City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us


	MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE Monday, November 30, 1998 - 7:00 p.m. Members present: Hafner, Klave, Lucke. 1. Matter of request for encroachment agreement for installation of freestanding business sign at 4720 Gateway Drive. Al Grasser, asst. city engineer, reported that Arch Simonson would like more time to negotiate and asked that this matter be held. Held in committee. 2. Matter of partial release of easement, encroachment agreement for stoop, and agreement to relocate waterline. (Acme Elec) Ray LeClerc, Platting Officer, reported that previously Acme Electric had asked for encroachment agreement and received permis-sion for their entryway into their new building addition to encroach into right of way, they started construction and had an approved site plan, etc. and then realized that their existing building wasn't where they thought it was, it was larger than thought it was and determined that the whole front of their addition is over the right of way, over and above entryway and canopy, and they are requesting that they vacate 8 ft. of the right of way and extend the encroachment beyond that to include the entryway and canopy. He stated that there's a waterline that would need to be relocated and it appears to him that the existing sanitary sewerline coming from the north is where they propose to relocate waterline, would probably be on top of that sewerline and were going to do some research as to necessity of the sewer and that there's never been a property survey done so doesn't really know where things are out there. Mr. LeClerc stated that where the street is or right of way for the street and the lots to the east were all owned by the City at one time and about 10 years ago sold the property to Acme and sold the street right of way. He stated that Acme came in and requested to vacate or do away the street and had public hearing at Planning and Zoning but neighbors wanted to keep that street open and Acme agreed to do that and gave City an easement for the street right of way. He stated that City has dedicated right of way document for that (60 ft.) and problem is that whole front of their addition or 8 ft. of it protrudes into the 60 ft. of R/W. He stated the document identifies it as a dedicated right of way. Mr. Vein stated as a right of way there's a setback requirement where don't have that with easement, and if allow this to happen should correct all that. Mr. LeClerc stated that whoever did plan review should have considered that as an easement rather that dedicated right of way, and if an easement could build right up to the easement line. Mr. Vein suggested that they get a survey of the property so get accurate, and perhaps switch from a right of way to an easement and get accurate location of building under construction, that he doesn't see problem with allowing this to happen although it may incorporate a reroute of the waterline and that would be at the property owner's expense. He stated that by making some of those things happen could allow this to go through but easier if had more accurate information, and suggested holding in committee for property survey and finalize in MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE November 30, 1998 - Page 2 one meeting. A rep. of Acme Electric stated they are under construction now and asked if this would be holdup on construction; Mr. Vein stated he was not recommending holdup on construction. Held in committee for 2 weeks. 4. Consideration of bids for 1999 water treatment chemicals. Hazel Fetters-Sletten asked that this matter be held until she can complete evaluation (run analysis on test samples), and she will place on agenda when ready for consideration. 5. Information regarding consumer confidence report (CCR) regulation. Mrs. Sletten reported that copies were included in the packet for the CCR report and is a regular requirement for the water system, that this is draft report where doing it in-house and wanted committee to see it and if have any comments to get back to them. She stated that they have several options and if go with color picture the printing costs are substantial and if go with blue and black like we have in brochure than cuts printing costs, and asked for comments and input on the artwork/color on the content of the report. She stated they are required to publish this and deliver it to every household including apartment dwellers and have to have report completed by April 1 and sent to the Air Force Base so they can do their own distribution on Base and will be bringing here for final approval and running through Mr. Swanson's office. She also noted that if go with the tri-fold won't need envelopes. She stated that postal patron comes out to 20,000 copies. She stated this was information and would appreciate input they would like to give. Information. 6. Communication from USDI providing an estimate of cost for installation and operation of two gauging stations for the purpose of flood warning for the city. Mr. Vein reported there was letter in the packet from the Geological Survey giving cost information for adding two new gauge stations, one on Red Lake River at Fischer and other on Red River near Thompson, that these would be additional gauges to what have at this time and felt they would like to have better information during extreme flooding situations to do better job of trying to determine and project when some of these crests would actually be here, and watch as they move downstream. He stated that the letter goes into some of the detail and would be cost sharing construction with Geological Survey, each initial installation $4500 and they are showing City paying O & M costs on each one of those, however, there's some possibility of doing cost share on the gauge on Red Lake River on an annual basis, and they would like to get concurrence to approve entering into an agreement with Geological Survey, capital cost $9,000 and then fund on-going O & M and negotiate those costs for 1999 year esp. if want to share with Red Lake Watershed District to see what do for final cost share but approve or adopt installation of these two gauge stations. Hafner MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE November 30, 1998 - Page 3 asked if East Grand Forks would be interested in sharing costs; Mr. Vein stated very likely and what he would like to do now because it's as late as it is in the year to get installed, they typically want to do before ice is on the river and get authorization to proceed with it and then negotiate with EGF. Committee asked about funding and Mr. Vein stated all CDBG funds have been allocated but there is about $1.1-2 million shown as infrastructure that's not specific and that would be one place where they might look to take funding. Committee asked what they do for O & M (Operation and Maintenance) every year; Mr. Vein stated there's telephone line, electrical costs, heating in winter, etc. and the letter stated that the annual operating and maintenance costs for a standard stage gauge with high water rating is $5,000. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve installation of the two gauging stations, to negotiate with City of East Grand Forks, and allocate use of CDBG funds. Motion carried. 7. Matter of staffing for new wastewater treatment plant. Mike Shea stated they are looking for direction whether they would like to proceed to evaluate this option and would need to advertise for qualifications for a consultant who's familiar with this process from taking us from where we are today to the point where can negotiate a contract with some vendor willing to provide the services; he stated they project the plant to be open in November of the year 2000, that this process is fairly lengthy and would like to start as soon as they can so that should it be determined we can't go ahead with this, would have time to hire our own employees. Mr. Vein stated they are starting a whole new utility and normally already have people in these positions and now going into wastewater treatment and idea is should the City take this on as an additional sub-department or look at privatizing this type of service, that if privatize we need assistance from somebody that's been through this before and has expertise in how go about selecting requirements of that firm and whether should even go in that direction. Hafner asked how long to determine; Mr. Shea stated it depends on how difficult a process it is, hopefully, take less than a year. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve the request to prepare a request for qualifications to select consultant to evaluate the cost effectiveness of privatizing, creating a proposal, selecting a vendor and negotiating a contract in a competitive environment. Motion carried. 8. Matter of water treatment plant site selection process approval. Steve Burian, A/E, reported that some of the members had been at the meeting where talked about water system in immediate short and long term planning, about some of the items that need to be addressed in moving forward, i.e., site selection process. He MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE November 30, 1998 - Page 4 stated there was included in the packet a suggested full matrix in draft form using different considerations, evaluation of sites (existing site, Purpur site and Industrial Park site or other site). He stated they would create a committee of 3 to 5 people to go through this in more detail to assess the process. Klave stated that if existing site were chosen how much of existing facilities could be used or would have to be replaced. Mr. Burian stated that the assumptions they would be able to use the pre-treatment building but not treatment equipment inside so for another 20-30 year planning period would be able to use concrete and mortar and brick but not particular equipment inside. He stated that in their study they assume they would continue to use the softening basins and expand those processes and demolish filtration on the backend of the plant and redo and major reconstruction would be filters, and after some further analysis is something they would do in more detail upon that site being selected; there was some discussion re. demolishing softening and recarb and salvaging pre-treatment and filters and trying to make that work because pre-treatment was built high enough that there's quite a bit of water elevation or head in between the processes. Klave asked if they were seeing any shifting in the block/brick on main buildings, and that he has concern that if they have ground shifting, doesn't want to see doing a major project in an area that's going to have problems in the future. Mr. Bureau stated that the City has hired a structural engineer to do some analysis and they are seeing some cracks, are those cracks indicative of global slip plain on all sides of the river, doesn't think that's their conclusion, that the cracks are happening longitudinally and sometimes latitudinally and haven't seen where clear global line where everything's sliding towards the river but are seeing some soil instability which raises concerns. He stated that one thing committee might do is decide from criteria, how many comfortable with or not and if elected to decrease number, that list is pretty comprehensive and could pare it down. Charles Grotte, asst. dir. of public works, stated that this might be process lent more towards staff and consultant rather than having someone from the committee on it, as quite technical. Lucke stated that lot of that work is 11 mo. old re. cost finding, and asked if on the Purpur site, are they aware that currently constructing another $1-2 million arena on there, and did they take that into account. Mr. Burian stated he saw a drilling rig out there one day and they have conceptually laid that out. Mr. Vein asked if they knew when construction starting out there - in the spring, and what they may have t do and play into the criteria to cover that and would be more reason to get the selection process going and completed so wouldn't run into that and would be significant dollar amount. He stated they wouldn't want to be in a position like that - and may have to work with them on another site or whatever would happen to change their plans considerably but would hope could work that through and proceed with construction. MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE November 30, 1998 - Page 5 Hafner asked where do they evaluate the social economic type impact of leaving the plant where it is or go to the Purpur site as opposed to going out into the Industrial Park. Mr. Burian stated that would be under item B.4 minimization of residential and public demolition, and 6. is maintenance of public safety during construction where no public safety during greenfield site where quite a few people and no safety considerations once get it built and E. minimization of public health concerns where no people adjacent to it. Hafner stated that with what we've seen in last year it's been big deal for people potentially being uprooted. Mr. Vein stated that with many things, those being very technical in basis would be nice for staff but would certainly like to have acceptance from the committee as go forward and even though talked about keeping it on a technical basis, it's not possible to do in its entirety and if someone from committee would like to be a part of that, would welcome that to be otherwise staff would take that on as a staff and have to justify their rationale for that. Hafner stated that it might be wise to get some advise from those kinds of effects on neighborhoods. Mr. Vein stated if they could get concurrence with selection criteria between now and council or even afterwards if someone on the committee or had a recommendation of somebody who could be a part of it and would accept that as part of the process. Moved by Klave and Lucke to accept the process for approval. Motion carried. 9. Matter of preliminary submittal raw water intake and trans- mission lines replacement, City Proj. 4769. Mr. Burian reported they have authorized both the preliminary engineering agreement as well as the agreement for final design, bidding and construction phase engineering services, part of the preliminary engineering scope was to prepare what is a 30% design submittal where they look at problems and different alternatives to address and come up with conceptual scope for the project, and was here briefly to present to committee. He presented outline with 7 different items and supporting documentation which provides additional information. Mr. Burian reviewed project update: I. Introduction to existing intake system He stated the Almonte intake is around bend off Belmont, have new Red River intake which is on the east side structure, and have Red Lake River intake; there are either pipelines or screens that go from intake out into the water source and at grade so come in low and enter pumphouse at low gravity elevation from the bottom of the river and within each of the pumphouses, have pumping systems and pumps lift the water through the different transition mains and each of transition mains is shown on (attached) map until get to a common loop around the water treatment plant where come together MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE November 30, 1998 - Page 6 and there's 24" pipe where goes into pretreatment part of the process to begin treatment. He stated that two are on the east side and get pumped across the river and Almonte stays on ND side; all three are next to the river. He stated that in looking at challenges of system and Red Lake River Intake was built in 1930; Almonte Intake, lower pumphouse built in 1938 and upper or control house built in 1994, and transmission mains were built when original intake were constructed; and new Red River Intake was constructed in 1968; and can see that aging infrastructure speaks for itself and have seen problems with both structure and pipeline deficiencies associated with that. The capacity of the intakes was somewhat limited by the pumps in the intake than the plant itself, was 16.5 mgd and when Mrs. Fletten tried to come up with the strategic combination of pumps this year she was limited more by the intake capacity than by the treatment plant capacity. II C. Flood prone: each of the intakes is susceptible to flooding even in big rains during summer and lose access to those where either use boat or wait until river height goes down. The Almonte Intake was inundated, Red Lake River Intake inundated and then the new Red River, although not completely inundated, because on the MN side lost access and power. He stated when look at location next to river, Item D all are on the unprotected side of the levee, and they have established a value for local match which becomes complicated at about $13.6 mil. of eligible money for the project as a local match for the levee project. He stated the City has a transfer pumping station near the Point Bridge but that's intended to transfer finished water back and forth between the two communities but none of the intakes are shared, EGS solely relies on the Red Lake River intake and their intake is downstream of ours. He stated that recognizing all of those challenges and the fact that this project is actually identified in previous master planning efforts, the City did authorize the study and report phase services on May 18, 1998 as well as some limited preliminary engineering which is the outcome of tonight's initial presentation; that in looking at project in some of the bidding windows, etc. the City also elected final design and bidding construction and post construction phases of engineering and that was November 2, 1998, and while doing engineering also doing some of the preliminary starting of the final design to make sure that they don't miss some of those critical windows. He stated that in looking at the 30% design submittal their update talks about some of the assumptions that were used in putting the estimate together (has to do with capacity, where locate intakes so draw from both rivers independently for both emergency and blending considerations, how design different pipeline systems, looking at redundancy, chemical feed provisions, and whole host of technical issues. Mr. Burian stated in looking at basic components, have river MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE November 30, 1998 - Page 7 inlets, transition lines laid deep from river bottom to the inland pumphouse so can flow from gravity from the river to the pumphouse, and pumps will provide the head necessary to pump water through a transmission line to the water treatment plant. He stated that in looking at alternatives they came up with single and double pumphouse combination: Alt. #1 combined pumphouse located somewhere south and west of the water treatment plant, or Alt #2 construct two individual inland pumphouses, one in ND and one in MN, and reason for looking at two sites as there was some discussion by former supt., Dan Boyce, that he remembers some backflow effects from the river and expressed concern that might not want to have this intake too far downstream or two close to the forks, and in discussing with Mrs. Sletten and staff, it appears that this might still be a very acceptable location which cuts down a lot on the pipeline distance. He stated that one of their assumptions in addition to be on the protective side of the levee because it gives both access during the flood event, as well as could run into permit issues in MN and possibly some MN control issues. he stated that the other alternative they looked at was continuing with this pipeline option with new building to pull water out of Red Lake River and having another pumphouse in MN on the protected side of the levee, and coming back and bringing it straight to the treatment plant. He stated they haven't done a detailed cost takeoff on this but looked at cost for different factors and it is their recommendation that the preferred alternative is the combined pumphouse alternative as look at different cost of components. Mr. Burian stated they have a permitted point of diversion at the Almonte Intake and at the Red Lake Intake but the 1968 is ghost one and that's what spurred idea, they have ability of pulling 33600/gpm out of an intake that is only sized for 3000/gpm; and have applied for a permit to amend point of diversion and seek an amended permit. Mr. Burian stated that as far back as the clearwell project they were looking at during the 1992, were tasked with finding an acceptable site for a clearwell adj. to the water plant, and given distance, cost, feasibility, etc., input from Bureau of Reclamation on historical considerations, the two preferred sites were the ones south of the plant and the one where the old post office is, and when look at piping water from the clearwells there was over $1 million difference and Bureau felt there were historical ramifications in destroying this block and could not justify spending another $1 million of federal money and gave us a finding of no significant impact and this was site for the clearwell so knew quite a bit about the homes (pink on Register, green eligible for the Register, shading granitoid on map), and concept plan presented today knew the dike eliminated certain areas south and west of the plant and in doing that looked at broadened area and came up with same considerations. Mr. Vein stated that when design MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE November 30, 1998 - Page 8 structure could design it so would fit into the neighborhood. Mr. Burian stated that Keith Porter, Architects, Environmental Consultants, and tasked him to look at existing area, look at architecture that is characteristic of that era and come up with rough conceptual designs what may look like, and showed drawings of buildings in those designs as to what pumphouse may look like, would be designed on the protected side of the levee, on top of dike plus freeboard and flood-proofed elevation with built in safety factors - building 80x60' concept. Mr. Burian stated that Item V. Most recent opinion of total probable project cost - $14.5 Million, and when revised will be brought to committee. Mr. Burian stated that Item VI. Next Steps is that they have a public information meeting planned for Thursday, December 17 at 7:00 and will present some of the background, will have letters going out tomorrow or next day for 400 ft. radius from proposed site, letters going out where properties may be affected, and he will be giving presentation to the public. He stated they did approve hiring of geotechnical sub-consultant that would act as an engineer and proposals due in the immediate future and once evaluated will bring for committee's approval. He stated that the facility plan/prelim. engineering are next things will see on a technical level and scheduled for the spring of 1999, and do have scope developed for the rest of the project; pipeline construction taking place in 1999/2000 construction season, building itself in year 2000-01 construction season, and don't envision start-up even at this preliminary schedule happening until the year 2001, given size of the project. Wayne Gerszewski is project engineer on the project is concerned about timing and pipeline and if miss some of the construction windows, there's possibility this could lag a year. He stated only action would be to receive and file as for information only. Moved by Klave and Lucke to receive and file. Motion carried. 10. Matter of approval of specifications and authorization to call for bids on plow truck for street department. Todd Feland, public works, reported that he distributed copies of specs. at last committee meeting; that this is in the 1999 CIP for the street department, budgeted at $150,000 out of Hwy. Users Fund. Gary Fish, supt. of streets, reported there wouldn't be a trade in on this equipment. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve specs. and authorize call for bids. Motion carried. (comm. only) 11. Matter of utility rate increases for 1989. Mr. Grotte reviewed utility rate increases for stormwater, wastewater and water; and that they are not looking for an increase in sanitation rates this year because of the side-load implementa- MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE November 30, 1998 - Page 9 tion and overall costs should decrease. He distributed copies of cash balance of 3 utility accounts; that at end of 1997 had approx. $3 mil in both water and wastewater and about $600,000 in stormwater and all have increases substantially due to the fact that the last two years haven't done any new projects because of flood recovery, so cash balances increased substantially. He stated that there are substantial costs coming up in water utility, and are under construction on wastewater treatment facility which is a $20 million venture, and will be spending cash balance down. He stated that the rates they are proposing tonight were established back in December of 1996 where did 6-year utility rate study where looked at capital improvement plan, increases for inflation, etc. and where thought would be for each of the next six years, plan lasted for four months with flood hitting things changed drastically, that last year they did implement the rates that were suggested in the plant, and have again suggested that lacking any other real analysis basically stayed with increases projected in 1996 and are same increases as passed with the budget and this is formality to actually implement those rates starting the first of January. Moved by Lucke and Klave to approve increase in rates as follows: Stormwater: revise Code Sections 15-0117.1(2) and 15-0117.1(4) to reflect an increase of 8% in service charges and sewer runoff unit fee; Wastewater: revise City Code Sections 15-0301 and 15-0304(2)(F) to reflect increases of 5% in basic service charge and industrial surcharge rate for BOD; Water: revise City Code Sections 15-0115(1), 15-0115(2), 15-0115(3), 15-0116(1) and 15-0116(2) to reflect an increase of 15%; said rate increases to be effective on January 1, 1999. Motion carried. 12. Matter of farmland lease, new landfill site. Mr. Grotte reported that two weeks ago they came to committee to purchase property in Turtle Lake Township, Section 19 and one quarter of Section 18; that for many years a farmer has been renting this property from the owner and they have approached City with the idea of renting what land is available from City and since we don't need all the property right away asked Tom Hanson from WFW to come up with what property thought would be available for rental next year and areas highlighted in yellow on map would be available and in talking with Mr. LeClerc, our desires would be to enter into any agreement with the current renter at basically the same cost-type prorated for the area that he's been paying on year by year. He stated current rental is $35,000/yr. for 739 acres, still have to determine what exact acreage total would be (approx. 550 acres), and would come up with proportionate cost with that. He stated that next year probably reduce the area available to him and adjust periodically, and would be another revenue source for us. MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE November 30, 1998 - Page 10 Moved by Klave and Lucke to enter into lease agreement with current renter based on proportionate cost of current rental, subject to review and approval by the city attorney. Motion carried. It was noted that they will be hold a meeting at the Manvel Community Center tomorrow night; Mr. Grotte stated committee were all invited but more to update people. 13. Matter of pre-bid qualifications of no-dig sewer repair technology for upcoming sewer repair projects. Tom Hanson, WFW, stated they were trying to advertise for process so that anybody can have their process considered before in the middle of a bidding process, public advertisement in Bulletin and in the Herald and let anybody submit by the 29th of December, evaluate the submittals and approve process; will publish directly after committee meeting and not wait for it to go to council. Moved by Lucke and Klave to approve publication of the notice. Motion carried. (Comm. only) 14. Matter of CDBG engineer's report for Proj. 4784, southend water tower. Lon Aune, GFEG, reported they had approve an amendment to the general engineering agreement with GFEG to proceed with the design phase of the water tower, and are presenting the CDBG engineer's report which is one of the formalities they go through with Urban Development to notify them what dollars want shifted from one place to another. The tower is located at intersection of Columbia Road and 62nd Avenue South, est. project cost $1.1 million and will be looking for CDBG funding and to bid project in latter part of March. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve engineer's report. Motion carried. 15. Matter of amendments to engineering services agreements for various projects: a) Amend. No. 5, design, WFW, Proj. 4861 through 4866, restore sanitary and storm sewers in Areas 1, 3 and 4 (CDBG) Mr. Hanson, WFW, reported they have finished work in Area 2 and are in process of design on Area 4 and need to get contract paperwork caught up with rest of it; and this covers design and bidding phases for the remainder of these projects, that there are 5 projects yet to be bid, 6 projects covered by this agreement. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve Amendment No.5 to the engineering agreement in the amount of $666,551.00. Motion carried. c) Amend. No. 3A, const. adm., GFEG, Proj. 4848, Pump Station #39 (CDBG) Held in committee. Lon Aune, GFEG, stated that agreements are very much the same MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE November 30, 1998 - Page 11 for b), d), e) and 4856 of f) and are looking at amendments for these projects and will be revising contracts to incorporate some construction phase services and distribute information, cost is $3500 for each contract: b) Amend. No. 2A, const. adm., GFEG, Proj. 4836, storm sewer on Belmont Rd. from 55th Ave.S. to Southend Drainway (CDBG) Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve Amendment No. 2A and authorize to proceed with construction phase services in the amount of $3,500.00. Motion carried. d) Amend. No. 4A, const.adm., GFEG, Proj. 4843, water on Washington from 47th to 62nd Aves.S. (CDBG) Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve Amendment No. 4A and authorize to proceed with construction phase services in the amount of $3500. Motion carried. e) Amend. No. 5A, const. adm., GFEG, 4846, storm sewer on 40th Ave.S. from Washington St. to Southend Drainway (CDBG) Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve Amendment No. 5A and authorize to proceed with construction phase services in the amount of $3500. Motion carried. f) Amend. N. 6A, const.adm., GFEG, Proj. 4856 and 4868, storm sewer on Cherry St. from 55th Ave.to Southend Drainway and storm sewer on Wash. St. from 62nd Ave.s. to the Southend Drainway (CDBG) Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve Amendment No. 6A for Project No. 4856 and authorize to proceed with construction phase services in the amount of $3500. Motion carried. Project No. 4868: Mr. Aune reported that the same Amendment for construction service and has same value but because of some the cost savings were able to see from design phase and are not going to be increasing the total not to exceed amount on this contract, but will be changing the agreement to do same construction services but no net change to the not to exceed amount. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve Amendment No. 6A for Project No. 4868 and authorize to proceed with construction phase services, with no change in the not to exceed amount Motion carried. g) Amend. No. 9 (property acquisition services) GFEG, Proj. 4779, relocate Williams Pipe Line on Columbia Road from 40th to 47th Aves.S. (CDBG) Mr. Aune stated this is a new amendment to general engineering services agreement with GFEG and this is for is to take care of property acquisition items and to complete the requests submitted by Williams Bros. Pipeline in a proposal they had submitted to the MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE November 30, 1998 - Page 12 City, and is for relocation of the pipeline along Columbia Road to accommodate the storm, sanitary and all improvements that are taking place out there, incl. drainway. He stated that some of the requests from Williams has put in their proposal would be layout of all utilities along Columbia Road, bikepaths, street elevations and want all of this pinned down upfront and this amendment would cover those services. It was noted this doesn't incorporate anything south of 47th Ave.S. because didn't know what would happen out there. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve Amendment No. 9. Motion carried. 16. Matter of agreement with Williams Pipe Line Company for pre- liminary work on Proj. 4779, relocate Williams pipeline on Columbia Road from 40th to 47th Aves.S. (CDBG) Mark Anderson, eng., stated they are requesting approval to enter into agreement for services rendered by Williams Bros. and they will prefer to do the specialized engineering for the reloca-tion of their pipeline for the development of southend. This is a modification in dollar value from preliminary figure of $5,000 to an amount tentatively set at about $17,500 for engineering ser-vices, and it will be at actual cost to the City; there is poten-tial for exceeding the target amount and letter also talks about the total cost for the relocation, this is for the engineering for relocation of pipeline. Mr. Grasser reported that these costs are included in the $15 million for southend development. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve entering into an amendment to the agreement for reimbursement of preliminary engineering costs for the improvements in the amount of $17,500.00 and increasing the total agreement to $326,435.00, CDBG allocation. Motion carried. 17. Matter of consideration of construction bids for Proj. 4865, restore sanitary sewer in Area 4 (CDBG). Mr. Hanson, WFW, reported that Molstad is the low bidder and has Insituform and Infratech as his subcontractors on this project and are capable of doing the work, Molstad will be doing dig-ups and recommended approval. Moved by Lucke and Klave to accept the bid of Molstad Excavating in the amount of $477,970.00. Mr. Grasser reported he asked Mr. Hanson to check with Molstad about their ability to perform the work because they have picked up quite a bid of work lately and was little concerned about their ability to get work done. Mr. Hanson reported that Molstad provided him information on 7 projects that amount to 40 crew weeks for 5 crews he has under contract, that this project relatively small, and 75-80% of projects is materials and sub-contracts and while dollar amount relatively high; and should complete in 6 MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE November 30, 1998 - Page 13 weeks. It appears it's not all that big a challenge for them and getting a lot done. There are performance and payment bonds on these projects. Motion carried. 18. Matter of change orders for various projects: a) Proj. 4671, Lift Station 21, C.O. #2 Mr. Hanson, WFW, reviewed change orders: they had to add a circuit breaker for the phase monitor which was omitted from the plans and were reusing an existing heating contractor which failed and replaced that in the amount of $246.75, and also includes a time extension to January 15, 1999. Moved by Lucke and Klave to approve the change order. Motion carried. b) Proj. 4752, Lift Stations 9 and 11, C.O. #1 (Smith) Mr. Hanson stated this could be handled by staff as it doesn't include any dollars but has time extension to February 28, 1999. Committee suggested that staff deal with this. c) Proj. 4768, Lift Station 84, C.O. #1 (Wanzek) Mr. Hanson reviewed change order to remove and reinstall water line in the amount of $5,530.20, and extend completion date to march 1, 1999 for a working station and June 15, 1999 for site restoration. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve change order. Motion carried. d) Proj. 4439, Lift Station 38, C.O. #6 Mr. Hanson reviewed change order to adding tap to vent air out of pipe if airbound and piping and gauge for the connection of pressure transducer in the amount of $920.00, and to extend completion date to December 31, 1998, and to correct math error on previous change order #5 in the amount of $14; for total of $934.00. Moved by Lucke and Klave to approve the change order. Motion carried. e) Proj. 4684, Life Station 33, C.O. #1 (Bergstrom) Mr. Hanson reviewed change order, that when the prepared documents they omitted floats and pressure transducer from the specs., cost $2,856.06, and to extend completion date to July 30, 1999. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve change order. Motion carried. f) Proj. 4838, sanitary sewer on S. 20th St., C.O. #1 Mr. Grasser stated this change order instigated by the School Dist., that they have been negotiating a site on 47th Ave.S. for several months for their buildings and grounds replacement, that they had worked out an agreement with the School Dist. to put in this sanitary sewer line down South 20th Street and is being funded by the DSR that the School received for putting in infrastructure to the new middle school and City agreed to set up a tapping fee MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE November 30, 1998 - Page 14 area and assessment districts in order for them to recoup some of these monies in the future when others tie into this line. He stated that was first part of the project that created the original tapping fee areas and district map, subsequent to that the School Dist. was looking at a location to build their buildings and grounds and site they ended up with has one frontage on 47th Ave.S. and other on 45th Ave.S. and this is an extension of that sanitary sewer that will reach their buildings and grounds facility. He stated that last week Dr. Sanford was successful in negotiating with FEMA for some additional monies off their DSR to fund this section of sanitary sewer; and change order is as per their request to extend the sanitary sewer from 20th and when payments due they will send bill to the School Dist. and the School actually pays the contractor, and again he was wishing to be able to recoup some of the fees that some of the adjacent property owners will have access to, and it's a bit irregular because set districts up before the bid but trying to set up a supplemental tapping area, so if go back through documents see original engineer's report for the project, which was $632,000 project and now asking approval for a supplemental engineer's report that would add another $90,000 to the project (includes construction and special assessment mark-ups, etc.) He stated time table is there for information and documents when originally set up, original tapping area and future assessment district and supplemental tapping tap (just adding on to the original tapping district), and are asking for approval of supplemental engineer's report and tapping district. He stated he hasn't had a chance to review this process with Howard Swanson. He noted that the $90,000 would only go against the supplemental tapping area. Mr. Grasser reported that they only assess adj. property owners for anyone assessment district and gets to be matter of practicality as to how to keep track of potential side benefits (and is one question that has come up on the Southend Drainway) and treated as a whole project because so difficult to try to quantify the spin-offs. He stated that on a residential lot they will attempt to assign only one benefit for sewer services but when get into larger lots where there's potential to re-configure the lot and/or replat it in the future, it's common they will get two assessments for water, sanitary, storm and paving; and some of these lots will have frontage on 47th and on 45th. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve the change order in the amount of $69,856.60. Motion carried. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve the supplemental tapping area subject to review by city attorney. Motion carried. g) Proj. 4843, water on Wash. St. from 47th to 62nd Aves.S., C.O. #1 (CDBG) Mark Anderson reported this project bid in to alternates, one from 47th to 55th and one from 47th to 62nd Avenue South, and after review it was decided to award the 47th to 55th Aves.S. alternate, MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE November 30, 1998 - Page 15 and since that time the city council has approved the revised plan to southend development and with that it is prudent to construct the whole section of watermain to 62nd Ave.S. and this change order is to effect that change; are adjusting some of the quantities and unit costs to reflect what it would have cost to award the alternate 2 in the original bid. He asked for approval of the change order in the amount of $64,162.00. Moved by Lucke and Klave to approve the change order. Motion carried. h) Proj. 4440, Southend Drainway Phase 1A, C.O. #6 John Schlieman, CPS, Ltd., project manager for the drainway projects, reported that C.O. #6 is the final compensating change order, $3,175.00. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve the change order. Motion carried. i) Proj. 4669.2, Southend Drainway, Phase 2A, C.O. #3 Mr. Schlieman reported this is the portion of the drainway that goes through South Washington west a quarter mile, then north, Schipper Construction was contractor; that first item is liquidated damages in the sum of 8 days at $200/day, that they don't take liquidated damages lightly, and reason assessed here was that the contract was originally scheduled to be completed August 15 and was given time extension to October 1 because of changes in the box culvert on S. Washington, had beautiful weather the middle of September to finish putting the topsoil on, that contractor not present for two weeks and then fought rains in October to get top- soil on, completed topsoil placement on October 9 and then sus-pended project on October 10 to stop him from seeding this fall because it was so wet; have assessed liquidated damages from October 2 through 9 and also included in that change order a time extension to June 1 to complete seeding. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve the change order. Motion carried. 19. Matter of tapping fees for Proj. 4440, 4669.1, 4669.2, and 4669.3 Southend Drainway: a) Preliminary tapping fee formula Mr. Grasser distributed copies of project summary outlining where benefits are calculated and the half-benefits, etc., describes the Southend Drainway project. He stated they've always looked at the project as being a tapping fee and as part of that process they would like to follow similarly the special assessment process. He reported that the map showing all of the tapping fee areas that were done through the various phases of the projects, actually tapping and special assessment districts, that were done. He stated that what they were looking for today was have the committee approve - Klave asked if they approve the preliminary tapping fee formula as presented, if those people that are in that area are in disagreement with it, do they have the ability to voice their concerns about this formula before the Special Assessment MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE November 30, 1998 - Page 16 Commission at that time, or once we approve this, is whatever we say is done because it's been approved. Mr. Grasser stated they would have the option to do that although he will say that the Special Assessment Commission met last week and gave a prelim. determination, have had a number of questions come up on the Southend Drainway, and will still have these things coming back, doesn't know how to totally resolve that; that this will be a preliminary that we will use to calculate tapping fees and at any point somebody can come back and attempt to challenge them. Committee asked if they would be notified; Mr. Grasser reported that many of these areas outside the city limits and don't have a process on tapping fees to do a notification. He stated that what they are really looking for is to approve the preliminary tapping calculations as homes are being built but haven't collected tapping fees, but typically want to collect them when they take out their building permit and there are a number of actual projects being constructed and need to get the preliminary done. He stated that when the project gets completed they will go through and evaluate based on final project costs and bring this in for council to put its final stamp on it. Mr. Vein stated that they've talked about areas outside the city limits that have no protest ability but we are defining and they are trying to use the Assessment Commission to establish fair costs that would be associated with the properties and they would pay that as they come in. Klave stated that properties that are being built should be notified so know what they are getting into and don't come in after the fact saying no one told them. Mr. Grasser stated that once this gets approved and we can do an actual calculation, the notification will be request for payment; that there are a number of buildings incl. Stone's Mobile, School, Mighty Acres, Presbyterian Church where should be collecting those fees from now. Mr. Vein stated that most people if get hit with any number will probably protest it because too much, but idea is to make sure that the methodology we use is fair. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve preliminary tapping fee formula. Motion carried. Mr. Grasser asked if they had received copy of question/answer sheet on comments, etc. that have come up on the southend drainway, and are issues they specifically sent to the Special Assessment Commission to give us their opinion on, can't give a ruling because they aren't officially part of this process because it isn't an assessment district but wanted to point out some of the questions: 1) should the tapping charges be uniform between districts (load into one or the other) - answer was Yes and make uniform throughout the entire area. 2.3. an 4.) is should there be adjustments made to the tapping areas based on runoff conditions, and the answer was no. That they explained to them a number of things, don't know what runoffs are going to be, area not zoned nor platted, and other issue that came up was the drainway, if look at technical aspects MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE November 30, 1998 - Page 17 of the drainway, the drainway has a lot of carrying capacity so amount of water it carries is secondary consideration, costs are based on how deep it needs to be to bring the water to it, now how much water it's carrying, and based on that, shouldn't be any differences in benefits; 5) should property farther from the river pay a higher tapping fee than property closer to the river, they said no - there was some discussion about it, that it seemed that someone farther away should have a higher benefit but there doesn't appear to be a practical way of quantifying that, but too complex. - but all getting storm sewer service and basing it on what supply to it, and that concept is right one to use; 6) in the event that an area outside of the tapping area boundary drains into the drainway, should that property pay a tapping fee? and their recommendation was yes. He stated that this boundary is our best estimate now as to who's going to drain into here over the next 20-30-40 years but there is potential for areas outside to drain into and runs into Ques. 7) the four southernmost quarters of land shown in dist 386.2 were previously given a 1/2 benefit, a 1/2 benefit was considered because it was est. that half of this property will eventually drain into the southend drainway and the other half into the Merrifield ditch (just to the south), and should it be clarified that any of the property draining into the southend drainway will receive a full benefit and areas not draining into the drainway will not receive a tapping fee? He stated that the Merrifield road and Drain 4 and for calculation purposes the recognize that there is going to be a split in the future where some of the area closest to the Merrifield ditch will discharge into the ditch, and some closer to the drainway will drain into the drainway, that you can make that general statement and that's why giving it a half benefit as assuming half will drain to the Merrifield road and half to drainway, but when come to assessing a tapping fee on an actual piece of property, will identify on that property that doesn't drain to either and difficult to assess tapping fees for the southend drainway if water drains into Drainway 4, and that's what trying to say here, and as a specific piece of property comes in it will either receive a full benefit because it drains into the drainway or receive a zero benefit because it will drain into the Drainway 4, but from calculation purposes they are saying half but won't actually assign half, it will either be full or none. He stated this also falls back into Ques. 6). Mr. Vein stated that with Merrifield Road being the future tie-back levee for the flood protection project, there may be some specific stipulations on where that water will drain anyway, and without knowing that, this will be prudent way to handle that. Moved by Klave and Lucke to accept the recommendations of the Special Assessment Commission. Motion carried. b) Timing of assessment collections Mr. Grasser reported that the cross-hatched areas (on map) were MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE November 30, 1998 - Page 18 actually assessment districts and are trying not to create tapping fee areas within city boundaries (if within city limits would be an assessment district and if outside should be a tapping although recent modifications Mr. Swanson has made to the Home Rule Charter allow us to have a tapping fee area but when set up, were trying to keep those things distinctly different). He stated the original intent on the assessment districts was that would treat as a tapping area such that when a piece of a storm sewer went in, they would try to as part of that project assess the area that would contribute to that storm sewer assessment or tapping fee at that time. He stated that theory can still work but will be confusing from an administrative standpoint, 1) identifying who's water is draining where, 2) increase potential that will miss people over time. He stated their latest thoughts on this is that esp. with CDBG dollars that are being spent, running several of these storm sewer stubs in are no providing service into those areas, or trunk extensions, much earlier than had originally thought; and rather than picking these things up as the projects get completed, should set a date when the construction of the drainway is complete, and do that special assessment at that time, probably 1999 but not early enough to have certified, so will go to 2000. Mr. Vein agreed with that, then establish a date like all other specials have, when certified go through and are paid on an annual basis or however. Mr. Grasser stated that some of the rural people may view this as the City being a bit aggressive and causing specials after annexing, and that's been his only hesitation on it. He stated that would be their recommendation and looking for committee and council concurrence in that is set the specials as of completion of the project and assess it at that time. Moved by Lucke and Klave to assess the specials upon completion of the project. Motion carried. c) Matter of increasing assessment/tapping areas. Mr. Grasser reported that the City had anticipated that S. Washington would drain into the Southend Drainway, but about three years ago the DOT set up a drainage basis and system whereby none of the water went into the Southend Drainway, but all discharged into existing storm sewers along 32nd Ave.S., 36th and other interconncects and several, and were going to set up a holding pond to do that. He stated they had disagreement with DOT on how storm sewers to be calculated and implemented, they are bringing that water now into the Southend Drainway to meet what they think is a reasonable storm sewer design, and the City is picking up a lot of additional cost, but what happened in the process when first districts were created, the water was not planned to go into the drainway so these areas were not included in the tapping areas. Now that we know that the water is going into the drainway and some of the people have questioned, why isn't S. Wash. included into the tapping area, and are bring area back to council as to if and how should pursue this, the facts are that some of the water is going MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE November 30, 1998 - Page 19 to discharge into the southend drainway at the peak design, at lower level designs the areas north of 32nd will drain through the existing stormsewer system as per the DOT's original thoughts but during peak events is that local systems that they were trying to discharge to are already maxed out and cannot take much of that flow or as much as we need, and that water will discharge into the southend drainway. Mr. Grasser stated that the design is a 5-year event which is a storm that happens once every 5 years statistically. Hafner asked when did our thought process change, that whole thing has been designed for quite some time, been constructed when we knew where that was draining to. Mr. Grasser stated that people are asking questions and from technical standpoint, can't say that the water is not discharging into drainway; and we probably didn't catch some of that when traded district, and when last district was created was done about a year ago and had good idea that it was going to drain into the drainway although we maybe couldn't quantify it. Hafner asked if one in five year event, what is contribution to the drainway. Mr. Vein stated that you can't quantify, that there is some flow but can't identify how much, and asked if should have any credit, judgment call, and in some degree best to leave alone since created under that pretense, and haven't discussed with Mr. Swanson about ability to make that change. Mr. Grasser reported he hasn't had chance to discuss with him, could talk to him and bring back later. There was some discussion re. map showing added assessment district, properties excluded by indenting into area rather than using straight line, why excluded? Mr. Vein stated that properties that have drainage that flow onto S. Wash. are included in their entirety and those that do not or may drain into one of the avenues. Mr. Grasser reported that these are drainage area boundaries that the DOT established to calculate their storm sewer pipe and basically we relied on DOT storm sewer design to determine which properties are flowing into S. Washington and which are not; taking what DOT created and using it. Mr. Grasser reported that by including or excluding this it made a difference of about $60.00/acre on tapping area so on typical lot, amounts to about $10/lot. Committee stated probably not worth bringing in; Mr. Vein stated that if they don't want to bring in can make that decision, but if do need Mr. Swanson to be a part of it. Committee stated that at those dollar amounts not to bring in. Klave stated that they spent a long time putting S. Wash. project together and working with all land owners up and down that whole project to make this move as smoothly as possible, at this stage of the game doesn't want to throw wrinkle in there for minimal dollars which will only upset people off and bring in over something that can be avoided, and recommended not to include in the district. Lucke seconded motion. Mr. Vein stated that he didn't think a motion was needed because only time would need is to include them; he stated you cannot assess outside the district, the boundaries are created, and only way bring in is if want to make a motion to try to include. Moved by Klave/Lucke not to pursue the issue. Carried. MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE November 30, 1998 - Page 20 20. Matter of agreement with Loren Dusterhoft, DeMers Amoco, to discharge stormwater into I-29 ditch. Mr. Grasser reported that the Amoco Station is currently rebuilding their entire site, and in reviewing their site plan they found that there is inadequate stormsewer on DeMers Avenue to drain the site, and other complication is that there's another property owner between the Amoco site and the drainage swale and no drainage easements to bring the water from the Amoco site into the existing natural swale; engineering recommended that they discharge into the I-29 ditch. He stated they asked Amoco to make application to the DOT, DOT created a permit but they will not enter into any agreement with a private entity but only with the local governing body. He stated they are looking to create a separate agreement between the City and Amoco to meet those requirements; they are meeting them for us but we will be responsible for meeting requirements of the DOT; this has been discussed with Mr. Dusterhoft and he agrees with that. He stated that we have done this before with National Guard and probably will with The Aurora. Hafner asked if this would interfere with the exchange; and it was stated no. It was noted that Amoco would pay costs and they will be responsible for maintaining discharges. It was noted that the City has not required any cost for this agreement, but some costs for insurance for Amoco. Moved by Klave and Lucke to authorize entering into agreement with Loren Dusterhoft, DeMers Amoco, agreement to be drawn by the city attorney. Motion carried. 3. Request from McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc. for permission to use portion of municipal right of way to install and maintain a communications network located on west side of N. 7th St. between 12th and 13th Aves.N. Mr. Vein stated that this company wants to talk about installing in city right of way, and this involved a franchise agreement potentially as users of our rights of way, and are things that Mr. Swanson needs to explain. Mr. Grasser stated that this is a company that planning on coming in and running fiber optic throughout the entire city, and one of his concerns is that drawings very schematic and cannot determine from drawings where there maybe conflicts between our utilities and their utility, and if City needs to go through and determine all those conflicts, they would need to hire someone to review the plans and to inspect/coordinate it through construction seasons, and those costs should be borne through franchise agreement, etc. Held in committee. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Alice Fontaine City Clerk Dated: 12/02/98