesn't mean they would be put in; and other thing have to consider is not putting in infrastructure just to put it in and even if annexed would be putting in at most appropriate time. He stated he wanted to bring up because Mr. Schmisek and engineering very MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE March 9, 1998 - Page 15 concerned these costs impact city as a whole, and when bring up at council at next meeting would be to reconsider the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation on what annexation should be. He stated they wanted to give the P & Z Comm. some idea of what City looking for in policy for annexation so don't have to be in conflict with what council going to be doing. He stated they want to notify property owners in advance so can resolve this at P & Z level and not council level. It was noted that Planning recom-mending Option 6 and City recommending Option 5. Mr. Grasser reported that people immediately adj. to the city are able to sit on their land and wait for right price to come along and now that's increasing those values and to avoid that people starting to leap-frog; churches and businesses trying to get into reasonable land price, and encourage that developer and make bit more amiable to offer rather than wait. He stated with tapping fee, there's no interest on that, depreciation and inflation several years from now, not good investment by City, plus administrative costs, subsidizing developers. Moved by Klave and Hafner to refer this matter to the city attorney for review and incorporation into proper Codes and acceptance by the council Motion carried. 14. Matter of C.O. for storm sewer cleaning project, Proj. 4687. Mr. Hanson, WFW, reviewed change order for storm sewer cleaning and televising reported that the contractor's time for completion of contract is March 30 on cleaning contract and that FEMA has asked that they write report on this matter. He reported that City asked Corps to come in and administer project to clean the sewers, they prepared report and recommended to FEMA that they include a certain amount of televising as quality control for the cleaning project and FEMA stated they wouldn't participate in any of it so they came back to Flood Response Committee and asked them to fund cleaning, which was approved; Corps changed their specs. to have option under their contract for the televising with the City to pay for that, when they went to award contract, FEMA directed them not to include in the contract the televising so Corps proceeded to do the work with no quality control, when they finally got contracts for televising and got started found areas where couldn't get cameras through because of debris and delivered that information to the Corps, they met with their cleaning contractor and with excuses; and have now spent lot of time negotiating with FEMA and now have process where they televise and if find debris, FEMA pays for televising and subsequent cleaning and problem running into lot of money and time. Change order in the amount of $2,235,395.61. Moved by Hafner and Klave to approve change order in the amount of $2,235,395.61 to Viking Pipe Services Co., Inc. and extension of completion date to September 30, 1998. Motion carried. MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE March 9, 1998 - Page 16** 15. Amendment No. 1 to Proj. No. 4654.501 engineering services. Mr. Hanson presented Amendment No. 1 to agreement for engineering services for televising sewers, Proj. 4654.501, con-tract dated November 24, 1997, to increase engineering fees from $70,000 to $110,000. Moved by Klave and Hafner to approve Amend-ment No. 1 to the engineering agreement for Webster, Foster & Weston. Motion carried. It was moved by Hafner and Klave to adjourn; meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Alice Fontaine City Clerk Dated: 3/10/98.