MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE Monday, July 10, 2000 - 7:00 p.m.

Members present: Kreun, Hoff, Klave.

11. Matter of reviewing policy of first refusal by former home owners. It was noted that Mr. and Mrs. Ripplinger have a concern as to whether they have right to first refusal after bids (for structure only). Mr. Swanson stated that the prior city council had adopted a policy and right of first refusal applying to real estate transactions, land and structure, and question is whether that policy would apply to structure only but not in a position to answer, and this city council could modify the policy to extend it to structures only. He stated that tenants were given a 90-day notice and that time frame came from Engineering Department to insure that they had the opportunity to advertise these properties and put up for bid and have properties cleared in the fall of 2000 so that the property would be available for construction in the spring of 2001; that during the 90-day period of time that the City would be taking steps to advertise those properties for sale, and he would see no reason why they would have to be out of the property before the City started any surplus sales or advertising. He also stated that if they modify the policy would have to do it universally, and if put up for bids, the former owner would have the opportunity to meet or accept that offer price and they would be given a period of time where they would have to have the structure removed and that’s probably going to be a relatively short period of time, if they couldn’t find a mover or circumstances such that they couldn’t get the s tructure off, that the City has to have that property vacated in order for R/W to be provided to Army Corps of Engineers in the spring of 2001 - actually required deposit (bond, letter of credit, or cash) quite substantial.

Mr. Scott Ripplinger stated they were looking for City to start bid process early so they know what the high bid will be if they get their first right of first refusal. Mr. Ripplinger stated if the house were put up for bids and knew what the bid was for match they could have their financing lined up and have movers lined up, basement builders and have the house off the property by the end of September, the same time their eviction is supposed to take place. Mr. Swanson stated he doesn’t find request from Mr. Ripplinger to be unreasonable or that it couldn’t be accommodated but engineering has to address what their plans are. Mr. Ripplinger stated that the only thing that would be if the high bid they had to match would not be reasonable for them to match it or if some problem obtaining financing, otherwise have house off by the end of September if the bid process goes through and they have right of first refusal. Mr. Grotte stated that the base bid determined by how much the house is worth - some $5,000 or 10%; and what their intentions are at this time is to bid it before the 90 days were up and did have a certain number of houses that were vacant, and their intention was to bid the rest of them next month. Mr. Swanson stated he hasn’t had an opportunity to determine whether the former policy applied to structures and may wish to make recommendation on the policy to extend to those structure sales only.

Moved by Hoff and Klave to amend the policy to extend the right of first refusal to structure sales only. Motion carried. MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 2

Moved by Klave and Hoff to declare those parcels (listing of approx. 30 houses provided by Engineering Dept.) as surplus property. Motion carried.

1. Matter of surplus castings in street department. Todd Feland, Public Works, requested authorized for staff to sell castings that have been declared surplus on an ad hoc basis to municipalities in the area and reflect that they could purchase under $50 based upon condition at time of sale. Hoff questioned if there was a way for someone to find out through Internet that surplus castings available - and it was noted there is limited market - municipalities in the area. Hoff stated there is so much property and if we were using Internet to get rid of all of our surplus property, would reach much wider market and get more money.

Moved by Klave and Hoff to authorize staff to sell the surplus castings to area municipalities at reasonable cost. Motion carried. (Comm.only)

2. Matter of Red River Renaissance. Lisa Dressler stated they would like to have an informational meeting for the council (depending on mayor’s schedule) on noon on Wednesday or Thursday. Chairman Kreun stated this has been coming up for discussion is that there is a lot of information and lot of mis-information and misunderstandings on what the greenway and the Red River Renaissance has in common and how blended together and what costs are and new council members need to be informed and would urge all the council members to attend this informational meeting so can make an informed decision on this. Ms. Dressler stated they would like to have the meeting prior to the next council meeting. Doug Christensen, 5th Ward, stated this was tabled at the last meeting (ordinance), and asked Mr. Swanson if they could withdraw ordinance from further consideration when it comes back to council floor and if not ready to vote on the ordinance what is process. Mr. Swanson stated it could be tabled to a date certain or tabled indefinitely, there is not a provision to withdraw.

Mr. Christensen stated that as long as there is a lot of misinformation and we are in the budgeting process and when get more information and learn exactly how this greenway is to be funded, that there’s about a $10 million proje ct, approx. $4.2 million from Corps of Engineers, $4.2 million from special assessments that are currently part of the project, and short about $5.5 million - so the issue becomes how and when do we pay that and from what sources. He stated a lot of this money is not there, but if in the meantime are going to make informed decisions and responsible decisions we have to know the source of the money. He stated that they ran on fewer committees, less government and this creates another commission and also s ome issues as to staffing and funding for staff; and understanding from Mr. Grotte that for this current budgeting process it's 2 to 5 persons assigned to this project - need to have a coordinated plan as to what going to be built initially first (bike trails, etc.), how fund that and how fund the extras.

Mr. Grotte stated budget not committed but previous city council has an agreement with the Park District to mitigate their pool at cost of $830,000 (that’s already covered.) It was MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - PAGE 3 noted that the extra $10 or $11 million has not been committed yet and that would be left up to the council to do that as the greenway is developed.

Chairman Kreun stated they would like this matter to be addressed to the full council so they all know the pertinent facts. Mr. Christensen stated he would appreciate having all the information, an executive summary, some information from the engineering department what is hard, what is fixed and what isn’t, where money going to come from wh en making these decisions. Klave stated that after the next council meeting and prior to the August 7 council meeting, the staff set a date for this meeting. Chairman Kreun asked that information requested provided to council members for the meeting and the date be available for Monday night’s meeting and can table ordinance to a date certain. Information only.

3. Matter of negotiating engineering services agreement, Burns & McDonnell, new siting environmental impact statement (EIS), City Project No. 5178.____ (Areas showing ***are revised minutes included at Hoff’s request)

Mr. Grotte reported that Burns & McDonnell has been working with the City since 1993 on disposal, landfill siting and design, baling facility, etc. (and looked at 9 types of waste disposal) and have been our solid waste disposal consultant for last 7 years. The City filed an application for a conditional use permit with Turtle River Twp, and they decided not to grant the hearing because we did not complete an environmental impact statement and are now asking for authorization to negotiate with Burns & McDonnell, to try to work with the Twp. Board to find out what they expect the EIS to be and bring that back to the committee and council for approval of the actual agreement.

***Hoff stated if there were a perception on the council that’s there’s no way we’re going to be able to put that landfill in Manvel because there’s just too much opposition and too politically unpopular, there would be no point in negotiating because there would be no point doing that EIS, and asked if that was correct. Mr. Grotte stated if that was their opinion is, but not of that opinion himself, and don’t know that attorneys are of that opinion.

Tom Hanson, WFW, subconsultant for Burns & McDonnell stated they been involved in this process since 1993, real concern is that the present landfill has something in the neighborhood of 3 to 5 years left to operate. Mr. Grotte stated that the City has a landfill permit that expires on November 1, 2000 and if the State chooses to extend our permit, and if State chooses not to extend our permit, we will be out of the landfill business on November 1 and will be hauling our garbage somewhere else. ***Hoff stated that number was 5 to 7 years. He stated he wrote the book on dumpster diving, the internationally acclaimed text on it, and this whole nation/world has a waste problem and every city is being put in this same position, where are we going to put our garbage, and question is why do we have so much garbage - that Mr. Ebertowski is a member of the Dakota Resource Foundation, basically what sort of green movement we have in North Dakota, and we need MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - PAGE 4 to recycle more - speaking as the national expert on dumpster diving he cannot believe the amount of that’s taking place here in Grand Forks - he wants to approach problem in a whole new light, that he hears their concerns, nobody dislikes garbage more than he and he hopes his vociferousness is not going to be used against him to ram this forward, but need to hear from Mr. Ebertowski and need to wait on this - and waiting a few more weeks is not going to kill it or kill the landfill in Manvel, and always the same questions, if not Manvel, where, and he asks why and how do they fix this. He stated if we grossly increase recycling in this town then our landfill which could last 5 to 7 years, could conceivably last even long - 10 to 12 year landfill, and with innovative methods it could become even longer if we were willing to say, just do something other than putting in a large plastic bag in the ground where we can force somebody to take our garbage. He stated we need to assess the level of opposition in Manvel.

Don Ebertowski, Turtle River Twp., asked why Grand Forks has to take garbage in from every community and jeopardize where they are now, take care of Grand Forks and how long will that landfill last then; and stated that he is speaking for a lot of people in Manvel area, they have nice community, and asked why look at rural community, that there’s a lot of ground west of town and get required distance from the airport runways, and there are lot of options. He stated that as far as the EIS, are other communities following the rules, and there are innovative ways to get rid of the garbage - palletize it, burn it, etc.

***Hoff stated that he proposed that they ramp up recycling and maintain the current landfill almost indefinitely, and then perhaps even begin to reduce what we’ve already put there.

Hal Gershman stated he’s concerned about good neighbor issue and that there’ve been some references to innovative methods and would like City to examine more closely is hauling of garbage to Minot or Gwinner, that West Fargo does it for $32/ton, and suggested that we begin to examine that to see what kind of savings there would be in taking our garbage, baling it and sending it out; and that would accomplish number of things - we could continue to take garbage from other communities because it’s a revenue source for the City, and get it out of the city and not have to bother our neighbors, and that what the State’s looking at is if we are moving towards some sort of resolution of this rather than just pulling the permit and discussion of handling another method might do that. He stated the concern he has is that with starting the negotiation with the consultant, that is a message to Manvel and would like to postpone that and look at alternatives.

Jay Fiedler stated he was retained by the City to assist it in the zoning issues surrounding the site that had previously been suggested, that he prepared the petition for special use permit about May 30, the Twp. denied our application for public hearing and issued a ruling that says we will not give you a public hearing on your application to site the landfill in our Twp. until an environmental impact statement is provided to them. He stated that created a situation in which he felt was to bring the matter to the council so that this body knew where they were in the process, and put them in position where a decision had to be MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - PAGE 5 made re. this site. He stated he has been proceeding under a former mandate to attempt to get the appropriate zoning or a new landfill in Turtle River Twp., and made no value judgments as to whether that should be or shouldn ’t be; that when Turtle River denied the public hearing until a EIS is provided he found himself with two options: 1) to go to District Court and ask judge to issue a writ of mandamus which is an order directed at the Twp. Bd. ordering them to hold a public hearing; the other option was to recommend to go forward and commission an EIS; that from their prospective they have their mandate and felt an obligation to move along unless told otherwise. He stated his recommendation was to commission an environmental impact statement; and the real issue that they were considering is siting a landfill. He stated he has discussed this with Burns & McDonnell and has their proposal from them, and that is to do an EIS at a cost of slightly under $50,000 over a period of time of approx. 4 months. He stated this brings committee up procedurally they are, what he sees options to be if go ahead with the project and what his recommendation is with respect to those options. He stated re. waiting on this matter is based on info rmal discussions with people in the Health Dept. and at the FAA, that so long as they see legitimate progress we are likely to see our permit extended, but doesn’t know if either of those agencies would see revisiting the entire issue as progress and that the Health Department’s bias is in favor of siting a landfill in this area.

***Hoff asked Mr. Fiedler if he had heard of a lawyer named Gary Spence; Mr. Fielder stated he had and had spoken with Mr. Spence. Hoff asked Mr. Fielder if he had read his book on how he advises people to argue - speak from the heart, cut the stuff, tell the truth, don’t say we need to mitigate the environmental concerns in this area, say if we cut these trees down little birds are going to fall out of their nests, that’s how Gary Spence who has never lost a jury trial, advises people how to argue, and it may turn people off but that’s how he argues in the manner of Gary Spence. He stated he thinks this is a waste of money, this is going to another amazon.com, another boomtown building and the people are going to curse us and we are going to say - but we had to do it that way, that’s the procedure - it’s always the same excuse when a big pile of money gets wasted. That what you are talking about doing is creating what he calls the illusion of legitimate progress, because you don’t know what these officials are going to say, you have to keep acting like you’re moving forward and the people in Manvel do not want the landfill there, there is too much opposition and yet we’re going to start putting money into this study - when you say that you think that they’ll call you naïve for thinking you can convince them, while that’s not naïve, that rhetoric. The people in Manvel obviously asked for the EIS as a legal tactical delay, let’s cut to the chase, they are just trying to slow things down, you are not going to reassure them with your EIS, it was a legal maneuver, it ’s obvious, and asked Mr. Ebertowski if he (Hoff) was lying.

Mr. Ebertowski stated that they do not want the landfill and that there’s plenty of land where they are now. Mr. Fielder stated as a legal matter that the final determination of whether that site would be approved as a landfill is not based upon opposition in the Twp., the ND Supreme Court has established a legal standard to review these sorts of petitions, and in the end the question is: has the City done everything reasonably appropriate to MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 6 identify the right site and mitigate the impacts, and on other hand what are the impacts and how has the Twp responded, Court determines if Twp. acted reasonably or unreasonably in denying that application; that if on top of everything the City has done to identify that site the City has also done as the Twp. requests and provided an EIS, then legal argument becomes that much stronger.

There were discussions re. FAA regulations - that there is new legislation has been enacted by the federal government under aviation bill which says you cannot site a new landfill or expansion of a landfill within 6 miles of an airport. ***Hoff stated we are not expanding any landfill at the current site, just using that landfill for another 5 to 7 years.

Mr. Ebertowski stated there are legal drains on both sides of the site, concerns by Canada; that there are 24 families within 2 zoning miles; Wildlife Mgmt., lot of federal land to the west.

Kreun stated should we continue to work with the EIS along with reducing garbage per Mr. Hoff’s comments if that is practical. Mr. Fielder stated he is at a point where he needs direction from the city council.

Mr. Hanson stated that the City accepting garbage from other communities - that other areas were being forced to close their (small landfills no longer economically viable) with all the environm ental requirements that were included in regulations, that various cities approached the City of Grand Forks and City accepted and charged cost to the cities, lot of expenses and required to put fair amount into assurance fund to maintain that landfill for 30 years after it’s closed.

Mr. Grasser stated that in the early 90’s City was aware that there were concerns from FAA, and landfill had an unlimited volume available, because what appeared to drive closure of the landfill was FAA restrictions, and if close early, didn’t have volume to get cap on the landfill to get slopes to close it, and what appeared to be good neighbor policy it appeared economically and engineeringly good sense to bring in additional waste so it could be properly capped off and dis posed of; since the 1997 flood with the huge amount of waste that went to the landfill, things have changed and what was pointed out here is that now not only dealing with FAA but there is point when we will reach a capacity issue.

Mr. Gershman stated that the cost for new landfill is $6.3 million, but if not expend that money and do study re. transporting garbage and take care of the bird problem and convert this to solid debris, and would like staff to look at that, and could have an alternative to this landfill which is perfect - no chance of spillage into slough or anything, and haul out - but look at it - that if it doesn’t work out, then take hard look at landfill, and put numbers to it.

***Mr. Christensen stated he agrees with Hal because being good neighbors is one thing where taking the garbage from other people but heard 75,000 tons for us and 113,000 tons MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 7 and taking a lot of other people’s garbage - let’s do what Hal’s talking about and if take other people’s garbage, mark it up and make it a profit center, and agrees with baling concept, landfills are as archaic as dikes. He stated he agrees with almost everything that Mr. Hoff has said, it’s a broader issue; and as far as Mr. Fiedler’s problem, he can go to court and can ask a district judge to tell the city of Manvel to give us a hearing; the district judge can say - sorry, Mr. Fiedler, get out of here, an EIS is important, if they say that, that makes it a little bit more important for us to do what he’s asking, and that could take anywhere from 2 to 4 months assuming the judge moves fast, we can then get this information, begin this process, staff these people and give them the parameters of the investigation we want, and we’ll be spending the $50,000 to do some good rather than an EIS, which we might have to spend anyway, and would rather go $100,000 and explore these opportunities/options than the $50,000 on the study that they’re asking for authority to negotiate, but apparently they’re pretty close to entering into the contract, and agrees with Hal and if brought before him, he would be voting along with Hoff and Gershman, and would hope the rest of the folks - that baling is the way to go and there’s two commercial facilities in this state that will take this garbage. He stated they need to investigate the areas that they go with the commercial to make sure they are financially solid and make sure they have a track record - how do you think became one of the biggest companies in the United States.

Mr. Grasser suggested to keep both pads open and ask authorization to negotiate, clarify dollars and also add to that to neg. Burns & McDonnell to put together RFP to transport.

Mr. Feland stated existing site which is most economical, that’s why do bird mitigation and baling garbage to try if can’t go anywhere else, stay where we are and use Mr. Hoff’s suggestion of being more innovative on our collection.

Moved by Klave to enter into the negotiations for engineering services agreement with Burns & McDonnell and jointly to look at some of the other options that are available.

Don Ebertowski stated he felt good about the options, and the Twp. Board having a meeting tomorrow night and will inform them.

Hoff state d that rather than walking down two paths simultaneously and accepts the fact that Manvel is never going to want the landfill and no point in doing the environmental impact statement and in wasting the money. ***Hoff asked Mr. Fiedler how much he was paid per hour and how many hours to negotiate the agreement - Mr. Fiedler stated he thought the contract with the City was approx. $100/hr. and 10-15 hours. Hoff stated that was $1,500 he was not going to flush, that we can always come back to this, always spend the $1,500, but do the way Hal does and not even waste that much, not cutting off option of opening this up later. Hoff stated our whole civilized nation has to deal with its waste products, and at this point our human race is in the position of being like an infant - we have to get rid of garbage entirely, recycle and everything, and not too much to pull the whole civilization upward and that he does not have a second for this motion and MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE -Page 8 would rather not blow $1, 500 on this and let’s wait.

***Mr. Gershman asked how citizens of Manvel would feel about the City of Grand Forks doing that step (negotiations) at the same time looking at options, so if options don’t work, then know what the consultant would cost. Mr. Ebertowski stated they would feel that Grand Forks is trying and that what they are looking at is if they have nothing to worry about, tell them why; that there are too many communities bringing in garbage and is Grand Forks going to be able to it - don’t know what’s going to be in the center of that bale. Mr. Gershman asked if they want Grand Forks to do the EIS; Mr. Ebertowski stated that’s one hurdle, and what’s the next one; that after Grand Forks is done with the EIS where does Turtle River go next, and they are going to keep looking at options. Hoff stated they thought this landfill was dead on arrival, and if we vote on this tonight and there ’s a meeting tomorrow, he knows how to judge a crowd, they are going to say it is not DOA, it has some life in it and moving forward and going to alarm them - that he will be at that meeting. Mr. Ebertowski stated they would like to hear different options - trucking, baling, and to go that way. He stated that if the City has meetings and the agenda has information in regards to options rather than building a site at Manvel, but if that doesn’t happen then City just putting up a smoke screen. Hoff stated they are having a meeting tomorrow night about the landfill in Manvel and when they find out tonigh t that you were willing to commit $1,500 of a lawyer’s time to negotiate an engineering services agreement to get the EIS, to go over the hurdle, to put the bales in Manvel, they will ramp up their opposition. (Committee stated comments going too far)

Mr. Swanson stated that questions raised by Mr. Ebertowski, by Township, by Mr. Hoff are environmentally related and why not do some evaluation of a professional evaluation and study of environmental questions and concerns in form of an EIS, and if report comes back clean but may have something in the report that might implicate environmental concerns about transporting bales, and those are issues you will have to deal with regardless of what option and have more information to reach determination of solution.

***Mr. Christensen stated we should incorporate the concerns of Manvel (that Mr. Fiedler is his partner) but if have to tell Jay as part of this motion is negotiating to meet with people from Manvel to get their environmental concerns and have that as part of our study; that we are helping them because we are going to be spending some of our money to address their concerns and if do that are killing several birds in coming across -- Hoff asked why he always had these animal killing and skinning metaphors. Mr. Christensen stated he was sorry - and they are accomplishing several purposes - one of which is to meet their environmental concerns to have our consultant address those concerns; second is to meet our concerns and tell us what it going to cost for that study. That sending a good message to the Manvel folks and yet opening the door for all … Hoff asked if he could speak directly to him on that issue….

Mr. Fiedler stated that the proposal from the consultant, preparation of a draft EIS

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - PAGE 9 document and sending to the Twp. for their review and comment, following his approval of the draft EIS, then finalize the EIS based on comments received from the Twp. He asked if motion would prepare request for proposal for cost for hauling options. Klave said he left that open as he wanted staff to sit down with parties interested and determine whether an RFP needs to go out in the event there is one, that there’s authorization to do that so that all options may be looked at.

***H off stated to Mr. Christensen that he could tell from his comments that he had read the letter or been aware of the letter that he gave to Mr. Swanson, and that he wanted to speak to him (Mr. Christensen) about how he perceives how you convince people, how you sway a crowd - you spoke of …there’s more than one way to skin a cat and we can have a special holiday… and that he was opposed to that and voted against that but very against it; that appearances mattered very much and that there’s a letter in the Herald that say’s “special holiday, what’s that”, every city worker that he talked to joked when he walked in on July 3, shouldn’t you be taking a special holiday”, it was as though you did not understand how the people - the grass roots, would perceive that, and as he wrote in a recent letter to Mr. Gershman, he can ’t help but think of the southern reconstructionist legislature that in its first act, voted itself looking glasses and horsehair couches, of course, they wanted to fix up their war torn capitol and their first act was to vote for a bunch of stuff for themselves and perceived very badly. This will be perceived very badly in Manvel and you see that everywhere he goes, he has a mob with him (maybe not tonight) but at several council meetings and at Mayor Owens’ victory party had, and understands how the grass roots think - that he’s closer to the grass roots and the garbage than anybody else - this will be perceived badly, and would rather delay and not alarm the people in Manvel and just look at Hal’s option for now, and can always go back to negotiating and spending $1,500 worth of attorney time, but if do this tonight the people in Manvel will think that contrary to what he wrote in his column “Prairie Fire” that the landfill in Manvel is not dead on arrival and they will be come alarmed and turn into a thing, and would rather keep everything calm right now and wait, and do this with an understanding of the grass roots and how things are perceived, not from a procedural understanding, but an understanding of crowds, and how they work, and that is why he is so opposed to this because of how it will appear and what the impact will be there. Mr. Gershman stated that Mr. Hoff appears to be respectfully speaking for the citizens of Manvel and the Township, but that’s why he directed his question to Mr. Ebertowski earlier and now to him, and asked him if that was his feeling. Mr. Ebertowski stated that not only is there going to be the environmental study involved in this but also all options; but allow with the proposed study there also is going to be a number of different options looked at, and that is good news. Hoff stated he would rather just see a motion that includes looking at these other options, and not this, can always bring this up at another point, it’s not dying and we are moving forward.

Kreun seconded the motion. Motion carried; Hoff voted against the motion.

RECESS: Committee recessed at 8:55 p.m.; and reconvened at approx. 9:00 p.m. MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - PAGE 10

9. Matter of Plans and Specifications for various projects: a) Proj. 5171, Storm Sewer on 40th Ave. S. between Aspen and Pine Circle Jerry Pribula, Pribula Eng., stated he is working for private developer who requires an outfall into the southend drainway and worked with staff on getting storm sewer across 40th Avenue S. so City will be able to use it for catch basin in the future, and asked for approval of the plans. Moved by Klave and Hoff to approve plans and specifications, contingent upon staff review. Motion carried.

4. Matter of bid for North 69th Street pavement, City Project No. 5145. Tom Hanson, WFW, reported he received call from contractor asking about an item in the specs. and determined it could be taken two ways, and issued an addendum to delay the bid opening until July 13 and would allow them time to tabulate bids and mail out to all council members and requested committee meeting before council to review this, or else a 3-week delay for the contractor. Moved by Klave and Hoff to schedule public service committee meeting for Monday at 6:45 p.m. prior to the council meeting on the 17th. Motion carried. (comm.only)

5. Matter of change orders for Baling Facility, City Project No. 5086. Mr. Hanson reviewed items on the change order No. 6, Construction Engineers, LTD, contractor, in the amount of $5,625.61 which included additional cure time, additional rows of block and additional insulation in scale house, etc. Moved by Klave and Hoff to approve the change order in the amount of $5,625.00. Motion carried.

6. Matter of Project Concept Report for Proj. 5111 Intersection Improvements at S. 34th St./17th Ave. S. and S. 20th St./24th Ave. S.______Randy Pope, Interstate Engineering, Inc., stated the preliminary concept report was done in March, public hearing held on both intersections, and as result of the public hearing and as result of comments by staff there were some adjustments made to the report and this is final report. He stated recommendations at 20th Street/24th Ave. S. intersection the signals are warranted based on a four-hour volume warrant, and as a result of that the left turn lanes are recommended for all four legs of the intersection as well widening of both n orth and south legs of that intersection. He stated on 34th/17th based on current traffic volumes it’s marginal and future needs it as growth area and meets school signal warrant for school crossings because of large amount of pedestrian traffic, and on that intersection there are left turn lanes proposed on all four legs of the intersection and right turn proposed on the E and N bound lanes, and those where requiring right turn lanes will require widening. The project schedule is to submit this with sign atures by City officials and asks for categorical exclusion environmentally because do not feel there’s any environmental problems with this particular project (minor widening and signals), preparing plans for bid opening with November letting at the DOT in Bismarck, the project to be assisted from NDDOT from Federal Urban Funds, 80% of eligible costs of signals and approaches. There was some discussion relative to southbound traffic on S. 34th Street and cross through intersection there is entrance to the parking lot, and two times during the day (school starting and getting out), people waiting to make left turns into that parking lot to pick up kids and block traffic; and Mr. Pope stated MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 11 there is nothing being done with that particular driveway. It was stated with the additional lanes may be able to move more traffic through there - and concern of people at public hearing was parents and teachers who want the project but don’t want to have right turn on red light because concerned with right turn and people in center and left lanes that kids crossing in front of traffic that’s parked and that’s been incorporated into the report.

Moved by Klave and Hoff to approve the Concept Report and to authorize proper City officials to sign the report. Motion carried.

Mr. Grasser stated he wanted committee to be aware of maintenance of traffic signals (require electricity, light bulbs, painting, etc.) and as add signals need to address how to keep them maintained to operate properly.

7. Matter of Amendment No. 1 (Design) Interstate Engineering, Proj. 5111 Intersection Improvements at S. 34th St./17th Ave. S. and S. 20th St./24th Ave. S. Mr. Pope stated the contract they have with the City covers both preparing the Concept Report and the design of the signals, however, money was only included for the Concept Report because scope not decided until report finished, and based on the report prepared an amendment in an amount not to exceed $22,000. Moved by Klave and Hoff to approve Amendment No. 1 in an amount not to exceed $22,000. Motion carried; Hoff voted against the motion (as he had not received information on this item).

8. Matter of agreement for design engineering services with Ulteig for Proj. 4901, Lighting the English Coulee Bikepath from 6th Ave. N. to Gateway Drive______Scott Zainhofsky, project engineer, reported project consists of installation of lighting along the English Coulee from 6th Ave. N. to the last entrance to the Engelstad Arena, this is for design phase of project and not to exceed $14,372, and asked for approval.

Moved by Hoff and Klave to approve the agreement, in an amount not to exceed $14,372.00. Motion carried; Hoff abstaining.

Klave stated there has been cooperation between the University and the City and Bikeway Committee re. funding sources for this, but has concerns that once start lighting bikepaths will be lighting every bikepath in the city, and not in favor of that.

9. Matter of Plans and Specifications for various projects: b) Proj. 5064, Landfill Closure Phase III Mr. Hanson reported plans and specs. not ready; held for 2 weeks.

10. Matter of Change Orders for Proj. 4981 & 4982, Rehabilitate Sanitary Pump Station No.14 and No.15 – General Contract, C.O. No. 3______Mr. Hanson reviewed change order No. 3, Moorhead Construction, contractor, in the amount of $138.48 for additional work to modify existing piping. Moved by Klave and Hoff to approve the change order. Motion carried. MINUTES/PUBLICE SERVICE - Page 12

12. Matter of status of City Wide Mill and Overlay Projects Scott Zainhofsky, project engineer, presented map showing streets in the construction plans, that they had enough funding to do those streets and as this was CDBG money and had to be spent and under contract, added additional streets shown on the map; and after this there were still some funds remaining. He stated that Valley Contracting has submitted a claim for a change of conditions - that they ran into a lot of reinforcing in the concrete, they ran into some large aggregate and claiming that did a lot of damage to their mill - that it’s staff contention that a lot of that was visible at the time the contract was bid and therefore, it’s not reasonable for us to pay them for the vast majority of their claim as contract specifically states that they have to look at plans and specs. but also go out and look at site and prepare bid accordingly. He stated they have proposed as a settlement (draft letter) in the amount of $15,034; that their original claim was $54,000 and found that unreasonable, that they took the portions of their claim that they thought were reasonable and could justify to committee and make that as a proposed counter-offer, and will be coming back to committee for final approval if Valley Contracting accepts it. He also reported that there has been a claim from Nodak Contracting and theirs is just over $20,000 and staff will propose a similar offer to them. Mr. Grasser stated his intent was not to get into too much of the detail about claim and counter-claim but wanted committee to be aware that there is a claim out there, have denied it to date and intend to keep denying it and have proceeded on the contract to spend all of the money and not retain money in anticipation that they have to pay a claim. He stated that should a claim come through will fund the claim out of Highway Users or if it’s the staff’s judgment that there may be some CDBG projects that they could shift money from at a later date to cover it, and some of these actions will come back to the committee at later date for approval.

Hoff stated several people on Boyd Drive have some concerns re. project, and asked how people informed; some of those people dealing with some rough roads now - and areas with sharp drop -off; it was noted those areas have been milled and staff will check with contractor and give Mr. Hoff info.

Mr. Hoff stated he had received complaint from Duane Henessey, 906 N. Columbia Road, complaining about the condition of his street. Mr. Grasser stated that Mr. Hennesey’s concern is related to a watermain project and will have consultant give him a call. Information.

13. Review of process for placing items on agenda. Mr. Grasser presented information on process for placing items on committee agenda and submitted listing of individuals who place items on the agenda - process they like to use is if have an item to contact staff listed so would have opportunity to have information for the meeting.

He also noted that with consultants - first do scope of project or project concept report so consultant can identify the major components of the project, 2) then come back with engineering agreement for design, 3) then after project bid or during bidding process come MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE - Page 13 back with another amendment to the contract to do the construction inspection, unless the City decides to use in-house force. Information.

Moved by Klave and Hoff to adjourn, meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.

Alice Fontaine City Clerk

Dated: 7/11/00