Print VersionStay Informed
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
Monday, June 8, 1998 - 7:00 p.m.

Members present: Klave, Hafner, Lucke

1. Request for variance to sidewalk at Holiday Inn, 1210 N.
43rd Street.
Debi Steding, general manager, Holiday Inn, stated she had talked with Doug Ferrie, eng. tech., and he referred her to this committee, that they are asking that sidewalk located 7 to 8 ft. from the curb (most are 16 ft.) so that they can keep trees, that there's also a light pole 7 to 8 ft. off the curb and sewer cover 9 ft. from curb, and that there are only two berms that affect them on 43rd Street. It was noted that there are two driveways with landscaping on sides of both driveways. Al Grasser distrib-uted copy of map, and that City's policy is to put sidewalk 1 ft. off property line, landscaping in berm area, and if put sidewalk in according to normal policy would take all the trees which are basically mature (crabapple) Hafner asked why they haven't had sidewalk there before, Mr. Grasser stated that he didn't know and that there are sections of town where catching up on side-walks, should have been in, and delineates the R/W from private proper-ty. He stated that in this case with 37 ft. street and 40 ft. R/W, berm 21.5 ft. wide, so sidewalk would run from 20.5 to 15.5 from back of curb to sidewalk. He noted that berms serve as storage area for snow removal.

After further discussion Mr. Vein suggested that committee could authorize staff to work with property owner rather than making ordeal of sidewalk location; and it was so moved by Hafner and Lucke. Klave suggested that when staff working this out, some type of encroachment agreement, re. trees in City R/W. Mr. Vein stated that Holiday Inn will have to agree to smaller area for snow storage and if fills up, they will be responsible for clearing the snow; and that if the trees did die, sidewalk could be relocated at later date at their cost, and will put info into property file for future relocating of side-walk.

Upon call for the question, the motion carried.

Ms. Steding stated she had forms for completion, and she was in-formed to contact Mr. Ferrie. She stated that for the other berm which has easement for the Convention & Visitors Bureau, and questioned whether Holiday Inn was responsible for that property or was Convention & Visitors Bureau; she was informed that should be covered in property agreement between Convention & Visitors Bureau and Holiday Inn.

2. Matter of request by mechanical contractors re. unpaid mechanical permits.
Tim Manz, Mech. Installer, re-distributed copies of memo presented at city council last week which has more specific information. He stated that at last public service committee meeting they had requested amount of revenue that could be lost

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
June 8, 1998 - Page 2

as result of refunding $15.00 of each mechanical permit fee; if approved by council, would result in loss of approx. $75,000, and that includes the fees already paid plus those to be paid.

Jeff Wilson, pres. Vilandre's Fuel & Heating, Inc., 701 N. 7th St., received copy of letter last week after this item was pulled from the council agenda; that some of the items addressed they still feel very strongly that at the April 19, 1997 Mechanical Bd. meeting they were deputized as city inspectors to inspect the properties, that at that point in time they instructed their staff to do so and that there was no indication made to them or any other contractor that the permit fees would be passed on to them or homeowner, can understand loss in revenue. He stated that the second item in the Memo deals with the loss in revenue for the electrical portion, which is a separate issue, and doesn't involve mechanical contractors, that they mention saving time which is issue they discussed, that it was the intent of the Mechanical Board at that April 19 meeting, was not to save the time of the contractor but was to save the time of the homeowner, and save mass confusion/requests for inspections if the City were to handle that by themselves - up to 150-200 calls per day for inspections, and City could not have handled that, so they entrusted the local mechanical contractors to do their own inspections and they did so. He stated that it is their conten-tion that the motion made at the last public service committee meeting be intact.

Hafner stated that one concern is that it seems that under normal circumstances when bidding furnaces that the cost of the permits be included in the bid, and that's information he gets from talking to other contractors; that he doesn't know if they spe-cifically left it out of bid, that if didn't, then seems proper that it go where it ought to go.

Linda Bata, attorney representing Vilandre's Fuel & Heating, 4518 Cherry Street, stated that Mr. Wilson addressed that question, which is the fact that Vilandre's does not line-item the permit fee, and what happens to these funds, whether refunded to the customer, the answer is no; that the permit issuance portion was built into that bid, line itemed by some contractors and not by others and that permit issuance fee will be remitted to the City as passing from the customer through Vilandre's or other mechani-cal customers to the City, so that's $15.00 permit issu-ance por-tion; and with regard to other portion that they are request-ing waiver of which is the actual inspection portion, that was not line itemed by Vilandre's but perhaps built in by other contrac-tors but that portion from the customer to Vilandre's and they maintain dollars should stop there because those dollars are intended to pay for inspection and Vilandre's people performed that inspection. She stated that Vilandre's and other contrac-tors performed a valuable service, not aware of any houses

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
June 8, 1998 - Page 3

blowing up as a result of not having a formalized city inspec-tion, that they were deputized to perform city inspections, did inspections and turned systems on before they left, which was a service to the customer. She stated that City is asking that portion be remitted from Vilandre's to the City, and their contention is that it's necessary to have a second inspec-tion. There was some discussion re. City advertising for 27 trade inspector positions; Mr. Manz reported they request 27 inspec-tors but had trouble finding individuals for those positions, ended getting 4 and since then lost one of them. Ms. Bata stated it was clear that the intent was that those positions would be paid by federal monies (FEMA or CDBG monies). She said it's being suggested that the City will be out revenue if these inspection dollars aren't passed through because the City deemed it important to send these federally funded inspectors out to do second round of inspec-tions, that the budget was being gauged as normal and that short-fall would be made up through CDBG monies, and this appears to be a $75,000 short-fall. She stated the City is deter-mined to do a second round of inspections in order to protect property and life, and within range of authority to do so, and funding responsibility also becomes City's responsibility and it's public's understanding that those positions were feder-ally funded. She stated that Vilandre's and local contrac-tors did perform a service and should not be forced to make a volun-tary contribution of that kind to the City.

Klave stated that he had talked to Howard Swanson today and basically whatever committee does, whether refund or not, it's not the City's responsibility at that stage but maybe between the resident/homeowner and the firm dealing with but no way involves the City. Ms. Bata stated it would be each contractor's issue to deal with their customers; that when Vilandre's left and that system was working, the inspection was done, and customer getting benefit they would have had to wait for if waiting for official City inspector to show up.

Mr. Manz stated that lot of contractors paid in August/September when done with big surge of workload, and that he had talked with some of the bigger contractors swamped with paperwork and they would say to hold out to end of year to have time to get books in order; have excellent working relationship and would like to give benefit of the doubt, etc. and then found out some problems after first of the year, and trying to get resolved.

Mr. Vein reported that they did advertise for number of posi-tions, and thought would use CDBG funding for this, but it was interpreted that an inspection fee had been charged for this, they could not have those positions paid for through CDBG funding because would be double dipping (paying for the position with federal funds and getting fees from permits) and that was delay in getting the inspections budgeted through council. It was

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
June 8, 1998 - Page 4

determined that they would be self-funded and any short-falls would come from the CDBG admin., that there is limited amount of CDBG funds. Ms. Bata stated that the inspection that was charged for had already taken place. Mr. Vein reported that according to ordinance an inspection is required for every mechanical permit and permits were issued, after the fact, and the City is going through inspection of those; that in most cases they have very high professional mechanical contractors doing installations, licensed, and do they need to be inspected at all, esp. when self-inspected, would still have to follow up on that for reasons they've determined are necessary to do a follow-up inspection by the City; how are they funding that inspec-tion, that if don't pay for it through the fee, will have to use CDBG funds, and if use CDBG funds because of short-fall, still using our own City funds, and there have been minimal corrections made on second round of inspections, and second round of inspec-tions is going to con-tinue. He stated when this is done, federal auditors will come in and audit books, they will make the final deter-mina-tion about whether did double dip or use CDBG funds to cover these costs, cost in-volved there and legiti-mate way to cover. Ms. Bata stated the local contrac-tors were deputized as mechanical inspec-tors for the City, did perform inspections and performed valuable service for the citizens and City, do have a right to be compen-sated for those services, whether through the $15.00 inspection fee being waived and again the City does have the right to make a determi-nation that another inspection is necessary but again also has an obligation to determine appropriate funding for a second inspec-tion.

Moved by Lucke and Hafner to deny request to waive fees for mechanical permits.

Bill Hastings, 911 19th Avenue South, that they checked their own and it was time-saving for them, that every job is inspected twice before they call City inspector. Hafner stated that two weeks ago he supported compromise because of way handled was somewhat culpable because of misunderstanding about whether or not the deputizing meant what was going to happen with the fee, seemed unclear, but now heard both sides. Mr. Hastings stated that at the meeting they did say were going to have permit fees, wrote down on paper to collect permits or permit fees; and there was no discussion re compensation for doing own inspections, doesn't line item inspection fees, just total dollar job.

Ms. Bata stated all they have is notation from that meeting indicating that all city of Grand Forks master mechanical in-stallers licensed before April 28, 1997 were deputized by Tim Manz as deputy mechanical inspectors, this will allow them or their approved representative to inspect all heating, ventila-tion, air-conditioning, refrigeration, gas-piping installations and to unlock gas meters, a tool to unlock meters will be provid-MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
June 8, 1998 - Page 5

ed by the City and affidavit will also be supplied to all mechan-ical contractors to be signed for each installation completed. She stated that it must mean something to be deputized mechanical inspector and if doing inspection as deputized mechanical inspec-tor must be asked to do something more than or beyond scope of services normally provide, and these people did that. She stated that D & D testified they dealt with issue by having one person assigned to follow everybody else around and do inspections, and salary for that individual was $14-15,000 and that's cost of doing business and cost they wouldn't have had if not had privi-lege of being deputized as mechanical inspectors for the city of Grand Forks. Hafner stated that there was no discussion for compensating contractors for doing that, so no discussion about waiving fees and no discussion about compensating contrac-tor for doing service.

Mr. Vein stated what's more difficult is the fact that a very valuable service was performed by the contractors themselves in doing inspections to get people back up and operating in some semblance of normalcy as possible. He stated that he understood mechanical board interpretation of the meeting and follow-up was that they were going to be paying inspection fees, and that Board represented by mech. contractors with the City, and that's one thing that swayed his decision in trying to make a recommenda-tion.

Klave stated they did a service that was needed and City couldn't have handled the calls per day for inspections, granted they waived the electrical inspections, lowered the general permit fee cost, but was service the City did need.

Jeff Wilson stated this is not a matter of greed and/or dollar signs, but simply a matter of providing a service for the City and being reimbursed for that service and/or having those fees waived, and not a comfortable situation for him.

Upon call for the question, the motion carried; Klave voted no.

3. Consideration of bids for total organic analyzer for water treatment plant.
Todd Feland reported 3 bids received and low bid distributed was not included in those prices from Shimadzu Company who bid $24,960.80 and wasn't found until later and difference is that this is a demonstration model, same model and make and same warranty; and his recommendation is to accept low bid at $22,941.30. Mr. Vein asked if this was used piece of equipment and not new. Mr. Feland reported that this equipment used as a demonstration model. Mr. Vein stated that unless everyone could bid a used piece of equipment, and if took that option, opening up that they could have had used equipment also, and recommended going with the higher bid. Klave stated that this was demo over

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
June 8, 1998 - Page 6

new equip-ment, $2,000 on $24,000 pc. of equipment. Mr. Feland stated existing equipment purchased in July, 1989 or about 9 years. Moved by Hafner and Lucke to accept bid of Shimadzu Company in the amount of $24,960.80. Motion carried.

4. Request to bid traffic paint.
Mr. Feland asked for authorization to write specs. for annual paint in sign marking area of the department. Moved by Hafner and Lucke to authorize call for bids for traffic paint. Motion carried. (comm. only)

5. Matter of property at 404 South 3rd Street.
Mr. Vein reported that there was mixup on this property between Urban Dev. and their office and it's not his understand-ing that this qualifies for any acquisition programs, it's not in the alignment for the dike as know it at this time, nor emergency levee systems that would be put up around plant, and since on the west side of S. 3rd St., only be in one of the buyout programs, and downtown area doesn't go this far south, and need to hold for two weeks, will research and bring back. He will notify property owner if there's program that this would fall under. Mr. Manz reported that reason property owner expressed interest in getting it purchased by the City, that he came to office for building permit and with 90% damage, only option was potential buyout from the City, that he talked with Urban Devel-opment and City Attorney's Office to see if get in acquisition program and property does fall outside central business dist. and not in the dike path. Hafner stated that when brought to Flood Response Comm. any reason to buy it was so could be used for dike around the water treatment plant or other purpose needed for water treatment plant - no program for it. It was noted that building has been unoccupied since the flood and now has renter for it. Hafner stated that commercial property handled differ-ently than residential, but unless City has need for it -- Mr. Vein stated that hoped would fall under other categories, that needed it for the water treatment plant but rationale for pur-chasing it; that there is a study that's going to be continued now and look at future alternatives for the water treatment plant as it would expand or put new sludge plant, whatever is going to be needed for 4 to 6 weeks, and may want to acquire it, that this is building where no program, and no way to fix up because of amount of damage and no program to buy out, and City get it if they don't pay taxes.

The property owner stated he talked to Joel Manske, who stated to get appraisal because in a buyout, which he did and then wait for 6-8 weeks, etc. and would like to know what's going on; that he has renter who wants to rent the building, but can't get permit to fix it up, has to do something. Mr. Vein stated this property will be protected eventually, but number of years. Mr. Manz stated they might be able to rely on contractor's estimAtes to

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
June 8, 1998 - Page 7

getting back to pre-flood value, and with appraised value, might be able to get under 50%. He stated it's low cost building, and will work with property owner. Mr. Vein stated they don't want to get rid of buildings. Committee asked Mr. Manz to work with the p-roperty owner.

6. Matter RFP for A/E (architectural/eng) services for public works facility - renovation and alteration, Proj. 4822. (matter of water distribution and wastewater/stormwater division relocation to the public works facility.
Chuck Grotte, asst. dir./public works, stated he was here two weeks ago and requested permission to advertise for architect to design project at the public works facility that would relocate the wastewater, stormwater department and water distribution department to that facility, approved by this committee, but had been planning for several years, but brought up as ques-tion of who was going to occupy the space. He stated he sent out letter last week as to how long been researching this and goes as far back as 1992, working that those two shops would move into that facility at some future date and when space built for donated goods use of that was one of the things they addressed in every meeting, that once donated goods were gone then begin the moving process, and asked whether they were going to be moving or not. He stated that another issue that came up was cost of the project envi-sioned and breakout was included in his memo. He stated that one of the responsibilities that goes with owning building like that is that there's upkeep that's needed, one major item is replace-ment of the roof (when purchased facility in 1993, the consultant identi-fied some minor problems with the roof and at the time was 15 years old), since then deteriorated and in worse condition and items that need to be done are listed on last page of his memo, relocation expenses to the facility and total costs. He stated funding hasn't been addressed and will be coming back with further information, and is asking whether they are moving or not, and if so, set up timeframes for that and proceed. He stated that it's not costing $1 million to move these two shops to that facility, costing $325,000 and other $699,000 is for im-provements.

Klave stated that after building finished with storage it was intention to do consolidation, and should be looking at consoli-dation. Hafner agreed and accelerated the building of that addition based on fact needed for volunteer goods and don't know when bring whole construction thing to council, built and should be using it. He stated he didn't remember the roof issue and remodeling issue, but Mr. Bakken had stated they did discuss this. He stated that there had been question in Flood Response whether using block grant funds, and probably reimbursed out of rates and should use block grant funds. Mr. Vein stated that back in 1980's or 90's when did study for consolidated works facility, the recommendation was to build new building on site

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
June 8, 1998 - Page 8

large enough for expansion capabilities for other entities including wastewater/stormwater and water maint.; that city purchased building from Coca Cola building did go through inspec-tion and knew some problems, and there would be cost savings once got all public works departments there because of ability to share equipment, tools, central maint. facility, etc. He stated there was question should CDBG funds be used for this as would use for volunteer goods, and then turn over to ourselves, and make best use of those funds. He stated that they were aware that new levy alignment would go through wastewater yard and would take out that public structure (storage, offices, etc.) He stated that improvements to the building will have to take place regardless of whether or not any other department moves in. Mr. Grotte stated that the donated goods people are still using some of the space so their intention was to move water distribution first because of other needs at water plant, and have couple years to move wastewater before dislocated. Mr. Vein stated even if have couple years, better for operation, etc. to move now once build-ing becomes available, and move is necessitated by levee align-ment that goes through or is affecting these departments, and could they come back and use CDBG financing for water and waste-water or get through rate structure. Klave stated that item on the agenda is RFP for architectural/engineering services only at this time and would like to know projection of when actually moving. He asked if roof would make it through until next year or need to address it now, etc. Mr. Grotte stated that part of the intention was to have work done on those types of issues and part doing some planning and didn't anticipate this would happen in a year, would see water distribution moving next year because when finalized and get plan, would be next year before taking bids. Mr. Vein asked for concurrence from committee and council with their recommendation to make the move and authorization to proceed with the RFP. Mr. Vein stated this is establishing budget to work and some preliminary studies upfront versus the act-ual design work that would go through and set up with contin-gen-cies which goes beyond that. Mr. Grotte reported that in 1996 he had talked to Greenberg Roofing re. leaky roof, then with flood things set aside. Mr. Vein stated it should be noted that they are looking at moving of the water maintenance as soon as can.

Committee suggested sending last motion back to council, and asked that memo be sent out to council members re. est. costs.

7. Matter of amendments to engineering services agreements for various projects:
a) Amend. No. 2 (construction adm.) CPS, Proj. 4713, Dist.
392, storm sewer on N. 55th Street.
Mark Lambrecht, CPS, reported that at last meeting considered and this was awarded to Duckstad Contracting and staff has asked that they provide construction administration, staking and

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
June 8, 1998 - Page 9

construction obstruction and this amendment adds that to their services, est. cost is $36,510, with hourly rates to be same as those proposed in original agreement around first of the year; City staff has reviewed agreement and concurs, and would like approval of the amendment. Moved by Hafner and Lucke to approve amendment to the agreement in an amount not to exceed $36,510.00. Motion carried.

b) Amend. No. 1 (design eng.) AE, proj. 4804, downtown water-
main replacement.
Steve Burian, Advanced Engineering, reported the City autho-rized proceeding with the project for late summer/fall construc-tion and was an improvement of a downtown area, area con-sists of 4th Street from Franklin Avenue to Univer-sity, as well as short stretch on Franklin Avenue; all work was done with original agreement to Advanced Engineering where had prelim. eng. services for the entire downtown area, and Amendment No. 1 is for the design and bidding phases of the 4th Street area, overall est. for the construction is total project cost of $1,940,168, and amendment for design and const. services with hourly rate not to exceed $79,056.00, and continuing with hourly rates in the original agreement. He noted that overall project looked at mill and overlay area for entire downtown, and this is a single corridor from water plant up 4th Street to University Avenue (original project $5 million). Mr. Vein reported that this is absolute minimum that needs to be done downtown, and may want to look at that with CDBG funding not being used for acquisi-tion of properties for cost share for the Corps project, may start select-ing other projects and use CDBG funding for those projects, and then take money that would have been used for those projects and use as funding for acquisition of property. He stated they have to be careful downtown, have put lot of money and investment into downtown already and scares him that not doing the watermain replacement in its entirety, and concerned about timeliness of delaying watermain replacement if do street rehab downtown. He stated that the CDBG money has to be under contract by June of next year, and these are major projects and can't wait and hope to get under contract; part of this will get into future discus-sion on cost matrix that will be ready this week.

Moved by Hafner and Lucke approve amendment to the agreement in an amount not to exceed $79,056.00.

Mr. Grasser reported that what driver here is not by engineering but by budget decision, terminating of watermain on University Avenue isn't engineering wise best place to terminate project, rather than go through and work out, time against them about how much work could do this year so settled on the $2 million project because about all get in this year, but will be bring back to committee for further consideration this winter and may come up with cost matrix discussions, and need to be doing more work.

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
June 8, 1998 - Page 10

Upon call for the question, the motion carried.

8. Matter of creating special assessment districts, various projects: a) Proj. 4498, Dist. 555, paving 6th Ave.N. (53rd to 55th St.)
Jon Large, project engineer, reported est. cost $101,000. Moved by Hafner and Lucke 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. 4795, Dist. 556, paving N. 53rd St. and 12th Ave.N.
Mr. Large reported est. cost $246,500. Mr. Grasser reported this is expensive project because soils so poor and use rock and fabric otherwise too soft. He reported that portion of project not being special assessed, Urban Development paying those bills and incorporate into home sales, and when get in peripher-ies when not attributable to existing homes, asked that those be special assessed because costs go against other entities. Mo-ved by Hafner/Lucke **(same motion as above). Motion car-ried.

c) Proj. 4801, Dist. 557, paving Mighty Acres 2nd Addn.
Mr. Large reported est. cost $237,000. Moved by Hafner/Lucke **(same motion as above). Motion carried.

d) Proj. 4823, Dist. 558, paving N. 6th St. (Fenton to Conklin Ave.)
Mr. Large reported project started by petition on N. 6th
Stree-t, one block, est. at $65,000. Moved by Lucke/Hafner **(same motion as above). Motion carried.

e) Proj. 4768, Dist. 398, storm pump station 84 upgrade.
Tom hanson, WFW, reported this is addition to pump station at N. 55th St. and 6th Avenue N. and only put in pumps which needed because area not growing that quickly, now need for second unit which will serve 55th Street and provision for two addition-al pumps to serve all the way to N. 62nd Street. (water goes north by Bergly Toyota to outfall structure on north side of Gateway Drive and into Coulee diversion. Mr. Grasser reported that they want to incorporate CDBG provisions so that in event come back and look for projects to wrap up funding on, this would be approved. Moved by Hafner/Lucke ***(same motion as above)and to be bid under CDBG provisions. Motion carried.

9. Matter of revised eng. report for Proj. 4463, Dist. 387, storm sewer on S. 42nd St. (DeMers to 17th Ave.S.)
Mr. Lambrecht and Al Petrich, CPS, presented report. Mr. Lambrecht reported that in February they presented a report on

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
June 8, 1998 - Page 11

this project but project had some complexities that they contin-ued to work on and bringing back to update committee; this is project for the storm sewer that serves the Aurora and corridor of land along 42nd from DeMers to 17th Ave., and storm drainage had its outlet into Ray Richard's Golf Course so lot of coordina-tion with University and extensive work on the golf course; and on the other end of storm drainage system, some water went into ditch along 17th and that crossed major wastewater forcemain and Mr. Hanson helped evaluate the potential for crossing that and continued to optimize design, that on first report est. cost $1.1 million and on previous report $1.3 million and optimized the design with engineering staff. He stated timetable is current vs. previous timetable and will work with staff to see if bid earlier, and reviewed assessment boundaries, boundary has not changed and doesn't require re-publishing. He stated that work has changed slightly and rather than entirely through Ray Richard's only small amount of improvement within golf course, and now can proceed with bidding project. He also noted that the Williams Bros. pipeline goes through golf course as well and ran into necessity of also lowering that at same time; and do not disturb golf course nor pipeline as much. Mr. Grasser reported that Wm. Bros. pipeline was difficulty in timing and additional cost, they went back and reevaluated options, and what looking for today is to receive and file the report as revised document.

Moved by Hafner/Lucke to receive and file. Motion carried.

10. Plans and specifications for various projects:
a) Proj. 4463, Dist. 387, storm sewer on S. 42nd St. (DeMers to 17th Ave.S.)
Mr. Petrich reviewed plans and specs. and that they have agreements with DOT to have overflow pipes going into ditch along Interstate as another precaution. Moved by Hafner and Lucke to 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.

b) Proj. 4522, Dist. 554, paving Cherry St. (47th Ave.S. to
Southend Drainway.
Moved by Hafner/Lucke to ***(same motion as above). Motion carried.

c) Proj. 4825, Dist. 559, paving 47th Ave.S. (Cherry St. to
Wash. St.)
Mr. Grasser reported this is overlay project to address dust concerns that were brought up by residents. He stated that first recommendation by staff which is correct recommendation from engineering standpoint, is to go in and excavate material, put in rock and fabric, etc., problem was that special assessments got very high and generated to point if put that kind of money better off to put in permanent road section, but can't put that road

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
June 8, 1998 - Page 12

section in yet because don't have all the R/W's. He stated that this is 8" of asphalt but is a temp. section with 5-year life, and wanted to make committee aware that isn't meant to be long term project, and coincides with the paving east of Cherry Street, which has been in for approx. 5 years and seen better part of its life, so entire section will tend to be ready for replacement at about same time. Mr. Grasser reported CDBG funding proposed for now and about $150,000 and roughing out specials to property owners which might run in neighborhood of $700; and that special assess-ments not exceed 5 years. Moved by Hafner/Lucke to*** (same motion) with special assessments not to exceed five years. Motion carried.

d) Proj. 4661, Dist. 391, sanitary sewer on S. 34th St. (32nd
Ave.S. to Lift Station #38)
Mr. Hanson stated this serves area south of C'Mon Inn and gravity sewer from 32nd to areas already developed, runs from 25-28 ft. deep and also picks up areas on 40th Ave.S., 36th Ave.S., etc. Moved by Hafner/Lucke to ***(same motion as above). Motion carried.

e) Proj. 4752 and Proj. 4753, rehabilitate sanitary lift stations #9 and #11.
Mr. Hanson reported that Station 9 on Alpha Avenue near Red Dot Place, #11 by Acme Electric, and these two stations budgeted and planned for some time and brings up to current standards. Moved by Hafner and Lucke to approve plans and specifications, and authorize call for bids. Motion carried.

11. Consideration of construction bids for various projects: a) Proj. 4729, 1998 forcemain rehabilitation
Mr. Hanson received bids, Schipper Construction, Inc. low bidder in amount of $161,600, and this is work haven't seen contractor do before and will coach them through, would recommend approval. It was noted that Molstad low on phase A but bid docu-ments not set up that way; doubles admin. costs. Klave asked that project be watched as haven't seen contrctor do this work, and Mr. Hanson agreed. Moved by Lucke/ Hafner to accept the low bid of Schipper Construction, Inc. in the amount of $161,600.00. Motion carried.

b) Proj. 4654.466 priority sinkhole repair
Mr. Large reported project opened today, lowest bid submitted by Robert Gibb & Sons, Inc. in the amount of $131,390. Mr. Grasser reported they had taken bids on one project where didn't bid under CDBG requirements and now taking same contract and bidding under CDBG requirements so that CDBG will assist in paying for whatever FEMA doesn't - continuation of emergency sinkhole repair, and as find them continue to fix them. Moved by Lucke/Hafner to accept the low bid of Robert Gibb & Sons, Inc. in the amount of $131,390. Motion carried.

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
June 8, 1998 - Page 13

12. Matter of change orders for various projects:
a) Proj. 4557, paving Rivers Edge (watermain replacement on 49th Ave.s.), Change Order No. 1
Mr. Grasser reported that this is one of the areas City inherited, section developed and had rural water and anticipated was going to be okay but found out line wasn't uniformly located and line ended up being under curb and shallower than first indications were - 4 ft. of cover and severe risk of freezing. He stated that as pipe didn't meet City specs. for waterpipe because of material and location, replaced pipe under watermain replacement through project because under project rather than bidding as separate project - would put at proper depth, proper location and use City specified materials and abandon existing rural waterline; funding out of watermain replacement budget. Moved by Lucke and Hafner to approve change order in the amount of $47,035.00. Motion carried.

b) Proj. 4703, Water Treatment Plant flood protection, C.O. #1
Lisa Johnson, CPS, presented C.O. #1, second order water treatment plant flood protection plan, Phase I, in the amount of $3,000; that some alterations needed to be done in the field to enhance integrity of flood protection (field manhole lids as existing lids couldn't handle uplift pressures due to water pressures, etc. and in order to avoid erosion, seal up manhole lids, etc.), and are still under budget. Moved by Hafner/Lucke to approve change order in the amount of $3,000. Motion carried.

c) Proj. 4756, paving Belmont Road, C.O. #1
Mr. Grasser reported this is change order to put in a field laboratory, required by DOT, cost participating item in the amount of $2,850.00. Moved by Hafner and Lucke to approve change order in the amount of $2,850.00. Motion carried.

d) Proj. 4654, Lift Station Restoration, C.O. #6.
Mr. Hanson reported that this takes care of all minor adds and deducts in 17 or 18 stations worked in - every station damaged by flood, with exception of one which will be brought in later, that they have kept track of items and the contrac-tor has coming. Moved by Hafner/Lucke to approve change order in the amount of $13,682.00. Motion carried.

13. Matter of special public service committee meeting 6-15-98 for award of Proj. 4793, storm sewer on N. 53rd St. (6th-10th Aves.N.) Committee scheduled a meeting for Monday, June 15 at 7:15 p.m.

Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Alice Fontaine
City Clerk
Dated: 6/09/98