City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us


	MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE Monday, April 12, 1999 - 7:00 p.m. Members present: Hafner, Klave, Lucke, Lunak. 4. Matter of Raw Water Intake Facility site selection, Proj. 4769.____________________________________________________ Steve Burian, A/E, discussed the intake project and some considerations re. siting the facility; that on December 17, 1998 they held a public information or neighborhood meeting to meet with landowners in the affected area to talk about the project, need for project, impacts, and reminded committee the reason for moving forward with the intake project is for 3 basic reasons: 1) aging infrastructure, that intakes built between 1930 and new intake built in 1968 and lasting beyond designed service life; 2) issue of capacity as look toward long term planning horizon and look at capacity of the system will need and intakes not capable of meeting those, and 3) flood pro-tection alignment places intakes on the unprotected side of the levee. He stated that in 1997 the City lost those intakes and weren’t able to pump water which resulted in system being down, and in this year’s flood did cause us to lose access to all three intakes. Mr. Burian reported that at the public meeting they did explain the existing intakes that they have, project assumptions and components, that there were two alternatives that were looked at; a single pumphouse on the ND side as well as a dual pump-house one in MN and one in ND, with the single pumphouse being considerably less expensive. He explained the process they used to select the preferred site (Site A), and looked at 9 different criteria and reviewed architectural considerations to assure the public that if built that intake they would consider historical and architectural considerations in the neighborhood and opened up for questions and answers. He stated that the public under-stood the importance of the project but did encourage them to consider alternate sites. He stated that the first site they looked at was Site A (on the corner of Woodland Avenue and South 4th Street) and would require the relocation or demolition of 3 homes; one site brought up was Site B on corner of 4th Avenue South and River Street and would require the relocation or demolition of 3 homes, and was eliminated because of distance from water plant and cost. He stated that Site C (in 300 block of Minnesota Avenue, south side of the street) was first recom-mended to the City as the desired option, that City approached the Corps of Engineers about that being acceptable because it actually required relocation of the levee and were told that MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE April 12, 1999 - Page 2_________ wasn’t possible and needed to keep the levee there and then looked at other alternatives. However, after further review the site was approved; that from a technical standpoint it is a much simpler project as well as it saves $1.2 million per river. He stated that as they evaluated sites they did initiate the geotechnical work by Shannon & Wilson on this project, and when did preliminary investigation, they found there were a lot of geotechnical slip plains and suggested they move downstream beyond steep gradations, and that rules out Site B from reason-able consideration because of technical considerations. He stated that left Site A and Site C; that with Site A have to go both directions from the site at added cost of at least $2.4 million; and would need the three properties that they origin-ally looked at plus one additional property. He stated that when they looked at Site C, have developed a reasonable concept where drill from the site or back from the sites, all properties were already being pursued by the City, there’s one property that would be subject to the final levee alignment that would have to expedite (Buegel property ) and another property they looked at taking (Dahley property) across from water treatment plant. He stated that with less property acquisition and lower cost they are here to recommend that you consider Site C with a couple different considerations; prior through the meeting tonight at 6:00 p.m. they had a brief presentation as well as public input. Mr. and Mrs. Dahley were here and suggested several things they would like City to look at - that in lieu of getting rid of their property: 1) try to see if can put drill rig in at corner and drill past their property without impacting it and he indicated that he’s a little concerned about that being realistic but will run that past the drilling company, 2) to relocate their home to the property next to the Caldis’ across from the water plant, and another option would be to move their house temporarily if they’re convinced and City supportive of keeping it where originally was and do project and build new foundation for them to relocate their home back; that they were forthright where time they wouldn’t be living in their home under either consideration. He stated the recommendation is to approve Site C as the preferred project site as well as to approve initiation of the land acquisition and/or other agree-ments as appropriate to move forward with that site. Klave asked if Dahleys, 522 S. 3rd Street, would move their house to a different location in Central Park area. The Dahleys stated they wouldn’t want to give an answer right now but would MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE April 12, 1999 - Page 3_________ consider. There was also some discussion re. acquisition of Buegel property (509 S. 3rd Street) Mr. Burian stated that the Buegel property is part of the levee alignment and would need to take that property in an expedited fashion because of where set up drill rig; and property at 613 South 4th Street (duplex or dual property) and City has a purchase agreement for half the house at 613 South 4th Street. Moved by Klave to approve Site C (located in 300 block of Minne-sota Avenue, south side of street) as the recommended project site and for proper authorities to enter into negotiations for land acquisitions of Buegel property and negotiations with pro-perty owners at 613 South 4th Street and 522 South 3rd Street as to relocation of bore line and with house left in place or tem-porary relocation of the house and/or removal to another loca-tion within Central Park area. Lucke seconded the motion. Motion carried. Mr. Burian stated that there’s always the chance they will be coming back to committee with something that popped up and are not done with design. 2. Matter of parking regulations on UND campus streets, in- cluding street cleaning.________________________________ Todd Feland, public works, reported in response to the Parking Reform Team that he and John Thompson, traffic eng., met with George Giorgakis re. this issue. He stated that the down-town area and the UND campus area are signed similarly, both are high density areas, that 1966 is when they changed the signing in the UND campus area to match the downtown area, that the argument is that the City is not in there doing street maintenance, but that fact allows them some flexibility re. storms, etc. He stated that another reason is to keep vehicles moving in that area, particularly during winter months so someone doesn’t park their vehicle there and keep it there. Another benefit is that it allows some off-campus parking too. He reported that he had called the City of Fargo and they do something similar to parking restrictions at NDSU. He reported that in both these areas either the UND police dept. or Grand Forks police department does the ticketing and Grand Forks police department does ticketing downtown. He stated that unlike regular street maintenance in residential areas where the street dept. does the ticketing and they only ticket people that are in the way as they go through, and probably some concern MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE April 12, 1999 - Page 4_________ that they are ticketed even though no street maintenance. He reported that Mark Aubol, street supervisor, went back and checked number of maint. and from November 10, 1998 to March 17, 1999, have been in there 20 times and of those times 3 were for hauling of snow. He stated that one of those 3 times did put up some temporary signs that they were going to be in that area, and part of the solution Reform Team would like to see is that it be signed one day per week and every time they plan to be in there, put up temp. signs, and that perhaps is a potential solution (would require more staff time and planning); one concern on temp. signage is timing of placement of signs. He reported that this issue was addressed at the public safety committee at 4:30 p.m. and their recommendation is that since it’s late in the school year, look at it and try to see what residents and formal response from UND staff/management on what their recommendations are. Gerry Hamerlik, council member from Ward 2, reported he and Council Member Polovitz placed this on consent agenda at last council meeting. Members of the Parking Reform Team (UND students): Stephanie Allen, Adam Gardner, George Giorgakis and Denise Stevens (group of students from Hancock Hall) made a presentation of their request re. parking on public streets around UND regarding street cleaning and have received full support of assn. of residence halls. Ms. Stevens stated they were hoping by bringing this to their attention that they can affect a change in the parking policy of their neighborhood - the issue is basically that signs are confusing (signs prohibiting parking on N/S streets on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and on E/W streets no parking for Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday) and every day except Sunday is a cleaning day, however, no regular cleaning takes place as specified but ticketing happens every day that’s posted. Map showing area in question - Princeton Street, 6th Avenue and Hamline and University Avenue are boundaries of area. She compared parking restrictions for maintenance of streets between UND and rest if city, including downtown area (that remainder of city, except downtown area, has street cleaning only once per week and cars ticketed only if the sweeper has to go around them and if no cleaning is performed, no ticketing takes place. She also stated that street cleaning only happened two times since first of year - January 29 and March 10. MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE April 12, 1999 - Page 5_________ Mr. Giorgakis and Mr. Gardner stated there is no consistency on policy, ticketing practices are inconsistent, inadequate, inefficient, etc. They questioned how this could be improved - changing the street cleaning and ticketing regulations to match the rest of the city - once a week in their neighborhood and ticketing to occur only when streets cleaned. They stated that by changing the current policy they feel the city and the residents will benefit through equity and ticketing practices throughout the city, effective planning and cleaning of city streets, improved allocation of police and city resources and greater safety of the area residents. Mr. Vein suggested that UND area has night cleaning while rest of the city has daytime cleaning which could be problem, Parking Reform Team stated that whatever is designated, would be observed. Mr. Vein also noted that they cannot guarantee on any day that they will be cleaned; Reform Team stated that if no cleaning, then they would not be ticketed. After some discussion the committee asked staff to review this to see what solutions/recommendations they can come up with, to consider information presented by the Parking Reform Committee, but also talk with UND re. their recommendations re. parking in this area; that there is like usage as with downtown and if have distance to parking lot, that’s not a City problem and address that with UND if more parking needed on campus. 5. Matter of solid waste baling, design, Project No. 5023. Chuck Grotte, public works, reported they have had two council informational meetings on the baling proposal, on August 11, 1998 and March 2, 1999, and at the presentation the option of the balefill with an off-site baling facility was shown to be the most cost effective, that there are other benefits to baling: reduction in litter, longer life to the landfill, less birds and rodents and less daily cover. He stated in CIP planning process they included the baling project in 1999 of $400,000 from Sanitation Utility Fund for design and associated pre-work on the project, and in 2000 $4.5 million identified for the construction. He stated that when the 1999 budget was put together they weren’t at a point where could pursue this project and what doing tonight is requesting that the 1999 budget be amended to transfer $400,000 from the Sanitation Department cash balance, which is currently $2.7 million to complete the design of the project this year, and then request that they could MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE April 12, 1999 - Page 6_________ negotiate with Burns & McDonnell Waste Consultants, Inc., current consultant on the landfill, to prepare the design for construction next year, and based on those negotiations would bring back an agreement for this committee to approve. He also noted that of the $400,000 mostly for consultants with other associated costs - soil borings, etc. Lucke questioned why they didn’t hold this project back one year, but Mr. Grotte stated there is the issue of our existing landfill and need to get out of there as quickly as can, currently trying to secure an exten-sion to the permit, spoke with State Health Dept. and they are anxious for City to get out of current location because of bird issue, and if start baling process sooner may get better recep-tion from the State on staying at the current location until get our new landfill complete; start baling and place at current landfill until get to the new one. He stated that the State Health Dept. is one who grants the permit but have to have it reviewed by FAA, and State not comfortable granting us a permit if the FAA says not to do it, FAA’s concern is with the birds. He also stated they are in the process of building mechanical treatment plant but still intend to have lagoons even after that and never expressed that as a problem (with seagulls). Tom Hanson, WFW, stated that if they get rid of one (landfill, lagoon) will reduce volume of birds. Lucke stated that in view of all construction going on in the city, if there was a chance the Health Dept. would give extension for another year; Mr. Grotte stated he didn’t believe so based on conversations he’s had and by starting current baling design the facility would be done by the time the new landfill is done, so when the landfill is ready the baling facility would be in operation and go directly to baling rather than hauling garbage there for some period of time. Mr. Vein stated that the City has received numerous extensions and getting close to the end. Donald Ebertowski, one half mile from new landfill, stated that he understands they will bale garbage at existing landfill and haul it to the new landfill and didn’t see where that would eliminate the bird problem. Mr. Grotte stated that baling would be in a closed structure (100x150’) and designed for two days of garbage for storage inside the building. Mr. Grotte also stated that land has been purchased, they haven’t filed an application, waiting to hear from the city attorney; still looking at the site. Ann Leeson, resident of Levant Twp. stated she is concerned MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE April 12, 1999 - Page 7_________ because she can remember that land being flooded in 1950, water came from the west as well as from the Red, and read article she wrote to newspaper. Clayton Kvasager, who lives one-half mile from landfill, also appeared. Mr. Ebertowski asked if it was possible for the City to stay where it’s at, or go north. Tom Hanson, WFW, stated they have to be 10,000 ft. by federal regulations from runway (birds only one of several problems). Dick Newman, solid waste mgr., stated that as operation of the landfill going to a baling facility would greatly enhance their operations of landfill, that saw three baling operations (James-town, Dickinson and one in Nebraska) all three very clean opera-tions as far as blowing debris, and only thing that concerns him is that they don’t have the volume that the City of Grand Forks will be trying to put through a similar facility; that he has seen facility of our size and it was very clean and manageable, but here on prairie where land so flat, when have breeze have blowing debris, and baling facility would greatly improve. Klave stated that we’ve been on this for a long time and not sure how many more extensions we will get, and after seeing process put on by the consultants and be in the best interest of wherever the landfill is sited, that baling facility be used, and moved that we do a budget transfer of $400,000 for a baling facility design, and to authorize negotiating contract; Hafner seconded the motion. Lucke asked for some of the history that has been discussed here and have that in front of them by Monday night; and as to subtitle D problems and the non-feasibility of our being able to restore that site (bird problem and liner) and est. cost to correct that. Motion carried; Lucke and Lunak voted against the motion. 1. Application for moving permit by Peter Nielson to move building from 1109 Lunak to 715 N. 3rd St. to be used as garden and storage shed.________________________________ Tim Manz, inspections, reported th Tim at they recommend approval of the application. Moved by Klave and Lucke to MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE April 12, 1999 - page 8_________ the application. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve the application for permit, subject to the public hearing. Motion carried. 3. Matter of fire hydrant easement, Watermain Proj. 4968, at 28th Avenue S. and S. Washington Street (frontage road).__ Mark Anderson, engineering, stated a copy of the referral sheet was enclosed in packet and requested authorization to proceed with easement at cost of $1.00, Laddie A. Novak, grantor. Moved by Klave and Lucke to approve proper City officials to sign the easement. Motion carried. 6. Matter of consultant selection for engineering services for Proj. 4990, mapping and GIS (CDBG)______________________ __ Mark Anderson presented memo. outlining procedures for selection of consultant for GIS services and their recommenda-tion that Greater Forks Engineering Group be selected as a consultant for that work; dependent upon availability of CDBG funds. Lunak asked for description of the work - digital infrastructure compilation and related mapping services. Mr. Anderson stated they are trying to add points of information throughout a mapping system so that it can be gathered and accessed for a variety of departments, and compilation will bring together a lot of data. Roger Grimsley, A/E, rep. GFEG, stated it’s gathering the data in a geographical format so that it can be entered into the City’s data system to access data about utilities (watermain, sanitary sewer, storm water systems, paving system) all based on a geographically correct map so City can access those things in an automated fashion - putting on computer so accurate and available quickly. GIS stand for geo-graphic informational system and related data base information to maps. Mr. Grimsley stated there are a wide range of services listed, and what had discussed ranged from geodesic surveys to aerial photography to photogamitry and topographic mapping, and also compiling city-wide infrastructure - total of that was in excess of $1 million; however, the proposal is arranged in such a fashion that the City can pick and choose the services it would need, and part of the proposal was to perform a needs assessment to determine which of those services the City would like to pursue. Mr. Grasser stated that they don’t have a scope of work MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE April 12, 1999 - Page 9_________ outlined, this can range from $200,000 project to $2 or 3 million, and are trying to get mechanics in place so if find money available towards ending of their spending limits, that they have an opportunity in place to do some of this work. He stated that one of things he will want to proceed on is that they are getting bits and pieces of GIS information to their street survey and from two or three different things that they are doing, that corps of Engineers is giving them topographic maps in various parts of the city, etc. and want to evaluate and find out what they’re missing to make a complete picture; don’t have money to do that yet but setting mechanics in place as it takes approx. 3 months to go through this process to get somebody selected, and wanted to get that part done. Mr. Grasser stated that the process is that when the CDBG money came in, they had two years to obligate the funds and three years to expend them, and that have until January to get it under con-tract and if you have a contract by that date, would have another year to expend those funds. Mr. Grasser stated that they had actually proposed this to CIP to do this work and budget over next several years, but CIP stated they were not in a good position to fund this but look at trying to do with CDBG funds. Klave stated that because this is something that City was starting and need to look at, and with information getting need to start going in that direction because it will be more efficient for City, and moved to approve this matter of selecting the Grand Forks Engineering Group, project CDBG eligible; seconded by Lucke. Mr. Grasser reported that part of what can be included is the topographic mapping, that if we hadn’t had the topographic maps that we have from the Corps of Engineers, wouldn’t have ability to plan and fight these floods dealing with because topographic gives such a wealth of information as planning tool to be able to look at alternatives. He stated that fits in with this system, but don’t have complete maps from the Corps, only certain corridors, and look at finishing out that topography for the rest of the city, have gaps along English Coulee. Motion carried. 7. Matter of Amendment No. 16 (design engineering), GFEG, Proj. 4926, Sanitary Sewer on 55th Ave. S. from S. Wash. St. to Pump Station #39 (CDBG)_____________________________________ MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE April 12, 1999 - Page 10________ Tom Hanson, WFW, reported project is located south of All Seasons and church being constructed, to do the collector sewer for that, $26,499.90. Moved by Lunak and Klave to approve Amendment No. 16, in an amount of $26,499.90. Motion carried. Klave excused. 8. Matter of creating special assessment dists., various projs: a) Proj. 5001, Dist. 268, watermain on 36th Ave. S. from Columbia Road to 30th St. Todd Pfenning, CPS, presented engineer’s report with est. cost of $64,878.00, timetable and assessment district map. Moved by Lunak 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. 5002, Dist. 404, storm sewer on 36th Ave. S. from Columbia Road to 30th St. This item was pulled. Klave reported back. c) Proj. 5004, Dist. 405, storm on 36th Ave. S. from Balsam to 34th St. d) Proj. 5006, Dist. 127, street lights on Chestnut St. e) Proj. 5007, Dist. 128, street lights in Johnson’s 4th f) Proj. 5008, Dist. 129, street lights on Poplar Circle g) Proj. 5009, Dist. 130, street lights on N. 51st St. h) Proj. 5011, Dist. 131, street lights in South Pines Ct. i) Proj. 5024, Dist. 132, street lights on 36th Ave. S. from 30th St. to Columbia Road. Mark Anderson distributed engineer’s reports, timetables and assessment district maps for these projects. Moved by Lunak 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. (This motion adopted for each of the projects c) through I) MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE April 12, 1999 - Page 11________ 9. Matter of authorization to advertise for construction bids 1999 2000 flood mitigation protection projects.___________ Mr. Grasser reported that they tried to make improvements to our flood fighting ability using CDBG funds, that they don’t have plans and specs. to show what the work will be, and will be more of a design built process, where get basic bids for unit prices for work looking at hourly rate for equipment and material, bid out prices for sluice gates and as project develops adding pieces depending on what the council wants them to spend and what areas want them to work on; they are envi-sioning a project that original est. was $1.2 million, and may want to expand that even more but up to council to determine that. He stated that the process to define the work and set up a working session with Flood Control Committee and walk through the process; that their primary areas of focus have to do with Riverside, homes that are removed there and can pull dikes back significantly; Central - looking at alternatives between pulling dike back or raising; Lincoln - top those walls at 51 ft. so want to have a backup system there so doesn’t continue to flow into the city; Belmont Road is one of biggest issues now - that they stayed at alignment at 50 ft. and 53 ft.; that at 56 ft.looked at backing off Belmont Road and going back to Chestnut. He stated that 10 ft. is about as high as you want to stack clay, and higher the water the more tendency for water to try short to circuit underneath, and if that high water will be against it for a long time, and gets to be a point and 10 ft. about breakout and can’t rely on that dike as only line of defense. They are looking at raising Belmont Road, now an opportune time because clay is there and have to look at 46 or 48’ ft., etc. and how much hardship create on some of the residents adj. to that immediately working session. He stated if they can get that road up another 4 ft. can take that road to 46’ and if have 10 ft. on that, good to 56 ft. on that alignment (street is now good to 52 ft.) He stated the pumphouse is a concern, and one of the things that limits them from going as high as 54 ft., that FEMA is looking at changing our floodplain from our current 52.3 ft. to 54 ft., adding a foot and half to our 100-year flood elevation. Mr. Vein stated that it has been said that East Grand Forks is ahead of Grand Forks, that they had temp. dikes built, and good reason why we couldn’t get that far - there were lot of homes in the way, didn’t have ability to build this back farther, and with what has been removed or demolished and those planned, have MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE April 12, 1999 - Page 12________ opportunity if council wants to do that, and asking if they want eng. to do that or continue to fight floods on temp. basis or make more permanent as waiting for permanent flood protection project to come through, and how high protection do they want. He stated they looked at 54 ft. as they are trying to use this as a deterrent because FEMA is very clear that they are trying to remap us, and if we do, will call proper floodplain management, and restrict development in areas that should be restricting and try to protect ourselves even though not a Corps certified dike to something above 50-52, and if can state our city is protected to 54 ft., would have a better avenue or argument to FEMA not to remap us, not sure whether would win or not. Klave stated 54 ft. would be very strong argument to take to table and if they remap us and go to 54 ft. would affect a great deal of people and everyone who has mortgage on their home, their lending institution will come back and demand flood insurance, and lot of factors entering into that. Mr. Vein stated that would restrict future development because don’t have basement exemptions yet but should look into that further, and where would you have any residential housing take place, businesses, and substantial damage rule will continue to be enforced and that means if have a fire or anything of substan-tial damage to a structure in the middle of the city, not going to be able to rebuild. Mr. Grasser stated that they’ve seen a change in attitude with the Corps of Engineers, Division of Emergency Management and FEMA and they won’t walk in here and fund a flood fight - they basically told City this year you’re on your own. It was also noted that takes up to 10 days to two weeks to put up secondary line of defense, and talking up to $5-6 million for secondary line of defense. Mr. Vein stated they would try to construct this in conjunction with the permanent flood protection project, and would like extension of English Coulee diversion to the west of us and a closure on the English Coulee at the Red River so the whole University area could be protected and match this type of levee system at 54 ft. into that because that is not tied into the levee alignments that are in question in other areas; and have met with Gary Sanders and Dean Weiland, CPS, to talk about meeting with the Corps to try to speed up that part of the flood protection project in advance of the things they are doing now. He stated there will have to be a fairly significant commitment of funds because if talking 54 ft. MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE April 12, 1999 - Page 13________ or close to that, talking more than a million dollars. He stated if they could do it in a majority of areas and have a plan would be less of an argument. - est. $3 million. This year spent close to $300,000 and in addition to that pump rentals, general rentals and spent $350,000 to $400,000, and are only looking at only removing what have to and get rest of removal under this mitigation project so can spend CDBG funds with it and not continue to spend down Emergency Funds. Moved by Lunak and Klave to advertise for construction using CDBG funds. Motion carried. 10. Matter of plans and specifications for various projects: a) Proj. 4991, Dist. 402, sanitary sewer in South Pines Addn. b) Proj. 4992, Dist. 267, watermain in South Pines Addn. c) Proj. 4993, Dist. 403, storm sewer in South Pines Addn. Todd Pfenning stated they are looking for approval of plans and specs. subject to city staff review, and basic location of projects is just west of Cherry Street across from the Mighty Acres Second Addn. south of 49th Avenue South. Moved by Lucke and Lunak that we pass a resolution approving the plans and specifications for this construction and further that the city auditor be directed to advertise for bids on the project. Motion carried. (Same motion for all projects) d) Proj. 4854, sanitary forcemain on S. Columbia Road from 17th to 24th Avenue S. (CDBG) Tom Hanson, WFW, reported that plans and specs. are to replace the forcemain along Columbia Road, two reviews from City staff that haven’t happened yet but will get done probably tomorrow (one is traffic bypass). He stated he doesn’t antici-pate problems. Moved by Lunak and Lucke to approve plans and specifications, and to authorize call for bids, project CDBG eligible. Motion carried. 11. Matter of consideration of construction bids for Proj. 4861, Restore Sanitary Sewer in Area 1 (CDBG)._________________ Mr. Hanson distributed summary of construction bids, Molstad low bidder (there was math error in total and was corrected but other than that no problem with the bids), $1,416,647.00. Moved by Klave and Lunak to accept the low bid of Molstad Excavating, Inc. in the amount of $1,416,647.00, project CDBG eligible. Moton carried. MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE April 12, 1999 - Page 14________ 12. Matter of change orders for various projects: a) Proj. 4719, restore sanitary sewer in Area 2, C.O.#4 (CDBG) Mr. Hanson reviewed change order in the amount of $364.00 to remove and salvage 13 manhole covers; Lametti & Sons, Inc., contractor. Moved by Klave and Lunak to approve the change order in the amount of $364.00. Motion carried. b) Proj. 4225.1, paving S. Washington St. mainline from Hamerling to S. 26th St., C.O. #8, $2,400 non- participating item. c) Proj. 4225.3, paving S. Washington St. frontage roads from Hamerling to S. 26th St., C.O. #4, $1,434.00 non-participating. d) Proj. 4225.2, paving S. Washington St. from 32nd to 40th Aves. S., C.O. #2, $31,329.50 non-participating e) Proj. 4655.1, paving S. Washington St. from 26th to 32nd Ave. S., C.O. #1, $26,144.00 participating. Mr. Vein stated these are DOT projects that they inspect and we cost share on this, every change order that they implement and will concur with. Moved by Lucke and Lunak to approve the change orders. Motion carried. 13. Matter of contract amendment, Proj. 4849, for appraisal services for Lift Station 40 and forcemain. Mr. Grasser reported they asked GFEG to do some negotiations for land and lift station locations in that area west of Columbia Road, south of 47th Avenue, and that lift sta-tion intended to serve that section between I-29 and all the way to the middle of the golf course between 47th Ave. S. and 62nd Ave. S. He stated Useldinger owns north half and Bateman owns south; and it’s been their policy to date to ask that all easements and lands be donated if going to install a piece of infrastructure to serve a property; that they asked Mr. Hanson to meet with Mr. Bateman because the fair thing to do would be that each adj. property owner would provide half the easements that were needed to put in the streets and utilities. He stated they asked Mr. Bateman to provide that at no charge or $1.00 and he declined to do that and are somewhat reluctant to ask as issue of fairness that Mr. Useldinger provide all of the easements and rights of way, and are asking to get an appraisal on it in case have to negotiate price or in case decide to go through a condemnation process to obtain that property. Price MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE April 12, 1999 - Page 15________ was $13,000/acre. Mr. Grasser stated that amount would be to pay for a piece of land that’s ready for development, but if don’t put in infrastructure it’s not development land, simply farmland. It was noted that Mr. Bateman is protesting annexa-tion of his property; that it’s not in the city but wants the value of his land as if it were in the city. Mr. Grasser reported this reflects the problems they have when these people not annexed to the city and are ready to deliver a free utility and only asking for easements to put it on and can’t get pro-perty owners to cooperate. Mr. Grasser stated that if they bring them in as an annexation, can make them a financial partner in what’s going on - there’s a problem that they’re going to run into, that if start buying easements, infra-structure costs keep going up. Moved by Klave and Lunak that we authorize Greater Forks Engineering Group to bring an appraisal on board at this time. Motion carried. 14. Matter of 3-way agreement for watermain on S. 42nd Street. Jerry Pribula, Pribula Engineering, stated that he has been hired by Interstate Diesel to install a 16” waterline on section line, privately funded, plans have been submitted to staff and been reviewed and have made changes, and would like to proceed with taking bids on the watermain. Moved by Klave and Lunak to enter into the three-way agreement, and approve plans and specs. contingent upon engineer’s final review. Motion carried. 15. INFORMATION: Dick Newman reported that two trucks have been delivered for sideload system, but trucks have wrong body style, that they bid a low-entry truck but they delivered a standard expediter body on the truck, body is used in probably 90% of side-load operations. He stated they have been negotiating with Hall Chevrolet of Fargo as to what to do about this. He stated trucks have wrong body style but will use the trucks anyway because have everything started, that they will be coming in with a change order as to change in body style and hold back some money on what paying for the trucks. He stated that when the trucks were delivered to the manufacturer City paid 95% of the bid which was about $380,000, and are holding about $19,000. He stated it is a useable truck but not the one they specified, MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE April 12, 1999 - Page 16________ going over truck and style with the operators, they’re thinking it might be better than one had ordered. Committee asked if the $19,000 would be sufficient. Mr. Newman stated they need to get more information and haven’t completed all the work on it yet but wanted committee to be aware. Moved by Lunak and Lucke to adjourn; meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Alice Fontaine City Clerk Dated: 4/13/99