Council Minutes

GRAND FORKS
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
MONDAY, MARCH 12, 2001

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, March 12, 2001 at 7;00 p.m. in the council chambers with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim (teleconference), Christensen, Klave, Kreun - 9; absent: Council Members Gershman, Lunak, Bakken, Martinson - 4; 1 seat vacant.

Mayor Brown announced that when addressing the committee to please come forward to use the microphone, and advised that the meeting is being televised and will be broadcast at a later date.

Mayor Brown stated that he had received a letter from Dawn Wilke in Human Resources dated March 8, 2001, and working with his senior staff to look over this matter administratively, reviewing this matter and that he will update the city council as information becomes available, and be advised that they take this matter very seriously.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DISCUSSION ITEMS

2.1 Mosquito control bids recommendation.
No discussion.

2.2 Budget amendment for Mosquito Control Program ($34,442)
Council Member Bjerke questioned what equipment is under the budget amendment. Don Shields, Heath Department, stated this is for funded depreciation - before 1995 when they instituted the new mosquito control program went back to the council when equipment needed to be funded, when new program was set up $5,000/year is put into Funded Depreciation and shows up in the capital area, this is to bring the 2000 funded deprecation over to 2001 for emergencies.

2.2 Consideration of bids for construction of City Project No. 5204 - 2001 Watermain Replacement.
No discussion.

2.3 Consideration of bids for construction of City Project No. 5196 - 2001 Sidewalk Repairs.
No discussion.

2.4 Consideration of bids for construction of City Project No. 5199 - ADA Curb Ramps.
Council Member Bjerke asked when ramps are bid if it’s tied into sidewalk or other work area, if there is master plan to do parts of the city every year, and when does project end. Al Grasser, acting city engineer, reported that 7 or 8 years ago federal government mandated ADA accessibility, developed long range plan as to how to address and meet the requirements of the ADA program, that on any new project or major rehab and get into sidewalk area, the curb ramps are put in at that time. He stated they had $2 million in cost to bring city into compliance and agreed to dedicate $50,000 to $60,000/year to upgrade over a long period of time, and that they address areas where they have had special concerns expressed and/or do high priority areas around churches, schools, downtown, etc. and as work through those will be doing more of the residential areas, they don’t concentrate in a specific area of town, and this project will continue on for many years until city is in compliance. Mr. Grasser stated that the lowest bid that was tabulated was from Stranberg Construction, that they realized there was an error in their bid and sent a letter requesting that the City allow them to withdraw their bid and that the City not go after his bidding bond; that they have in other instances have allowed that to happen by action of the council where there appears to be an obvious error, and when come to a vote that will need a separate motion.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Page 2

2.5 Consideration of quotations for the supply of City Project No. 5216 - 2001 casting quotes.
No discussion.

2.6 Sanitary sewer pump station rehabilitation program overview.
Mark Walker, project engineer, presented the matter of the City’s pump station rehabilitation program, this program was debated at the February 5 council meeting and the question presented whether the City should continue to fund this program at the current rate or should consideration be given to reducing the funding that goes into this program, and were here to present information relative to the City’s existing pumping station system to aid council in making that decision. He stated they have prepared a brief four-part presentation, that he will discuss existing system in general; Gary Goetz, wastewater superintendent, will discuss operation and maintenance of the lift stations; Tom Hanson, WFW, work involved in rehabbing the stations; and Todd Feland will discuss City’s funding policies for this program.

Mr. Walker reported that the City owns and operates 41 sanitary sewage pump stations (not storm water) and video of the map identified all locations (with exception that 2 stations not shown as located at the airport) and showed the collection area of each station, and forcemain system which consists of a network of pressure pipes that are connected to each of the lift stations and transmit sewage into the wastewater treatment facility. He noted path wastewater would take through the system. He stated that the map identified a number of new stations that have been constructed within the last 3 years (on far south end of the city - Wal-Mart, Oppidan and large apartment buildings) and were constructed with CDBG funds in anticipation of future development; and are in the process of building L.S. 1 and 5 (built as existing stations are in conflict with the City’s permanent flood protection alignment project). He identified 3 lift stations that are being proposed for rehabilitation. He stated that the cost of a new lift station (dependent upon size, depth of station, availability of land and complexity of the station) and based upon last 7 stations that the City has built, the average cost $800,000 each; and total capital investment in sanitary sewer lift stations is approx. $33 million in infrastructure - it’s a significant capital investment and need to give consideration to as we proceed.

Gary Goetz, wastewater superintendent, stated that years ago the federal government covered the cost to have the pump stations rehabbed, cost of rehab since 1960’s and 1970’s were 100% funded by the federal government, rehab program in the 1980’s was funded at rate of 75% EPA and 25% City; and after that the EPA discontinued funding any of the programs. That in the 1980’s when they had their last major rehab had about 30 pump stations they went through; and in order to keep from having a major rate increase for rehabbing the stations, it was decided to stagger at a smaller scale and for the past few years have been doing 2 to 3 stations each year. He reviewed operation of the pump stations and maintenance by employees.

Mr. Hanson, WFW, reported they will look at hydraulics and verify whether repairs are necessary and reviewed scope of work for the rehab of the lift stations proposed for rehab - L.S. #19 is located across from the Public Works Building, L.S. #25 (in Industrial Park south of McKinnon’s) work rehab plus construction 50 ft. driveway; and L.S. #24 located north of Belmont Coulee and east of Belmont Road).

Todd Feland, public works, presented information relating to cost - that the last time they did their rate analysis the rehab projects within the wastewater utility amounted to about 2.73% of an increase and for the average consumer (8,000 gal.) amounts to $0.44 per month or $5.28/year. He stated the sewage rates relative to other communities in our area, that we’re about $13.52 based upon average user of 8,000/gal of water, Fargo at $11.10 and Bismarck at $15.60, however, the north central average which would include
all the states surrounding North Dakota was $17.39 for same amount. He stated that since 1996 we’ve
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Page 3

added 4 pump stations, 5 flood and storm stations, and will add 15 to 16 more with the dike project, have added 11 sanitary gate valves and have gone from 16 flood sluice gates to 67 currently, and from 26 river and coulee flapgates to 60, and there’s been an extraordinary increase in the amount of responsibility.

Council Member Christensen stated that since we’ve added capacity and have a program for replacement, asked for estimate of what will have to budget in the future to cover repairs to the existing capacity and the additional capacity, and asked if they had developed a depreciation schedule as to what and when need it and how fund for it. Mr. Feland stated we have 41 stations and do 2 per year and are at a 20-year time schedule, that they’ve tried to maintain between a 15 and 18 year time schedule, and will see in the future that the current funding program is not going to keep up with the number of station rehabs. Council Member Christensen asked how much they are spending this year - It was noted spending around $800,000 total this year ($300-350,000 range for 3 stations). Costs are paid for out of the enterprise funds; and it was noted when finish in year 2004 or 2006, have additional capacity on line and will need a schedule for repair and replacement and maintenance, will need additional people.

Mr. Grasser stated that even with adding 15-16 storm lift stations in the permanent flood protection project, they will actually replace several of the flood stations that we currently have and net increase may be more like 5 or 6; that storm lift stations are not operating on a continual basis; and when finish, final rehabs. and updated equipment won’t have accelerated trend, less maintenance.

Council Member Burke asked if doing rehabs because on the schedule or if need rehab, and perhaps do rehabs on pieces of equipment that are still serviceable and whether do specific types of work at stations - doing things across a portion of the system as opposed to dealing with lift stations as a unit; and it was noted that work based on what find at each particular location; but have gone through and updated all of the alarm systems telemetry as that part is consistent throughout the system; but Mr. Grasser stated based on scope of work identified for each station. He also stated this was for information and to bear in mind when bring back contracts and have data to make decisions.

Council Member Hamerlik asked how many generators we have, and if difficult to get; Mr. Goetz stated they have about 6 portable generators, 2 mounted on a truck and 4 trailer mounted, and thought at max. of number of generators - perhaps 1 or 2 more portable generators, very expensive to maintain, generators at master pump station spend anywhere from $15,000 to $25,000/year to maintain.

Mr. Hanson stated that the Corps stations will have generators in them and 4 of those are located adjacent to sanitary pumping stations, and made arrangements to buy the additional capacity in those generators so those stations will be self-served by the generators in the flood pumping stations.

2.7 Amendment No. 13 to engineering services agreement with GFEG for Project No.’s 4817, 4818
and 5116 - interior drainage.______________________________________________________
Council Member Burke asked who GFEG was - Mr. Grotte stated Greater Forks Engineering Group formed after the flood by 3 firms to do engineering work (Advanced Engineering, CPS and Webster, Foster & Weston) and when did selections for in-kind service work for the Corps project, these 3 firms went together as GFEG and were selected for 3 or 4 of the different types of work (consortium of 3 firms) and bid as a single unit, but also bid separately. Mr. Burke asked if these companies were complimentary or companies that might have bid against each other, and because of this group do we have a less competitive situation for engineering services in Grand Forks. Mr. Grotte stated they don’t bid engineering work, but when ask for requests or proposals, you would have received a separate proposal for each of these firms; and didn’t believe is a less competitive market and that this is the only remaining project for GFEG, all other contracts with individual firms.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Page 4

2.8 Amendment No. 1 to engineering services agreement for Greenway clean-up, City Project No. 5172.
No discussion.

2.9 Termination of farm lease with Nikle Farms, Inc. for new clearwell property.
No discussion.

2.10 Change order to residential environmental abatement contract.
No discussion,

2.11 Corporate Center change orders.
Council Member Brooks asked if there was a contingency budget for this project; Terry Hanson stated they are still within the total budget amount.

2.12 Public Works Department vehicle bids.
No discussion.

2.13 Wireless communication premises site lease agreement.
Council Member Christensen asked if we want to charge the same price for putting antennas on top of water towers as Fargo for these leases; that Fargo charging $1200/month and we’re charging $750/mo. and feels market would bear $12-1500/month. Mr. Feland stated that the lease agreement with Northern PCS Service, who is the Sprint provider, is substantially better than the previous agreements. Mr. Christensen stated that he wasn’t sure if appropriate to negotiate as committee of the whole, but suggesting that lease a little low and maybe staff wants to go back and do some negotiations.

Council Member Brooks asked if staff had some idea of where they will designate the revenue or see a budget amendment if enter into an agreement; Mr. Feland stated that in the Waterworks Utility Revenue Fund there is a line item that anticipates a certain amount of revenue for the leases.

2.14 Applications for site authorizations for Special Olympics North Dakota for location at 10 North
3rd Street (Jonsey’s Dugout) - 1 blackjack table for period ending June 30, 2001, and for Blue
Knights International (Law Enforcement Motorcycle Club, Inc. ND-1) for location at 112 North
43rd Street (Holiday Inn) for June 3, 2001.___________________________________________
Keith Schroeder, president of ND-1 Blue Knights International, stated they are hosting spring convention for Midwest Regional Convention in Grand Forks June 1-3 and hoping to hold a raffle and under State law requires ND State gaming permit and the site license that they are applying for.

2.15 Establish polling places, hours and election officials for April 20, 2001 Special City Election.
Council Member Burke questioned whether they were going to combine polling places within Ward 6 for the election, and perhaps save some money. Mr. Swanson stated there are some provisions to combine precincts and that he would review and present information. Council Member Hamerlik asked if they could also find out cost savings for officials.

2.16 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Phoenix Properties, a North Dakota Partnership, for final
approval of a plat of Birkholz’ 7th Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, including a variance to subdivision regulation Section 18-0907 (2)(L) 3 relating to access to arterial streets being a part of the N l/2 of the NW l/4 of Section 17th Avenue South between South 36th Street
and South 42nd Street.__________________________________________________________


COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Page5

(Note: This plat will superceded a previously approved plat of the same name approved by the city council on June 7, 1999 and was reconsidered and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 2, 2000.
No discussion.

2.17 Board of Health - streamlining city council membership.
Council Member Brooks asked for information from the Board members. Mr. Shields, Health Department, stated there are two council members on the Board (Council Members Martinson and Bakken) and one of the ideas to realign was because the council is moving from 14 to 7 member council and would bring into alignment with the County Commission. Council Member Burke asked if existing committees that have council members appointed, have authority to act unilaterally or if have to present their findings back to the city council or other authority; that he is not interested in removing council representation on committees or bodies that have authority to act unilaterally. Mr. Shields stated that their guidance is the NDCC which says we must have such a board (can change membership), that the board in Grand Forks is an advisory board, that the council establishes the funding for the Health Department, and established ordinances upon which they operate and County Commission establishes ordinances within the County; that council controls action of the Board but dosen’t take unilateral action without going back to the ordinances and doesn’t take action associated with the resources in the Health Department without coming back to the council.

Council Member Brooks stated it’s the council involvement and how many committees can council people sit on, every committee involves city staff time but also a chance for the citizens to participate in process of city government, and have to weigh that - can have a committee without council involvement but that there’s an expense and a time of staff that goes with every committee.

Council Member Hamerlik questioned whether we should take action on this next Monday night, that we have another committee coming up tonight (Public Transportation/Dial-a-Ride Committee) and thinking about reducing the number of committees and before start eliminating or reducing membership, etc. there are some committees that perhaps don’t need council membership on it but committee needs to be in existence as ad hoc advisory to the staff to work with them, not in administrative decision making forum but to help them out, that a good one is the Transportation Committee (have 2 senior citizens, UND student body president, and good advisory) and maybe eliminate council members on some of these committees but committee shouldn’t be eliminated. He stated we need to consider all committees, review, by 2002.

Council Member Burke stated one of the reasons for having council members on these committees is that they bring a perspective that people who are appointed from the various groups don’t bring - most of the people who sit on committees have an interest in that committee’s activities and tend to be advocates of a function, but may not represent the broader community in how that service fits into the total community.

Council Member Christensen stated that in May, 2000 Mr. Swanson went through the ordinances and prepared a list of committees that require council members, and that we had 34 standing committee, but have been some eliminations; that modern corporate governance is going towards committees - you don’t have to have members of the council sit on these committees but premature to eliminate committee this evening but have more study and position papers from the staff why should do it or not.

Richard Warne, administrative coordinator, stated they have reviewed list of committees, put three on for tonight for consideration of reducing number of council members or beginning the discussion as to whether keep them or not or membership, that the council has already eliminated 11 committees if count
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Page 6

the four standing committees that the council eliminated when went to the committee of the whole.

Council Member Brooks stated we knew we had to eliminate the number of committees the council members sit on, not necessarily eliminating committees but have it manageable for 7 council members and need to look at that, can still get minutes and appear before a committee and have faith in staff.

Mayor Brown stated they decided to get rid of committees when we empowered our department heads where that was appropriate.

Council Member Burke stated there were two issues about the number and size of committees, but have some housekeeping chores - where have ordinances that make reference to specific committee members or chairs and need to clean up those matters.

2.18 Consideration of elimination of the Public Transportation Committee/Dial-A-Ride Committee.
Mayor Brown stated that the recommended council action - approve the committee action motion to continue the current Public Transportation Committee until the end of the fiscal year, October, 2001, and seems like we should say the motion would be to continue the current public transportation committee - rather than putting a sunset on it. Mr. Warne stated this is an item for discussion and that recommendation came from the three council members that currently sit on that committee. Council Member Hamerlik stated that it came from the full committee and other committee members were probably more interested in keeping it up because of the federal projects we have going, the study that is going to be heard tomorrow night, etc. and expressed that a committee should be continued even though no council members.

Council Member Bjerke stated if Mr. Foster wants to have a committee that meets some of the federal rules could still have some people involved in this committee but not necessarily council members, and that some of our committees are nothing more than special interest groups that lobby for particular things, and that the Bus Committee increased the night bus service by themselves, and that full council should be making those decisions and not the committee.

Council Member Brooks stated that the recommended council action is to approve committee action motion to continue the current public transportation committee until the end of the fiscal year, October, 2001, and what happens after that. Mr. Swanson stated this particular committee is not created by ordinance but by action of both mayor and city council - if the council were to pass the recommendation with a termination date, his opinion would be that after that date the committee would not have any authority delegated or otherwise, could meet with same make-up and lobby council or provide information but no official capacity. Council Member Hamerlik stated that the committee was definite because of circumstances to go to the end of the fiscal year but in the meantime would come up with a plan and recommendation prior to that time. Council Member Kreun stated we don’t need council members on each and every committee, but doesn’t have to have a meeting every month, could have as an advisory ad hoc committee so can make recommendations to staff and they can bring information to the council - that committee would stay in place, gather information, meet required federal regulations but not standing committee that is required for council representative. Council Member Klave stated he would prefer to have all the department heads and staff to bring the whole picture so can review, importance of, etc. Council Member Christensen stated if our process is to begin the process of making it easier to sit on the council so there are less committees to attend, should spend a couple committee of the whole meetings to redesign - and noted that the Bus Committee does not require a standing committee that has interested people but a general Catalog of Federal Register - general federal regulation that says “..inaddition the metropolitan transportation planning process shall..” that there has to be public notice
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Page 7

and an opportunity to participate publicly by those who are affected by various aspects of the public transportation system - shouldn’t decide these piecemeal, should study in comprehensive fashion.

Council Member Glassheim stated he finds that some of these committees are an opportunity for citizens to have regular access to the voting process of the council and have regular input - when take council people off committees kind of de-legitimize them, can continue meeting and have opinions but there’s no direct connection with the power to get something done and makes it harder for staff to know whether they should spend time with a committee which does not have council legitimacy, and not knowing if those discussions are going anywhere rather than a formal method for having input into what’s going to happen - that they should be considered on the merits.

2.19 Growth Fund Committee; membership composition.
No discussion - Information only.

2.20 Appointment of Allen R. Grasser as city engineer and approval of employment agreement.
This item was moved for consideration under special action items.

2.21 Issuance of $1,400,000 General Obligation Highway Refunding Bonds, Series 2001A and $1,875,000 Sewer Bonds, Series 2001B_________________________________________
No discussion.

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL ACTION ITEMS

Council Member Kreun noted that Mr. Grasser distributed two items for consideration under the special action items (items listed as 3.1 and 3.2) and also to move Mr. Grasser’s appointment to item 3.3. Mr. Swanson stated that we can act as a committee of the whole to add these to special action items but takes unanimous vote.

Mayor Brown asked all in favor of adding item 3.1 (Amendment No. 14) to the special action items agenda. Carried 9 votes affirmative.
Mayor Brown asked for adding item 3.2 (Amendment No. 15) to special action items agenda. Carried 9 votes affirmative.
Mayor Brown asked for consent to add item 3.3 (appointment of Allen R. Grasser) to special action items agenda. Carried 9 votes affirmative.

Mr. Swanson stated that they can take action as a committee of the whole.

3.1 Amendment No. 14 to engineering services agreement with GFEG for Project No. 5200, 2001
floodfighting efforts.__________________________________________________________
The recommended motion was to approve Amendment No. 14 with GFEG for project management services.
Mr. Grasser stated that as they don’t know how the floodfight is going to develop, this is an open-ended contract, that they will access these people as the situation warrants and develops, that they have done this before and did have a cap on it but if bump into that cap usually that means that there isn’t a lot of time to come back and get modifications - could include a cap but not sure what that might be, and if
look at flood forecast from the Weather Service it is a probabilistic forecast and don’t have specific number to work with. He stated that now when forecast at 43 ft. at 50% excedence level, think want to convene the group together to review floodfight, get input and lay groundwork so in case need to do activities on a higher level have them in at the ground floor (learned that from past experience).
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Page 8

Council Member Kreun stated that under this scenario would be able to monitor the expenses as proceed. Council Member Christensen stated they are empowering staff to make the appropriate decisions and act accordingly. Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 9 votes affirmative.

3.2 Amendment No. 15 to engineering services agreement with GFEG for Project No. 5240, Project
Management Services for the permanent flood protection project._________________________
The recommended motion to approve Amendment 15 with GFEG for project management services in the amount not to exceed $238,680.00.
Council Member Hamerlik questioned how the amount of the agreement compares if the two individuals had stayed (Ken Vein and Charles Grotte). Mr. Grasser stated they are looking at one individual, that if Mr. Grotte had stayed his salary is substantially less than that, the $240,000 does take care of their overhead and those types of activities, that this is for 40 to 50 hours/week for a period of one year. Council Member Hamerlik stated it costs when we lose staff; and stated that GFEG hired for one year period and report then states until the City hires a replacement for Mr. Grotte, and questioned if wait a year for the replacement. Mayor Brown stated it should read for a one year period OR until the City hires a replacement for Mr. Grotte. It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Bjerke to amend the motion to include the OR as noted. Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 9 votes affirmative.

3.3 Appointment of Allen R. Grasser as city engineer and approval of employment agreement.
Council Member Hamerlik moved the appointment under the stipulations as in the contract; seconded by Council Member Stevens.

Mr. Grasser stated they do have a minor issue to deal with on the pension, and stated they could make it contingent upon Mr. Swanson’s review. Mr. Swanson stated that the item with respect to pension is that they want to insure that the pension participation of Mr. Grasser in the Defined Benefit Plan is not jeopardized and can be coordinated with another plan or some other form of contribution, that he doesn’t see it as a problem, may require minor change in language but will not affect the overall contribution for pension purposes. Council Member Hamerlik asked to insert in that motion “contingent upon proper compliance per our attorney”. Upon call for the amendment to the motion, and upon voice vote, the motion carried 9 votes.
Upon call for the appointment of Allen R. Grasser as city engineer, as amended, and upon vote, the motion carried 9 votes affirmative.

Council Member Christensen stated that the contract they approved (Item 3.2) for Amendment No. 15 for $238,680 is for one person, and looking at senior engineer - highest rate is $90.00/hour, and asked how they got to $157,000 to $238,680 for one person. Council Member Hamerlik stated that there would be more than one individual involved in this. Mr. Grasser stated they asked the consultant to put together is the high end - figure in individual or individuals between 40 to 50 hours/week, and stated that Mr. Lambrecht will likely be the person that actually spends most of the time in City Hall and rely on Mr. Wieland’s expertise to go through the details and if at 50 hours a week for 52 weeks is about 2500 hours and gets you in that ballpark. Council Member Christensen stated that Mr. Grotte didn’t work 50 hours/week (exempt from overtime), that we should keep it at 40 hours/week at 50 weeks - and if don’t have an open-ended contract here. Mr. Grasser stated that GFEG gave him the contract price of what he
asked for, and reason asked for something over 40 hours a week is that there is likely to be a learning curve in coordination being using one or two individuals but that we are still in the flood protection area short at least one staff engineer and these people will help do some of that activity until get that individual hired, believes that Mr. Grotte working more than 40 hours/week, and that they are concurrently working the planned development and moving into construction activities. He stated they could amend the
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Page 9

contract to go to 40 hours/week, and is asking to get somebody on board by the 1st of June - that they gave him what he asked for, and if want to change that, can come back to see how it works.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS

1) Council Member Burke asked Mr. Swanson if he had made a determination whether council members are eligible to sit in an executive session of committees. Mr. Swanson stated that likely is a decision based upon the formation of the committee, whether it is an ad hoc committee of the council, committee appointed by the mayor, generally speaking he is of the opinion that if it is a council committee, whether standing or ad hoc, other council members most likely can participate in executive session but can depend upon what the format of the underlying body is. Mr. Swanson also stated that if a committee created by action of the council but not directly related to council, were to go into executive session, he is of the opinion that council members not sitting on that body, would have no basis to stay in an executive session. He stated he couldn’t give a blanket decision but based upon what is the body, what is the subject matter and what relationship does it have to the city council as a whole. After further decision Mr. Swanson stated there are some Attorney General’s opinions that appear to be a little more favorable and can request a specific opinion in that regard if that’s appropriate, but does think their opinion in their office has broadened as a result of an Attorney General’s opinion. Council Member Burke asked for an Attorney General’s opinion on this and Mr. Swanson stated that perhaps he and Mr. Burke should meet to discuss what issue they are seeking an opinion, and want to be clear on what they are asking..

2) Council Member Burke stated he appreciates getting the Housing Authority agendas and would also like to get the Housing Authority meeting minutes as well.

3) Council Member Burke asked Mr. Warne for an update with the Alerus/CVB merger task force, and would hope they are not going to take final action on this ordinance next week until they have an indication that the task force has made some movement on this, that he is on that committee and haven’t met since last month and his understanding is that one of the issues is whether or not what Compass has in mind and what they consider their abilities with regard to this and on their willingness to become involved in CVB type management activities. Mr. Warne stated that Compass is going to make a proposal, that he feels that the people who formulate the plan should be the same people who execute the plan, and his recommendation would be to move forward with the formation of the new board and at such time let them do the strategic planning, put together the marketing plan and then move forward from there. Council Member Burke stated that if Compass determines that it’s not something they want to engage in then the merger idea doesn’t move us down the road because the idea was to consolidate the management activities into one body. Mr. Warne stated that be believes that Compass wants to participate, and even if they didn’t want to participate, you could still have a combined organization with Compass managing the facility only and having our own employees be involved in the marketing. Council Member Christensen stated when they formed the Events Center Commission, they didn’t know how they were going to operate and they have been meeting and addressing the issues - caterer, staffing, advertising and have to move forward, and when adopt the ordinance and then body will begin to develop their structure, and need to advertise.

Council Member Glassheim stated he was concerned about how this has developed, that it’s been done behind the scenes and not so sure there is agreement or understanding of who will do what, and deserves public discussion and would like to see the vote held off and two weeks from tonight invite the CVB people and staff, Alerus staff and board, to come to the council and discuss this - all we have so far is private negotiations from a few people behind the scenes and doesn’t think most of the council or the people of Grand Forks have much idea of what’s happening and would like formal request that on a
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Page 10

working session we have all the parties come and speak publicly to the council before we vote on something that we don’t know much about. Mr. Warne stated this particular issue has been under discussion and study with members of the council, with the mayor, with members of the CVB, the Events Commission for over three months, and issues have been on the table, a transition team was formed, and that we need to get the organization put in place similar to what they did with the events commission and let them move forward and organize themselves and begin putting together an organization and marketing program and would be in the best interest of the city. Council Member Glassheim disagreed with Mr. Warne, that it needs to be publicly discussed and design it properly. Mr. Warne stated the council can wait another two weeks and have another meeting, would be happy to delay it two weeks, whatever is the desire of the body. Council Member Hamerlik stated one way for us to get moving is to have that task force group meet in the next few days and see if we can move forward a little bit and talk with some of the people, thought they had reached an agreement, having served on that task force, but there were some other things that came up and some concerns and lets hear it out, but request that as soon as can in the next several days that we try to convene that group and move forward even though don’t have Compass’ full report and will take them a couple 3 - 4 weeks and would make that request as a committee member.
Council Member Glassheim questioned why they would put together a formal body and approve by council unless you know who it is, what it is and general function. Council Member Kreun stated the ordinance explains that so that the ordinance is available for the governing body, just the organizational chart that they have to work on. Council Member Glassheim stated he would like a discussion on that composition, that there are people unhappy with that composition and feel there will be important things omitted and perhaps the composition of the management board needs to be different or expanded and should be discussed publicly. Council Member Burke stated that the composition of the CVB and under the ordinance was agreed to by the members of the existing CVB in the meetings they had, they agreed to it, that was not the issue, that they were going to have a task force to work through the transition process
including to what Compass had to say, and is in favor of the merger but as a matter of respect for the existing CVB we follow through on getting more I’s dotted and T’s crossed before we pass this ordinance. Mayor Brown noted that there would be a meeting of the task force this week.

4) Council Member Hamerlik stated they had several topics that had to do with bid letting and heard different terminology used (low bid, etc.) that a couple conferences that he’s been at since been on council, they have a new term that they really suggest that we use - “best bid” and would like our attorney and Mr. Schmisek, or someone else look at that.

5) Council Member Bjerke stated he wanted to re-emphasize that he doesn’t like items being added to the agenda - what can do not to have that - understand emergencies happen, but doesn’t give time for consideration.

6) Council Member Bjerke congratulated Mr. Warne, that he’s doing an outstanding job, saved City some money and made meetings much more efficient. He stated that at the last council meeting he asked for answers to some questions to our flood protection as far as secondary line of defense, etc. and that it might be a touchy subject and really need to have it at the next council meeting - and wanted to emphasize that citizens have a right to know what our plan B is, and doesn’t want to cause problems, but if Plan B is if dikes go over, run, they need to know that - and would like to have that on the next council meeting some type of flood report at the beginning of the meeting - but people need to know what to expect, and they need to decide what’s best for their family, house and possessions and not just to be told everything’s okay. Mayor Brown stated that they had discussion and it will be presented at the council meeting during flood report.
7) Council Member Bjerke asked Mr. Warne to begin the process of whatever it takes to get a report on every committee for the council members.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Page 11

8) Council Member Brooks thanked mayor for the organizational chart.

9) Council Member Brooks congratulated our city attorney, Mr. Swanson, on the work done related to the roof collapse at the Alerus. Council Member Hamerlik reported that today at the Core Committee they did have that issue and had authority to act, they will get a complete report and should be in packets for Monday night.

10) Mr. Swanson stated he wanted to give a brief report to the council tonight - the mediation session occurred last week in Washington, D.C. over 2 days as opposed to Chicago over 3 days, that decision was made due to some health concerns their mediator had; that he was pleased to report that as a result of the mediation and the action taken by the Core Committee, the City will be recovering net cash of $1.6725 million dollars, nearly $1.7 million, in addition as a result of mediation various contractor claims were negotiated downward for an additional savings of approx. $600,000, and publicly acknowledged the assistance of Lynn Whitt in those negotiations. He stated that at the last council meeting the council approved a settlement with Chubb Insurance of just under $1.3 million, and that the ultimate agreement that they reached with Chubb was for $1,325,000 and undertook additional negotiations (Mr. Witt) to recover about $28,000 more. As a result of both the recovery of nearly $1.7 million and the reduction of approx. $600,000 in contractor claims as a result of the collapse, it’s his opinion that the City will come nearly whole; there are some expenses that have been incurred that are embedded type of expenses that they will not recover, not out of pocket, but very pleased with the result of that negotiation and mediation, and action was taken by the Core Committee this afternoon.