Council Minutes
17251
October 2, 2000
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
October 2, 2000
The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in its regular session in the council chambers in City Hall on Monday, October 2, 2000 at the hour of 7:30 o’clock p.m. with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun - 13; absent: Council Member Martinson - 1.
Mayor Brown announced that anyone wishing to speak to any item may do so by being recognized prior to a vote being taken on the matter and reminded audience that this meeting is televised.
RECOGNIZE AWARD TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
EMPLOYEE AS DRIVER OF THE YEAR 2000 AND
PRESENTATION OF PLAQUE TO CITY
Mayor Brown stated that each year the Dakota Transit Association names a driver of the year from North and South Dakota and that on September 21 the 2000 Driver of the Year award was presented to Blair G. Sondreal and the City of Grand Forks Public Transportation Department, and congratulated Mr. Sondreal on receiving this prestigious awards and thanked him for years of dedicated service. He also thanked Roger Foster, Transportation Superintendent, and Todd Feland, Director of Public Works, for a job well done. Mr. Foster presented a plaque to Mayor Brown on behalf of the Dakota Transit Association and the Federal Transit Administration for placement in the entryway of City Hall.
PRESENTATION OF UPDATE ON DEVILS LAKE FLOODING
Joe Belford, County Commissioner of Ramsey County, presented an overview of the flooding of Devils Lake and problems they are having; and presented a viewing of aerial tour of the area. He summarized the history of Devils Lake flood and actions taken to date, outlet alternatives that have been evaluated and the proposed emergency outlet plan. He stated they have received funding from the Corps of Engineers for the environmental impact statement and design; and have to have a document so that everyone downstream can look at it and the impacts, and that if there are problems they can look for solutions for resolving them. He asked for continued support from the council of the City of Grand Forks, and asked that Grand Forks continue to be an active part of the Red River Basin Board and thanked council for hearing his presentation.
FLOOD REPORT
Ken Vein, city engineer, reported that the monthly update had been sent to council members, and noted that the finalizing of the alignment design memorandum should be here this week and are the right of way drawings and alignments necessary as they finish up the final right of way locations. He stated there was public notification on the closing of the railroad/pedestrian bridge and that they will get the bids on Lift Station 1 and No. 5 and bids on forcemain and water transmission line that had to be adjusted prior to next year’s construction of the English Coulee diversion extension. He stated that under the Greenway update the design costs for the community green have been negotiated at a little over $20,000 under the $50,000 they had discussed before as a maximum, and that the contractor is Stanley Consultants. He stated that if there are any questions to contact either him or the Greenway staff
APPROVE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 5, 2000
Typewritten copies of the minutes of the regular meeting of the city council held on Tuesday, September 5, 2000, were presented and read. Council Member Bjerke noted that there should be correction in the mayor’s name in the first two paragraphs of the minutes. It was moved by Council Member Lunak and seconded by Council Member Babinchak that the minutes be approved as read and corrected. Carried 13 votes affirmative.
SUSPEND AGENDA TO CONSIDER THE MATTER OF
CITY COUNCIL MEETING PROCEDURES AND APPROVAL
PROCESS
Council Member Gershman moved to suspend the council agenda to consider the matter of the city council meeting procedures and city council approval process. Council Member Lunak seconded the motion. Carried 13 votes affirmative.
Richard Warne, city administrator, presented several proposals relating to changes in the meeting procedures and approval process; that over the past several months there have been several discussions regarding the city council approval process and the problems of the current system have been outlined and some ideas for improving the system have been suggested by various members of the council and the public. He suggested a process which he believes would help make the city government more efficient, more effective and more customer-service oriented, and reviewed the process which would 1) eliminate the four standing committees with the city council to meet once a week, first week as a work meeting and second week as a decision meeting; 2) that council agendas will be prepared, coordinated and distributed through the administrative coordinator’s office; 3) staff will analyze and prepare written reports on each agenda item; 4) agenda items and staff reports will be reviewed by the mayor, administrative coordinator and department heads (as appropriate); 5) council meeting binders and other materials will be distributed the Wednesday before the city council meeting; 6) city council members will be encouraged to call the administrative coordinator or appropriate department head prior to the meeting if questions or additional information is needed; 7) administrative coordinator will deliver meeting binders and provide a pre-meeting briefing for each council member when the city council is reduced to seven members; 8) department head meeting will take place the day following city council meeting to review council decisions and implementation, assignments upcoming agenda items, administrative issues and report on department activities and coordinate interdepartmental projects; 9) agendas will be streamlined by delegating minor administrative matters currently being handled by the council to department heads and other appropriate staff; and 10) that any staff decision can be appealed to the mayor and city council: Document No. 8040 - Proposal.
Mr. Warne stated there maybe some training and adjustments that need to be made; that this system is used across the country, that this system will improve efficiency in city government.
Mr. Warne stated they have prepared ordinance amendments to implement the changes in procedures, that amendments have been reviewed by the city attorney and reviewed the proposed changes with the city council, changes in dates, staff reports, ordinances and resolutions which would be coordinated through the administrative coordinator’s office and that the administrative coordinator under the direction of the mayor and city council would determine the order of business or what items would go on the agenda, language to allow the city council to vote on several items at one time and at the same time allow any council member to remove any item from the summary action calendar or the consent agenda, and an attachment showing the vote of the council members.
There was discussion by the city council. It was noted that the city council would refer items to staff rather than to the city committee, and it would be their responsibility to do the appropriate research and bring back information and provide with widest range of options to make decision in the best interests of the people of Grand Forks.
Council Member Hoff stated that any issue can become controversial, and no way to identify; Mr. Warne stated that this process provides the opportunity for any council member to remove anything off summary action to be discussed at a work meeting or a council meeting. Council Member Hoff stated that safeguard does not extend to the public because the way this is structured.
Mr. Warne stated they would make sure items are published and people are notified, and decision making meeting is time for the council to debate, but because of the nature of an issue and the media has informed a specific group, that it may be appropriate either to allow them to speak in the decision making meeting or to continue this item to the next work session. Mr. Warne also stated that the work sessions would be televised and people will know well in advance if something turns out to be controversial and more input is needed by the council, and that the governing body can be flexible and allow people to speak or carry an item over to a meeting or two so that they can get more information. He said they are trying to provide more structure but at the same time allow greater participation by the public in city council decisions.
Council Member Babinchak moved that we send this ordinance and the process that was presented to each standing committee and to staff.; Council Member Hoff seconded the motion.
There was some discussion as to the number of committees (38) and that no recommendation had been made. Mr. Warne stated that he has asked the department heads to look at committees over which they serve as staff and to come up with some recommendations as to whether to consolidate meetings, and to save that decision as to the number of committees until they complete this issue.
Council Member Klave asked that even before they get to a working session it is important for the committees to streamline their agendas. Mr. Warne stated they will be compiling a list that they believe could be handled administratively with appropriate appeals to the mayor and city council, and will be bringing that back to the council.
Council Members Babinchak and Bjerke called for the question. Carried 13 votes affirmative.
Upon call for the question for referral to all committees and upon voice vote, the motion carried.
ADOPT RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING TERMS AND
DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF DEFINITIVE IMPROVEMENT
WARRANTS ON THE FUND OF FLOOD DISTRICT NO
14 AND PROVIDING FOR AND APPROPRIATING SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS FOR THE SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE
OF SAID FUND
Committee No. 1, Finance, reported having considered the award of bids for $9,000,000 Refunding Improvement Bonds, Series 2000A (Dike Improvements), and recommended approval of a resolution establishing terms and directing issuance of definitive improvement warrants on the fund of Flood District No. 14 and providing for and appropriating special assessments for the support and maintenance of said fund, and approval of a resolution directing the issuance of $9,000,000 Refunding Improvement Bonds, Series 2000A (Dike Improvements) and prescribing the terms and covenants thereof and awarding the sale of the bonds to Dan Rauscher at the interest rate of 5.3862%.
It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Gershman that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative.
The city auditor exhibited affidavit showing publication in the official newspaper of the City of a Notice of Bond Sale of $9,000,000 Refunding Improvement Bonds, Series 2000A (the Bonds) of the City, bids for which were to be considered at this meeting as provided by resolution adopted September 6, 2000. The affidavit was examined and approved and ordered placed on file.
The city auditor reported that 3 sealed bids for the purchase of the Bonds had been received from the following institutions at or before the time stated in the Notice of Bond Sale, and the bids were then opened and publicly read and considered, and were all found to conform to the Notice of Bond Sale and to be accompanied by the required security, and the purchase price, interest rates and net interest cost under the terms of each bid were found to be as follows: Document No. 8041- Bid Listing.
Alan Erickson, Springsted, Inc., reported that bids were taken this morning at 10:00 o’clock on the two bond issues and the low bid on the $9 Million Dike Bond issue was from Dain Rauscher, Inc. (now Royal Canadian Bank) and interest rate on that issue was 5.3862% and on the $6,965,000 Refunding Improvement Bonds the low bid was received by U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc. for a rate of 5.28% and received 4 bids on the second issue, 3 on the first. He stated that the bids were done electronically and received them over the Internet through a system called Parrity which is put out by Thompson Financial Systems, and also electronically distributed the official offering statements for the first time for the City as well and that saved the City costs in terms of printing of those. He stated that in a month they do the 3 revenue issues and due to legalities have to have a separate OS for each revenue issue. He stated that through the credit rating process Moody’s has reaffirmed the City’s AA3 bond rating. He stated that the amount of the dike debt could possibly be problematic with the rating agencies but he and the city auditor have been with your approval working on a plan for well over a year to address that issue and about a month ago they looked at the model that they had developed for use by the credit rating agencies and were able to meet with them and talk with them very diligently about that and they did see fit to retain the rating at a AA3. He stated he would recommend that you approve both of these.
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none.
Council Member Hamerlik introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Document No. 8042 - Resolution.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member Gershman and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun - 13; and the following voted against the same: none; whereupon the resolution was declared passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Auditor.
ADOPT RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE ISSUANCE OF
$9,000,000 REFUNDING IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES
2000A (DIKE IMPROVEMENTS) AND PRESCRIBING THE
TERMS AND COVENANTS THEREOF
Council Member Hamerlik then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Document No. 8043 - Resolution.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member Gershman and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun - 13; and the following voted against the same: none; whereupon the resolution was declared passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Auditor.
ADOPT SUPPLEMENTAL RESOLUTION RELATING TO
$9,000,000 REFUNDING IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES
2000A (DIKE IMPROVEMENTS) TERM BONDS
Council Member Hamerlik introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Document No. 8044 - Resolution.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member Gershman and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun - 13; and the following voted against the same: none; whereupon the resolution was declared passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Auditor.
ADOPT RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING TERMS AND
DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF DEFINITIVE IMPROVEMENT
WARRANTS ON THE FUNDS OF STORM SEWER DISTRICTS
NOS. 400 AND 409, ALLEY PAVING DISTRICT NO. 577,
PAVING DISTRICTS NOS. 576, 579, 566, 567, 563, 580 AND
19, LIGHTING DISTRICTS NOS. 133, 134 AND 135 AND
WATERMAIN DISTRICTS NOS. 271 AND 272 AND PROVIDING
FOR AND APPROPRIATING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR
THE SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE OF SAID FUNDS
Committee No. 1, Finance, reported having considered the award of bids for bonds b) $6,965,000 Refunding Improvement bonds, Series 2000B, and recommended approval of a resolution establishing terms and directing issuance of definitive improvement warrants on the funds of Storm Sewer Districts Nos. 400 and 409, Alley Paving District No. 577, Paving Districts Nos. 576, 579, 566, 567, 563, 580 and 19, Lighting Districts Nos. 133, 134 and 135 and Watermain Districts Nos. 271 and 272 and providing for and appropriating special assessments for the support and maintenance of said funds, and the approval of a resolution directing the issuance of $6,965,000 Refunding Improvement Bonds, Series 2000B and prescribing the terms and covenants thereof and awarding the same of the bonds to U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc. at the interest rate of 5.2817%.
It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Gershman that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative.
The city auditor exhibited affidavit showing publication in the official newspaper of the City of a Notice of Bond Sale of $6,965,000 Refunding Improvement Bonds, Series 2000B (the Bonds) of the City, bids for which were to be considered at this meeting as provided by resolution adopted September 6, 2000. The affidavit was examined and approved and ordered placed on file.
The city auditor reported that 4 sealed bids for the purchase of the Bonds had been received from the following institutions at or before the time stated in the Notice of Bond Sale, and the bids were then opened and publicly read and considered, and were all found to conform to the Notice of Bond Sale and to be accompanied by the required security, and the purchase price, interest rates and net interest cost under the terms of each bid were found to be as follows: Document No. 8045 - Bid Listing.
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none.
Council Member Hamerlik introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Document No. 8046 - Resolution.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member Gershman and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun - 13; and the following voted against the same: none.
ADOPT RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE ISSUANCE OF
$6,965,000 REFUNDING IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES
2000B AND PRESCRIBING THE TERMS AND COVENANTS
THEREOF
Council Member Hamerlik then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Document No. 8047 - Resolution.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member Gershman and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun - 13; and the following voted against the same: none: whereupon the resolution was declared passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Auditor.
ADOPT SUPPLEMENTAL RESOLUTION RELATING TO
$6,965,000 REFUNDING IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES
2000B TERM BONDS
Council Member Hamerlik introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Document No. 8048 - Resolution.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member Gershman and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun - 13; and the following voted against the same: none; whereupon the resolution was declared passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Auditor.
HOLD PUBLIC HEARING AND DETERMINE INSUFFICIENCY
OF PROTEST ON FLOOD PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 14,
PROJECT NO. 4704
The city auditor reported that the period for filing protests on the resolution of necessity for the improvements in and for Flood Protection District No.14, Project No. 4704, permanent flood protection and associated City-funded improvements city-wide, had expired on September 25, 2000, and that he had received no written protests in his office.
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter.
Kevin Pierce, East Lake Estates, one of three representatives that represent 27 property owners, and stated that he came to enter a formal protest, that they are being assessed for this project and that they are currently outside of the dike line and don’t plan to be inside the dike line, and wanted clarification that if outside the dike there’s a zero benefit to the property, and asked if there would be a zero tax at that level.
Mr. Swanson, city attorney, stated that at this point in time the determination of benefit has not been made by the Special Assessment Commission on a lot basis, and those arguments/comments should be addressed to the Special Assessment Commission. He stated that the issue of size of the district is different from the determination of benefit, that you may be within the district and be determined to have zero benefit. He stated that they first determine the district or the boundaries of a special assessment district, that is a council function and you cannot assign benefit outside of the district and up to the Special Assessment Commission to take the boundaries of the district and determine what properties within that district are benefited, and may determine that all properties within that district benefit and may also determine that properties within the district do not benefit. Mr. Pierce stated his property is within the district but outside the dike line. Mr. Swanson stated that he believes this gentleman’s property is outside the city limits, the City cannot include property outside the city limits in existing special assessment districts; however, the area is anticipated for a future assessment but without it being within the city limits, the City has no authority to include it within the district or to levy benefits at this point in time. Council Member Christensen asked why they would draw a line for a future benefit; Mr. Swanson stated that’s for information for residents to know in the future that if they come within the city limits there is likely to be an assessment. He stated to avoid the situation where somebody was just outside the city limits for a project that’s been in the works later comes forward and says that he didn’t know that he could possibly be assessed.
Council Member Babinchak questioned whether the property owner is outside the district and receiving no benefit, can he file a protest. Mr. Swanson stated that the protest period has expired but the council can accept it but doesn’t act as an official protest to the calculation. Mr. Swanson also noted that only those properties within the district can protest. Mr. Pierce stated they are within the future planned district because all of Grand Forks Township was included in the future assessment district.
Council Member Christensen moved that we delay this for two weeks for further information on the effect on Mr. Pierce’s addition and other additions that they are drawing this line around. Council Member Hoff seconded the motion.
Council Member Babinchak questioned whether they were going to extend the protest period tonight, that this is nothing new in procedure.
Al Grasser, asst, city engineer, reported that the southerly line is not known at this time nor will it be known for a period of several months, the process where he has seen the future special assessment district used in the past is that we are setting up an area on notice that they have the potential to be assessed for a certain project; the city council before assessments are actually levied will have to re-create the actual assessment district after they are inside the city limits and council will at that time know where the line is and the line can actually be drawn on the dike if the council so desires, but that will have to happen before any special assessments actually get levied.
Kathleen Stradley, 6830 Woodcrest Road, Grand Forks Township, stated she wasn’t sure they could protest as they were in a future assessment area and that is a liability on their homes. Mr. Swanson stated that a protest by someone within the future assessment district would not count toward the percentage of protest against the district.
Mr. Swanson stated that there is a difference between a tapping area and a future assessment area, there is a statute for future assessment on properties to be annexed in the future after the original date of assessment. He stated that if the council made a decision in the future that they were seeking to annex additional areas, the annexation proceeding would have to occur before those assessments could be made.
Mr. Swanson stated that there is a statute right on point in North Dakota and also two North Dakota Supreme Court cases that have upheld the spreading of assessments on property subsequently annexed to the city after the original assessment occurred.
Scott Stradley, 6830 Woodcrest Road, Grand Forks Township, stated by the city engineer tonight that the southend alignment of the levee has not yet been determined but that is not a correct statement, it has been determined by the Army Corps of Engineers, they had to submit an environmental impact statement that met the National Environmental Policy Act guidelines which means that it has to have the appropriate cost benefit ratio which is now a ratio of 1.06 benefits to $1.00 of cost, that the Army Corps of Engineers has told him on numerous occasions that they will not put the levee out in the Burke Addition as it’s been referred to, to protect us because it will not meet the cost benefit ratio standard, that the Army Corps of Engineers, Lisa Hedin, told him that they will not move the levee off the current alignment because the State of Minnesota will sue because it will influence the height of flood crests, it will raise the elevation of flood crests. He stated that based on 2 ½ years of experience there is no chance that the levee alignment will change and does not think it is fair for the City to include people in the assessment district whether present or future that are not going to benefit and that it will cost him for the levee project, it will affect flooding in his neighborhood, depress property values, and asked that they move the levee back towards the city and move it away from the southeast corner of Grand Forks Township.
Mr. Swanson stated that the notice was published two times, and stated that there are two components here, one of which you are discussing is the boundaries of the district, but the other component that goes along with the bond sale that does appear to need action is the adoption of a resolution determining insufficiency of protest, can still refer the district on for discussion.
Ken Vein, city engineer, stated that the current alignment is down Belmont Road, and that is where project is currently planned upon, that the City of Grand Forks has entered into an agreement with the County to work with the citizens out there to establish if another alignment is possible or feasible, that a number of citizens want the levee alignment moved farther east to protect them, some don’t, and has been quite controversial. He stated the idea of including that whole area as a potential future assessment was only to be in place if in the future they agreed that this alignment should move, if the alignment would move then they would be able to assess the benefiting property owners, that if the alignment does not move, then say they would not be assessing anybody within that area and council would need to go on record to note that they are not going to assess people who are not benefiting from this project, and he is assuming that the Special Assessment commission or future council would not assess people who do not benefit from the project. He stated that the alignment has the potential to shift, that they have been working with Barr Engineering that has been under contract with the City and County to look at other options and that final report has not come back to the City yet as they try to work out a solution for the final alignment in the area. He stated that noting the area that is included in the map at this time gives the City the greatest leeway for future modifications to the current alignment, that they don’t want to assess anybody who doesn’t benefit from the project.
Council Member Bjerke and Brooks called for the question to delay for two weeks until the council has more information; that Mr. Vein can explain what the effect is and get the resolution at the next council when they establish the line and once the dike line is established, won’t assess anybody on the wet side of the dike. Upon voice vote the motion carried.
Upon call for the motion , and upon voice vote, the motion carried.
Mr. Swanson then stated that it would be appropriate for the council to introduce a motion to adopt a resolution as to insufficiency of protest. Council Member Babinchak introduced the following resolution as to protests, which was presented and read: Document No. 8049 - Resolution.
It was moved by Council Member Babinchak and seconded by Council Member Christensen that we hereby find and determine an insufficiency of protest against Flood Protection District No. 14, Project No. 4704, as no protests were filed and further that the resolution be and is hereby adopted. Carried 13 votes affirmative.
Mr. Stradley stated that any movement of the levee from its current position the Army Corps of Engineers calls a betterment and they will not pay towards a betterment, the cost of the betterment has to be borne by the local property owners, the betterments they are talking $50,000 on his property, and that they cannot do this to him, and asked council to use some sense on this for a change to quit all the speculation about the levee alignment that the engineering department has come up with, that the fact is that the Corps will not move it, it’s a betterment and we have to pay for it.
COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE EXCUSED
APPROVE APPLICATION FOR MOVING PERMIT
TO MOVE BUILDING FROM 2423 OLSON DRIVE TO
793 EVERGREEN DRIVE
The city auditor reported that the notice of public hearing on the application by Desiree Hapka to move a building from 2423 Olson Drive to 793 Evergreen Drive to be used as a residence had been published and posted as required.
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none.
Committee No. 3, Public Service, reported having considered the matter of application for moving permit to move building by Desiree Hapka to move residence from 2423 Olson Drive to 793 Evergreen Drive, and recommended approval to move the house at 2423 Olson Drive to 793 Evergreen Drive.
It was moved by Council Member Hoff and seconded by Council Member Glassheim that this recommendation be and is hereby approved, and further that Ms. Hapka be and is hereby authorized to move the building subject to meeting conditions established. Carried 12 votes affirmative.
APPROVE INSPECTORS AND POLLING PLACES FOR
GENERAL ELECTION
The city auditor presented and read the listing of inspectors at the polling places for the several precincts in the wards for the General Election to be held November 7, 2000. It was moved by Council Member Babinchak and seconded by Council Member Lunak that the polling place for the Ward 1, Precinct 1, be changed from the Army Reserve Facility to the Public Works Facility, that the inspectors for the polling places be and are hereby approved, and further that the hours of election be established as 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.. Carried 12 votes affirmative.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS
The city auditor presented and read the statement of cash report as of August 31, 2000. It was moved by Council Member Lunak and seconded by Council Member Babinchak that this report be and is hereby received and filed. Carried 12 votes affirmative.
APPROVE BILLS
Vendor Payment Listing No. 00-17, dated October 2, 2000, and totaling $1,317,227.99, all having been audited by the city auditor for payment in accordance with regulations, was presented and read.
It was moved by Council Member Lunak and seconded by Council Member Klave that these bills be allowed and that the city auditor be authorized to issue warrants in payment of the same. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun - 12; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried and the bills order paid.
COUNCIL MEMBER BAKKEN EXCUSED
REFER ITEMS BACK TO COMMITTEE
Mayor Brown asked if there were any items that should be referred back to committee for further discussion.
It was moved by Council Member Babinchak and seconded by Council Klave to send the matter of the ordinance repealing Article 2 of Chapter XXIV of the Grand Forks City Code relating to the events center commission and enacting Article 2 of Chapter XXIV of the Grand Forks City Code back to the Events Center Core Committee for further consideration. Carried 11 votes affirmative.
RECESS
Mayor Brown called for a 10-minute recess at 9:20 p.m.
The city council reconvened at 9:30 p.m. with all members present except Council Members Lunak and Glassheim.
REFER MATTER OF COMPLAINTS BY HENRY
VALDUR BACK TO COMMITTEE
Committee No. 1, Finance, reported having considered the matter of ADA complaints by Henry Valdur, and recommended to receive and file.
It was moved by Council Member Bjerke and seconded by Council Member Gershman that this recommendation be and is hereby approved.
Mr. Valdur stated this was in regards to the last city council meeting he was at, and asked if Mr. Swanson still holds that his dog is not a service animal. Mr. Swanson stated that as defined by the North Dakota Century Code he does not know if Mr. Valdur’s dog has received any training for visual aid. Mr. Valdur stated that he received a packet from Council Member Glassheim.
COUNCIL MEMBER GLASSHEIM REPORTED BACK
Council Member Brooks stated this matter had been referred to the first finance committee meeting in September, that Mr. Valdur was not present at that meeting, and that the finance committee held that matter for an additional two weeks, and again Mr. Valdur was not present. Council Member Babinchak moved to send this back to committee, Council Member Kreun seconded the motion. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Bjerke, Hoff, Burke, Gershman - 9; voting “nay”: Council Member Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim - 3. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.
Mr. Valdur was informed that the next finance committee will be held on October 10, 2000 at 5:15 p.m.
Council Member Glassheim stated that it is his understanding of the research done by legislative counsel is that this is not a city matter but it’s a civil matter between Mr. Valdur and any public accommodation. Mr. Valdur stated that the city council is not enforcing the laws which he presented at a previous council meeting.
DEFEAT MOTION TO ESTABLISH A CONTINGENCY FUND
Committee No. 1, Finance, reported having considered the matter of contingency budget for 2001, and recommended to establish a contingency fund in the amount of $200,000.
It was moved by Council Member Bjerke and seconded by Council Member Gershman that this recommendation be and is hereby approved.
Council Member Brooks stated he would like to establish some restraint on the council, that we have established how much we are going to have for emergencies rather than continually having people present requests for funding and then request city auditor as to where funding can come up; that he wants a set amount that they can stay within.
It was moved by Council Member Bjerke and seconded by Council Member Burke that the motion be amended that any more going into the excess sales tax will require a super majority of the vote of the council
COUNCIL MEMBER LUNAK REPORTED BACK
Mr. Swanson stated that a super majority without definition would be ambiguous, but they could adopt a procedural rule that any such votes require two-thirds, but it would be his recommendation that you give consideration to adopting it by ordinance so that it is contained within the Code. He stated if they wished to adopt it by procedural method and that procedural motion would only last as long as this council is in existence, and if inclined to adopt it on a long term basis, it would be his recommendation that you include it in the Code and adopt as an ordinance form.
Council Member Bjerke clarified his motion which would be two-thirds of the council members present. Mr. Swanson stated that as he understands the amendment it would require a two-thirds vote of those council members present to utilize excess sales tax carryover for expenditures. Council Member Bjerke stated his amendment would apply only to the $200,000.
Council Member Burke asked if Council Member Bjerke would accept a friendly amendment, and that the motion from finance is to provide for a $200,000 contingency fund, and that money be available to be spent with a simple majority and that any monies above the $200,000 contingency fund require the super majority of two-thirds vote. Mr. Swanson ruled that would be outside the scope of the initial motion and would require separate action.
Upon call for the question of the amendment and upon voice vote, the motion failed.
Upon call for the question on the original motion and upon roll call vote, the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Burke, Gershman - 4; voting “nay”: Council Members Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Hoff, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Lunak - 9. Mayor Brown declared the motion defeated.
DETERMINE CONTRACTING POSITION(S) OF CITY
ENGINEER AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ND
REFER TO PUBLIC SERVICE TO DETERMINE WHETHER
ONE OR TWO POSITIONS
Committee No. 1, Finance, reported having considered the matter of employment of public works director and city engineer when permanently appointed so council can discuss whether one position, contractual, or other matters pertaining to those positions, and recommended a) to ask public service to consider whether or not the public works director and city engineer should be a combined or split position in coordination with our administrative coordinator and come back to city council with that recommendation; and b) that the public works director and city engineer positions be contracted.
It was moved by Council Member Bjerke and seconded by Council Member Gershman that this recommendation be and is hereby approved.
Council Member Babinchak moved to delete portion b); Council Member Bakken seconded the motion.
Council Member Hamerlik stated that the motion contained three parts; first part had to do with whether or not the current position should be split (city engineer and director of public works), and that should be a public service committee’s decision; second issue was whether or not there was a contract or non-contract for these positions, that they heard from the administrative coordinator and human resources director and committee passed a motion that it be referred to this group that it be a contracted position; and third item had to do with the contract agreement as to how far we extend the circulation and advertisement and were told that in a contracted position it goes outside but if it’s a regular position or civil service, it stays inside first, and if it goes outside any inside person has the opportunity to apply and not understanding why the motion should be separate.
After some discussion and upon call for the question on the amendment to the motion, and upon voice vote, the motion was defeated.
Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried.
CONSIDER MATTER OF FINANCING SIGNAGE AND
SCOREBOARD FOR THE ALERUS