Council Minutes

GRAND FORKS
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2001

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, February 26, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers with President Gershman presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Bakken, Kreun - 11; absent: Council Members Lunak, Martinson - 2; 1 seat vacant.

President Gershman announced that when addressing the committee to please come forward to the microphones, and advised that the meeting is being televised and will be broadcast at a later date.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DISCUSSION ITEMS

2.1 Blank.
2.2 Blank.

It was moved by Council Members Hamerlik and Christensen to suspend the agenda and consider item No. 2.15, the matter of the Metro Transit Center Construction bids. Motion carried.

2.15 Approval of Metro Transit Center Construction bids.
Todd Feland gave a brief overview of the project which started after the 1997 flood in response to the City Center Mall being demo’d as the City Center Mall was the location used for transfer center downtown Grand Forks; that MPO hired D.S.Lea, a company which provided concept plan of location, type of facility - that they looked at areas on Mill Road, off DeMers by Columbia Road, and downtown; and after the site concept process was studied, the council decided on site located near the Corporate Center ramp. Positive aspects of that site was that it was near retail, business, school and Social Services, and was located near East Grand Forks off DeMers Avenue and this site would be a drop -off point for passengers going from East Grand Forks to Grand Forks and vice versa. He stated he included a letter from former Mayor Pat Owens dated May of 1998 supporting a State-wide effort to get a Congressional ear-mark for capital dollars related to public transportation; and in the last 3 years the City of Grand Forks has received approx. $850,000 in federal grant money through this effort. After D.S.Lea had completed their study the City hired Johnson/Laffen Architects for this site (which formerly was a gas station); and before Federal Transit Adm. would commit an environmental assessment had to be made, the City did receive a clearance letter for that site and then proceeded with the design of the facility. He stated that guidance Johnson/Laffen were given was the concept plan provided by D.S.Lea. He stated that the scope of the waiting area was 750 to 1000 sq.ft. building that would house up to 5 buses and to meet the historical guidelines in the downtown and the Downtown Design Review Board.

He stated this would be a facility used by East Grand Forks as drop-of and transfer point and the City of East Grand Forks through MNDOT moved forward with an inter-city grant which would be for construction of this facility and would be part of the cost-share that EGF would support. MNDOT had an issue re. to the facility was that they wanted it inter-modal for multi-purpose use by many different entities (they were looking for a commitment from Greyhound to use the facility also) - Greyhound now uses a drop-off point on North Washington and Gateway ( a letter in packet stating they are interested in locating downtown and would like to seek a lease with the City re. to the use of that facility). He stated that Leon Pierce of Triangle Lines is the ticket agent for Greyhound and if Greyhound signed a contract, Triangle Lines would continue to be the ticket agent - that ticket agent would be there only when buses coming in or out.


COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Page 2.

Mr. Feland reviewed the ridership figures with the committee (and noted that Dial-a-Ride and Public Transp. had $96,000 in surplus in FY 2000 and also had an increase in ridership of 4% - from 213,000 to 221,000 rides - adults, UND students and regular students) and also ran a night bus which runs from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.

He reviewed funding for public transportation - that City received approx. $353,000 in mill levy for FY 2000, $502,000 in federal grant money, $84,000 in State funding and $362,000 for miscellaneous (tickets, advance tickets, interest income and contracts with EGF and related to revenue they get from tickets and ridership). He also reviewed cost per ride - av. $5.21 and of that amount $1.59 to the mill levy, which is 30% of the ride, if combine with Dial-a-Ride, the mill levy portion decrease to about 28% of that ride. He stated they are creating economic activity - moving people to retail or work, etc.

Mr. Feland noted that the total construction cost is $449,000 and that he asked Johnson/Laffen for estimate between building cost and site work - $190,000 for site specific work, building and canopies relates to about $259,000 in construction costs. He stated they have reps. in the audience from Johnson/Laffen and from CPS.

There was some discussion re. personnel expenses for the facility, that they would use current employees, and have budgeted approx. $38,000 in the 2001 budget for personnel expenses, maintenance and miscellaneous.

Council Member Hamerlik noted that there is a bus from New Town and stops at Gateway and N. Washington Street unit - It was also noted that there are many buses coming in (Sr. Citizen buses, County buses and this would be a central point), and that there are many clients who go to the NE Human Service Center. He stated we have a good transportation system and is good for population growth.

Council Member Brooks questioned why the downtown was selected for the site, higher cost and thinks transfer center should be where the population is centered; and that ideal place would be near Med-Park or the University where have lot of people, and possibly less expensive there. Mr. Feland stated they still needed a site to transfer downtown and also because of the Human Service building downtown and with development still seen as needed downtown - that they are looking at changing some routes. He stated that the Downtown Leadership Group last week endorsed the need for a transit center downtown, and were going to send letter of encouragement. Council Member Brooks stated concern he has is that we’re getting into the real estate business, bus systems in buildings they are leasing from someone and we’re going to take that away from some business person and put in a public building.

Council Member Burke expressed concern with location, and asked at what level is East Grand Forks going to continue to be a partner in the bus system, that the minutes of February 6 Public Trans. Committee stated that East Grand Forks is looking at a way to survive because the situation can’t stay the way it is, they will be looking at circumstances over the next 5 years and it was stated that the service would be there, but not sure in what way, shape or form yet, that when the study is finalized (presentation of study on the 13th), the plan is to sit down and ask specifically about EGF needs), and thought they should put this off until they hear that report and have the hearings on the proposed route changes; that EGF has pulled back on the night bus; thought that part of the rationale for the downtown transfer station was to accommodate East Grand Forks and would like to hear from East Grand Forks that they intend to be a partner in the system we have right now at the level they are right now if we’re going to build a facility downtown that accommodates them. Mr. Feland stated that if they look at ridership blocks, will see that Routes 10 and 11 are EGF routes and ridership is lower, that they have two routes and looking at doing one route with a smaller bus in reducing some of their service. Earl Haugen, MPO, stated that East
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Page 3.

Grand Forks will be utilizing this Metro Transfer Center built downtown, might be one bus or two, that East Grand Forks is looking at concept of route deviation where they can combine their fixed route and dial-a-ride services into one service and eliminate duplication of costs but they will have a transit system operating in East Grand Forks that will come to a transfer center in the downtown to connect with the Grand Forks system and will be a part of the overall public transportation system and continue to contract with the City of Grand Forks to provide that service to them.

Council Member Glassheim questoned the amount of funding we have in this so far, staff time, architects; and what happens if we walk away from this location (federal money, re-apply it to something else) and where are we with the grant money. Mr. Feland stated we have in-kind match for the land, about $40,000 in architectural, engineering fees, and MPO did pay for an environmental assessment of that particular location, $3,000; have cost of contractor’s bidding on the project; and if walk away from the site, he stated in FY1999 the City received $306,801, and FY2000 the City received $151,677, and that gets us to the $458,000 related to the 5309 grant, and in FY 2001 we haven’t written the grant but expecting to get according to State formula $437,087. He stated that the FY1999 grant allotment has an end day of September, 2001, in which we have to have that money under contract, would have to go back to the State DOT and request re-programming of those dollars, and if not apply to something else, State would go to other entities if we weren’t able to re-program those dollars. He stated we would have year beyond that for the 2000 funds, go back to State for re-programming those dollars.

Council Member Klave stated biggest concern is the cost for the facility and would like explanation of breakdown of cost, more detail, and if moved this building to another location, costs are involved, and what’s cost for land, etc. and if moving is going to save City money. Gene Galloway from Johnson/ Laffen Architects, stated they broke down cost - $259,000 based on a 1,000 sq.ft. building and three (3) large canopies which end up being about 575 sq.ft. and if include that, would be about 1500 sq.ft., that there are minimum requirements for a facility (concrete floor, brick walls, lot of glass which is for security and safety), don’t know if save dollars on the building for moving it anywhere else.

Council Member Christensen stated that the transfer center was on south portion of City Center Mall with no staff person there, that they are suggesting that staff person have dual responsibilities (would have to be dispatcher for Sr. Citizens - 24 hrs. week), would have to have rotation of staff persons, gearing up to staff facility with people - and how would one person dispatch Sr. Citizens and handle other things. Mr. Feland stated that Triangle or Greyhound would continue to have the same ticket agent that they currently have but co-located with City staff - that they pay every month for dispatcher at Sr. Center and would have that particular cost and still have cost of people doing data input, reports, etc. and anticipate that there would not be any additional costs, but spreading cost in a different way.

Council Member Christensen asked status of lease negotiations with Greyhound. Mr. Feland stated there has been no formal contact related to that, and there was an expressed interest and that Mr. Haugen had spoken with Greyhound before the letter came relating to their interest in locating downtown.

Council Member Christensen stated that funding is not going to be lost for the balance of this year and could begin conversation at State level that maybe time to suggest a different location for use of this money - this money is not allocated just to build a transit center - can be used to buy buses, repair of bus barn, etc. Mr. Feland stated if we re-program the dollars, anything possible. Council Member Christensen stated since other councils looked at this, EGF’s plans for busing has changed; and stated that location is in the NErly corner of the city of Grand Forks, and if were to build a transit center without EGF; that a transit center would be in a more centrally located location if a true transit center where trying
to change ridership and direction and 30-minute riders and would be easier if this were centrally located
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Page 4.

to achieve those goals. Mr. Feland stated the major transfer points are downtown, Columbia Mall, Hospital complex, UND and also transfer by the old Sears store. Council Member Christensen stated since this location has been selected, and now that pretty much recovered from the flood and the downtown has been built up, questioned whether there was a ridership survey on downtown transfer as opposed to other locations - and asked if they could run a survey in the next 30 days to see if this should be a good location.. Mr. Feland stated that the City may choose in the future to change its routes, but thinks downtown will always be an important cog in the system. Council Member Christensen stated it doesn’t appear they have all the information needed to make decision - the city is growing to the southwest with no ridership service - Mr. Feland stated with the new Supertarget and the adjacent retail - and stated that the downtown was a replacement to the downtown area, that they were building government complexes re. retail government business, social services, EGF still vital component to this. Council Member Christensen stated we don’t have the Barton study completed yet; Mr. Feland stated we have a final report they received a few days ago that will discuss in the near future. Council Member Christensen asked if it would be prudent to have that information, and get a ridership survey as to embarkments and debarkments in the downtown and meld that information with the proposed bus distribution suggestions staff has and then make a decision where more centrally located, and get more information before deciding where to located this.

Council Member Christensen asked what they were going to do with the trees in that corner - Mr. Feland stated most of those trees are going to come down.

Mr. Haugen stated that Routes 8 and 9 are only buses that do not come to the downtown, and they are the 2 lowest riderships in the system, other routes come to the downtown - that the city is growing to the southwest and the plan is to switch from having all the routes focus out of the downtown - that they still have 3 buses coming downtown but at Medview and UND where other people can transfer and if want to connect with EGF they will transfer again downtown, ridership in the southwest is low for Grand Forks, our plans are to work with ridership we currently have and as grow to the southwest utilize those other transfer points to assist them in their enjoyment of the transportation system. The CIP document and the TIP document and the request you’ve made to Congress for 5309 funds for next year include money to build up another transfer center/shelter in the Medview Park area.

Council Member Bakken stated if we’re going to have mass transit system and senior citizen busing, have something for the citizens that ride the buses to get out of the cold, etc. - Council Member Christensen this is the only heated bus stop proposed ($613,000), that at City Center Mall just cut into the sidewalk and people go inside and stay warm - that suggestion was made that we might have two other transit centers located in the city, Columbia Mall, are we proposing to staff those transit cents and would they be built and designed to the same level as this one. Mr. Feland stated they would use Columbia Mall, using their heat and their building, and no staff, but downtown facility seen as way to promote the system and provide waiting area. Council Member Christensen asked if they could build shelter that was heated without staffing it. Council Member Bakken stated they are using current staff, not adding staff; and also locating on other side of the tracks, could be problem with trains.

Bobby Vogel, 2500 14th Avenue South #11, stated no matter where the transit center is, that it be heated.; Frank Harlow, 110 Cherry Street, #102, stated need to be in out of cold, and in summer, storms and mosquitoes etc. and need transfer center; and Petra Clemens, 106 North 3rd Street, #501, stated she has a disability which prevents her from driving, stated she works and is taxpayer and buses congregate every half hour, and urged council to provide them with something that would get them out of the cold; that they are a big part of the population that use the public transportation system and Grand Forks should be proud to have one, that it’s a nice system but does need improvement and transit center would be such an
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Page 5.

improvement - that downtown is place where there is retail, new County building, housing area at 110 Cherry Street and senior citizen place, and big ridership using that kind of area downtown, and urged that whatever improvements can be made to please come to the decision to help the riders of the city.

President Gershman stated the problem is with the design of the building that he talked to a contractor today to try to understand the construction of that property, that it is fairly complex and fairly expensive and probably around $200/sq.ft. because of glass and brick, the other thing is the cost of the sitework and spent some time looking at the layout, that at City Center Mall, cut the curb, but if were to cut in at Kittson Avenue, cut in angle so you wouldn’t build road behind the site, then move building back on the site would save a tremendous amount of money, that in October he attended meeting and commented on the design of the building, that he felt the design of the building was something that was not contiguous to the architecture downtown, finds aberration with the sloping roofs and glasses and trying to make up with that for the brick, a more simple building at $100/110 sq.ft. building, and to tie into the neighborhood. He stated the problem he is having is that he supports a warm transit center, site downtown but great difficulty supporting the cost because of the design. He stated he has a question re. need for canopies.

Council Member Bjerke questioned effect of UND having $1.00 taxi ride for students affect into the proposed center and bus ridership. Mr. Feland stated he hasn’t checked into that in a great degree but would have a marginal difference with UND ridership. Council Member Bjerke asked to know by next council meeting if could have a statement from East Grand Forks, their council, that they are going to stay a part of Grand Forks and part of long term plan.

Council Member Bakken stated that the Historical Society has regs. on design of this building and can’t be built without their approval. Council Member Hamerlik stated they went to the Downtown Com-mission and there have been several other individuals looking so that the décor is proper. President Gershman stated he disagrees with their decision. Council Member Christensen stated we should examine the ultimate authority the old council gave the Downtown Design Review Commission because if our hands are tied as to the design of this structure because of those guidelines then agrees with Mr. Gershman’s statements, that if designing a warming facility for the people who use the bus service, that’s primary goal and if that becomes a need, then should rethink the design and the cost to build this to fulfill the need and not expand so that we have a spot for staff or a place for Greyhound and that then wouldn’t be getting into the real estate business, etc. and if coming up on Monday night probably not ready for us to vote on or have staff come with more answers to this and rethink the need aspect of this. Mr. Feland stated he jotted notes of info. they may need information for: 1) potential number who will use the metro transit center; 2) construction costs and how relate to other sites - ie., Med-Park area; 3) canopies and cost as it relates to the project; 4) routing of the buses and design of the building, and authority of the DDRB and the Historical Commission to provide guidance.

Peggy O’Leary, Historical Preservation Commission, stated that the Commission did pass on this design, there was a great deal of discussion at the meeting about the trees and the promises to them were that there would not be a great many trees lost with the resulting building, but that did not turn out to be the case. The Commission passed on this design mostly with an eye to its proximity to the parking ramp as opposed to its proximity to the historic buildings across the street; the fact that they passed on this design does not mean that they would not revisit this should you choose to redesign the building in a different configuration; there wasn’t particular opposition to the location but general discussion - that they would revisit the design and not locking City into any one thing.

RECESS

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Page 6.

President Gershman called for a 3-minute recess; Committee of the Whole reconvened at 8:40 p.m.

2.3 Accept bid for Cellular Service.
Scott Lindgren, NorthStar Telecom, 2100 South Columbia Road, that they are a rising wireless agent and one of the companies that was asked to submit a proposal for cellular phone service and are here for two reasons, one to find a little bit more about the criteria that went into the decision that was made to choose Wireless North for your service, and possibly to ask for a delay on final decision of implementing this service pending a side by side trial of the new Verizon wireless digital service which has been implemented since the request for proposal was made, new pricing is now available and would be prudent to measure up the different services with an actual demonstration between all the companies in town - four currently (Wireless North, Unicel, Cellular 1 and Verizon) and they would be willing to bring some phones over to be tried - that Verizon Wireless has implemented digital service in approx. 160 metropolitan areas, and have the largest digital footprint, better network coverage than Wireless North and better in-building coverage which is very important for certain city departments (police, fire) and they operate on 800 megahertz digital vs. 1900 megahertz to prove in technology that does penetrate buildings better and that would be an issue.

Roxanne Fiala, IS, stated they took into consideration, had some Verizon service (not digital but analog and cell 1) so had been using their technology so tested phones from Wireless North, put them in 5 major locations, the users were very happy with the service they did receive, that they might maintain a few analog phones for various reasons for roaming; the price is $1800/mo. and currently spending about $4000/mo.- $1800/mo. was the bid that came in from Wireless North, checked with the City of Fargo and found that Fargo has been using Wireless North for about 3 years and didn’t bid contract because no one else could touch their prices; that she doesn’t see a reason to delay, only that it will cost us more money until we start the new service and recommended to go with Wireless North bid.

Council Member Brooks asked for narrative on process you went through for developing the criteria. Ms. Fiala stated what they did was to ask for bid for 100 phones for 23000 minutes, didn’t ask for equipment, but that was base and started reviewing from there. Council Member Christensen stated that Mr. Lindgren suggested there were some issues as to the service they are receiving or might receive from Wireless North - and asked if she could run a comparison between now and next Monday to either validate or invalidate the service quality issues that he suggested. Ms. Fiala stated they got 5 phones from Wireless North (Police Building, Urban Development, Public Works, electricians, engineers and one of the main concerns was for a few that were on call when get into Manvel, Mayville areas; everything else had good clarity, not a problem with phones from Wireless North that they tested - that they had phones from Verizon and Cell 1 coverage. President Gershman asked if there would be an analysis of how many phones we have and perhaps reduce that which could increase the savings. Ms. Fiala stated we now have 100 phones, and haven’t adopted a policy, but the bid is for 100 phones (no cost for the phone) and if go over 100, pay $9.95/mo per phone and if less than 100 phones are paying only for the 23,000 minutes, so doesn’t matter if 50 or 100 phones. - 1 year contract. Council Member Brooks stated they maybe can look at reducing that number a year from now - that if have 400 employee and 1 for every 4, and perhaps look at for next year.

2.4 Budget amendment for School Nursing Grant ($24,700)
Council Member Burke stated that the grant uses existing health department grant funds for the match. Linda Opstad, Health Department, no City match.

2.5 Budget amendment for Health Tracks Grant ($18,332)
No discussion.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Page 7.

2.6 Request from the Planning Department for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the text of the Land Development Code, Chapter XVII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, amending Section 18-0204(2) Definitions related to wireless communication facilities, amending Section 18-0206 A-1 (Limited Development) District, amending Section 18-0209 R-2 (One and Two Family Residence) District, Section 18-0211 R-4 (Multiple Family Residence, High Density) District, Section 18-0212 R-5 (Mobile Home Residence) District, Section 18-0213 R-M (Manufactured Home Residence) District, Section 18-0214 B-1 (Limited Business) District, Section 18-0215 B-2 (Shopping Center) District, Section 18-0216 B-3 (General Business) District, Section 18-0217 B-4 (Central Business) District, Section 18-0218 I-1 (Light Industrial) District Section 18- 0221 U-D (University) District, Section 18-0303 Height, Section 18-0310.1 relating to wireless communication towers and antennas.__________________________________________________
2.7 Request from the Planning Department for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the text for the Land Development Code, Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, amending Article 2, Section 18-0204, Rules and Definitions, subsection (2) and Article 3, Rules and Regulations, Section 18-0301, Signs, subsection (9) relating to Multi-Tenant Building, Unified Shopping Center and Ground Monument Sign(s).__________________________________
No discussion . Mr. Potter stated these items are for preliminary introduction on March 5, ordinances will be introduced and then go back to the Planning Commission for action at their meeting on March 7, that once action of Planning Commission is done, will come back to city council for March 26 for committee of the whole review and for formal public hearing on April 2.

2.8 Historic mitigation of “Lustron” house, 602 Lincoln Drive.
Council Member Burke stated that this would be funded with combination of FEMA and CDBG dollars and asked if that was annual CDBG or flood CDBG. Terry Hanson, Urban Development, stated they have allocated $90,000 this year for historic mitigation out of entitlement funds (normal every year funding source). Council Member Klave asked if there has been a master plan as to the layout at Myra Museum site, that some of the residents in the area feel that with everything coming into there, that Myra Museum property is going to be congested and not look right when it’s done; and if the neighbors have any say as things are coming in. Mr. Hanson stated he wasn’t sure if there was a master plan, but talked to Ted Jellif this morning and the plan they have is to move the Campbell house forward and this structure would go to the east side of the existing main building. Mr. Hanson stated that there are trees separating Olson Drive residents and Myra Museum, but can’t answer to neighbors from the west; and that the Myra Museum Board has had issues like that before and have worked them out to everybody’s satisfaction. Council Member Klave suggested they may need to do neighborhood meeting so residents know what’s happening on that site.

2.9 City economic development policy.
Council Member Brooks stated he had referred this to the committee of the whole, and would like to pull the item - that what he wanted to hear has been accomplished as talked about it at their retreat, on list of short term goals and is being discussed in the budget process; and are going to develop that through those two processes.

2.10 Consideration of bids for construction of City Project No. 5200 - 2001 Flood Preparation.
No discussion.

2.11 Consideration of bids for construction of City Project No. 5198 - 2001 Asphalt Street Repairs.
No discussion.

2.12 Construction of bids for construction of city Project No. 5197 - 2001 Concrete Street Repairs.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Page 8.

No discussion.

2.13 Construction of a railroad bridge by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF)
for the English Coulee Diversion extension at DeMers Avenue.___________________________
Charles Grotte, asst. city engineer, stated he wanted to point out a significant difference in this agreement than in any other agreement with the Railroad, and is an issue they haven’t resolved, but wanted to make council aware of it. He stated in the agreement that the City would own the bridge when it’s constructed and be responsible for all maintenance costs in the future, but Railroad would determine when and how it would be maintained but City would be responsible for costs. In the past the City has not owned any railroad bridges, have done maintenance on RR crossings (tread material that fills in on crossings, etc.), that this is something the RR is pushing and has done to other cities; and City is still attempting to talk them out of that but not sure how successful they will be and the city attorney’s office has been reviewing the agreement.

2.14 Street Department budget amendment.
Council Member Brooks stated he reviewed amendment for capital equipment (emulsion storage tank and crack sealing machine). Mr. Feland stated these are two items they tried to budget in the 2001 budget but because of limited capital didn’t budget, but hoping they would have some cash carryover; concern is to maintain the streets. Mark Aubol stated they need to do more maintenance and upkeep on the streets - to keep moisture from getting underneath paving is ultimate goal. Council Member Brooks stated this is an item that should have been top priority on approval in capital improvements and need to start looking at them.

2.16 Ordinance amending Article 2 of Chapter XIV of the Grand Forks City Code relating to the
Central Business District._____________________________________________________
Council Member Bjerke asked how Central High School is tied in with this, that ordinance requires so many spaces or pay fee - Mr. Hanson stated they are in the district but the intention is that once control of the parking downtown is back in the hands of the city council, they will bring back to the council a proposed billing method to include all participants in this area, excluding single family resident units; the method of billing is going to be looked at. Council Member Bjerke asked if the Federal Building was exempt from this; Mr. Warcup, asst. city attorney, stated he hasn’t researched but if building owned by the Federal Government they would be exempt. Council Member Burke stated that it was the intention of the Urban Development Committee that once under the direction of the city council they would look at the boundaries of the downtown parking district - there are some parking lots downtown that have adjacent property owners that are not assessed for the parking that is directly across the street from them because they lay outside the boundary of the district and more work needs to be done.

2.17 Logo for the Central-Business District water tower.
President Gershman stated that Ann Smith, constituent in his ward took time to design what various balloons would look like and has an explanation for each one - that he thinks that the idea innovative even though the cost appeared to be very high - that painting the “Grand Cities” logo was $13,800, and painting for a hot air balloon option came out at $99,250; that he would not support something like that, but it came to his attention today that we have an opportunity to rent the tops of the water towers to wireless antenna companies that would pay up to $1,000/month and suggested thinking about if we were able to contract with a company to put towers on top of water towers and asked council to make a decision that we could put the money in the Genera Fund or do something really dramatic and maybe do the King’s Walk at the golf course and do something that would be significant as a hot air balloon downtown, would have the income to pay for it and to maintain it, but would hope could hold this until we are able to strike the contracts. Council Member Brooks stated that he thinks that the council putting
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Page 9.

money in the General Fund would be very dramatic in its own. Council Member Hamerlik stated the only concern he has is the way the memo was written, that he understood that we were going to obtain prices for painting but had not decided what we were to paint on it - that they were going to get a price quotation for an estimate for a painting, and have not decided on either one of these two or any one and wanted to make that clear.

2.18 Proposed item by citizen.
Council Member Burke presented item for Jeff Massee, 1826 12th Avenue North, who lives on block behind the northend Hugo’s and there’s an issue with the dumpster and health code; and apparently despite enforcement efforts they’ve not been able to keep up with it and hope can figure out a way with staff to deal with it because it’s frustrating and been dealing with this for a couple years (lids being left open because people going into it because it’s an attractant - or business not taking care of it (garbage ends up in his backyard or window wells on a regular basis). Council Member Hamerlik stated we have had complaints for the 5 ½ years that he has been on the council about noise, dumpsters and what has happened is generally they’ve gotten together with Mr. Magnuson and most things have worked out.

2.19 Information.
Council Member Christensen stated that the ordinance relating to putting the parking authority back in the hands of the city council - and directed their attention to the exhibit attached to the ordinance, which he believes is incorrect as it does not include the parking lot which is southeast of the parking ramp that the buses congregate by, and have excluded the parking lot that is north of the civic center, and believes those two lots should be included because they require maintenance. Mr. Hanson stated they will review this map and have a corrected copy back for council.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Brooks reminded staff regarding the bus issue questions, and need to look at those things.

2) Council Member Brooks stated that KNOX Radio did fund raiser on Saturday for Red Cross disaster for India and collected $4,300 and still time to call in and KNOX would be glad to take donations. .

3) Council Member Bjerke commented on item re. economic development - called to staff’s attention when looking at policies and procedure statement for the Growth Fund, that on page 21 have committee that no longer exists, on page 42 of ordinance also committee no longer existing , and on page 45 in reference to the JDA that also has committee no longer in existence - and those areas of the document would have to be corrected.

4) Council Member Stevens complimented Chief Packett and Chief O’Neill on presentation of police and fire departments at budget meetings, and feels the city in good hands with public safety.

5) Council Member Hamerlik complimented snow removal people Sunday and Monday; and suggested that notice should be given re. blowing snow into streets when clearing sidewalks/driveways..

6) Council Member Burke noted that the recycling coordinator resigned and if there was an issue about whether filling that position - Mr. Feland stated he resigned in January and has chosen not to fill that position at this time until know our needs and perhaps bring back more muli-faceted position and currently using existing staff to doing that work; and to keep in mind that we have to bring to the council proposals if we want o change our recycling system.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Page 10.

7) Council Member Glassheim stated that Mr. Brooks made a comment and wanted to give his side of the story - that some of us after x years in government but there is a difference between a city, a unit, an organized entity and bunch of individuals and some things are appropriate for a city to do to state the values of the city as a whole and other things are appropriate for individuals to do, and hope keep that distinction clear.

8) President Gershman thanked council and audience for their courtesies.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Brooks to adjourn. Carried 11 votes affirmative.
Respectfully submitted,



Saroj Jerath
Deputy City Auditor