City of Grand Forks - Print Friendly Form

Council Minutes

MINUTES - CITY OF GRAND FORKS

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
Monday, March 26, 2001

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, March 26, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kreun - 8; absent: Council Members Glassheim, Lunak, Bakken, Martinson - 4; 1 seat vacant.

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

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DISCUSSION ITEMS

2.1 Public hearing for input on Community Development Block Grant 2000 Annual Performance
Report._____________________________________________________________________
Council Member Bjerke made several comments on the report, page 4 it states that 37% of the houses surveyed for the fair housing impediments study indicated that racial and ethnic discrimination was a moderate to major concern, but then goes on to state that the study showed that minorities do not generally experience housing problems at a higher rate than non-minorities with the exception of emergency shelter concerns; and that points out that it seems like our private sector landlords are doing a good job of renting and not discriminating because although it was implied in the study that there might be a problem it wasn’t backed up by the results. He stated that on page 5 it states “..With physical flood recovery nearly complete marketing conditions normalizing in the State of North Dakota revamping its approach to dealing with fair housing issues, the City of Grand Forks needs to revisit its analysis of impediments to fair housing in the current context.” and asked if someone from Urban Development could explain if that means doing another survey. Peggy Kurtz stated that the last survey was done quite some time ago and thinks it is important that they do revisit it and do another study. Council Member Bjerke stated that the council members would like to read No. 10, the Self Evaluation. and would find some interesting information in the last several paragraphs.

COUNCIL MEMBER STEVENS REPORTED PRESENT

Council Member Gershman stated that we fell short on the down payments for homeowners, and in some studies that he’s seen through the Federal Reserve Bank, 9th Federal District, that they have found that low-income and minority families are extremely good at paying their home mortgages, quite a high percentage of compliance, and have found that many of those low-income and minority families lack the down payment and many times if they could get into a home, their payments would be less than if renting. He stated that years ago while dealing with this he met with some people from HUD about a “home fair” where the City works with HUD and bring families in and have the opportunities available for these people, and have found that to be very successful; he suggested that we look at a “home fair” in Grand Forks so that we could get those people into homes as they are very responsible people and all they need is a chance - there is a program for home fairs and they’ll bring people in for us and whole template as to how we should do it, and would like to make that recommendation.

Council Member Burke questioned table on page 6 which describes the allocation and expenditure of monies for affordable housing programs, that his math indicates that the allocated money was under spent by $228,000 and what happens to that money, carried over or how disposed of. Ms. Kurtz stated that programs that have not expended all their money still have time to do so - bricks and mortar funds are able to be carried over to the next year and still have time to finish their programs.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/MARCH 26, 2001 - Page 2

2.2 Final proposed Supplemental CDBG Cost Matrix budget transfers.
No discussion.

2.2 Consideration of bids for city Project Nos. 4648.2 and 4949.1, Transmission Pipelines and
Residuals Force Main - Phase I, Industrial Park to South 34th Street.___________________
Council Member Kreun stated there seems to be some confusion and asked that either Mr. Grotte or Mr. Grasser explain the process and how came to conclusion we have. Mr. Grotte, assistant city engineer, reported that when they sent out staff report on this item, they didn’t have the bids, bids received last Thursday and in the bidding process there were 3 bidders that didn’t comply with all the instructions in the bid package; that Dakota Underground did not have the MBE/WBE, minority small business type paperwork required by the EPA for complying with our grant requirements and according to EPA guidance which is attached to the memo they sent out on Friday, they are supposed to have that document in the outside envelope along with their bid bond and contractor’s license; that bid was inadvertently opened and are requesting that bid be rejected. He also noted that the segregated facilities document was not included, and isn’t necessarily an EPA requirement that it be in the outer envelope and would have been a minor irregularity and not normally a document that’s required on City projects but a federal requirement and was included in the inside envelope. The bid from Barbarossa and Sons didn’t acknowledge the two amendments on the outside envelope which is a requirement on all city projects and that bid was not opened; and the bid from Molstad Excavating was not opened because of the MBE/WBE reason. He stated that they had 11 bidders, 3 they were recommending being rejected, and wanted to make sure the council had an agreement that those bids should be rejected, in the past the council has waived some minor irregularities and in this case it’s pretty clear in the EPA guidance that unless those documents are in that envelope, not supposed to open the bids. Council Member Kreun asked if there were any penalties if the bids were opened - Mr. Grotte stated that potentially they could lose the EPA funding for that project, their guidance is clear that if that paperwork isn’t in that envelope and not signed, you don’t open the bid; and standard procedure is to recommend against opening those bids; the council for the most part has gone along with that, but on a few occasions they’ve taken exception to that; that it’s in the instructions to the bidder and in the body of the project specifications that that is a requirement.

Council Member Hamerlik asked why would there be a prerequisite for bid opening to have that particular form in hand before the bid opening rather than later, that as long as they comply with affirmative action, etc. that should be enough. Mr. Grotte stated that the federal government had some reason to write the rule as they did and very clear and Advanced Engineering did contact the State Health Department who’s also funding part of this project through the State Revolving Loan Program and they concurred that we shouldn’t open the bids. Council Member Hamerlik asked if they had received that in writing that we would lose money as he would assume that’s a minor technicality. Mr. Grotte stated we have not received that in writing but have in writing the EPA requirements but doesn’t say what the penalty is if you don’t follow their guidance.

Council Member Gershman questioned if making a phone call to someone other than the State. Mr. Grotte stated the EPA in Denver, but guidance clear. Council Member Gershman stated we shouldn’t be against making a phone call.

Council Member Burke stated if we were to reject these bids for not being responsive to the bidding requirement, would we be on solid ground. Mr. Swanson stated he is of opinion that if you find that it is not a minor irregularity and do not adopt a resolution waiving it, that you are on proper grounds to do so; that general law requires that a bidder follow the bidding instructions and these instructions seem to be rather clear on the face, but it is a discretionary item in his opinion that this council may or may not waive. Council Member Burke asked in regard to that discretionary item would we expect that EPA
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/MARCH 26, 2001 - Page 3

would honor our decision on that matter. Mr. Swanson stated that the EPA would have complete discretion to take whatever action they deemed appropriate, your action cannot bind the EPA with respect to any funding decisions or other decisions they may make on the project.

Council Member Christensen asked if anyone had researched the regulations that gave rise to the instructions, and they are just relying on the instructions. Mr. Grotte stated they were. Council Member Christensen asked how much of the project is funded by EPA money. Mr. Grotte stated the whole project is $28 million and approx. $10 million EPA, and for this project about $4 million and 45% EPA. Council Member Christensen read regulations and from AGC’s counsel and the fact that it appears that the minority solicitation or efforts to comply with minority is contained within the bid itself, that it’s a minor irregularity and doesn’t think we will lose our funding and should move to direct staff to open the bids and if the bid is high, it doesn’t matter, and if the bid is low than should solicit an opinion from District Office in Denver as to our action, if it does we’re home free and if it doesn’t, award the bid to the next highest bidder - and doesn’t think it will take long to get that answer. It was noted that the desire was to get project started relatively soon; and we should proceed to protect the citizens’ money as much as the federal government’s money and award the bid to the lowest bidder, subject to that opinion.

After further discussion Mr. Grotte stated that if they were going against staff’s recommendation they would like something so can go ahead and open the bids and still have an award next week. Mr. Swanson stated that their procedural rules allow you to take action at a committee of the whole, whether they want to adjourn out of the committee of the whole into the city council, that is up to them, that they’ve specifically reserved the right to take action in a committee of the whole meeting. Council Member Brooks stated that his motion would be that we reject the Barbarossa bids and proceed with the other two bids; if the documents aren’t there, that’s non-responsive but whether there in the outside or inside, need to move and moved to proceed to open those two bids. Council Member Christensen seconded the motion.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that at this time and in the future if we are going to pass or defeat motions or have motions, we should convene the council, rather than at any time anybody can make a motion, and would like to see them convene the council. Council Member Gershman stated over the weeks we’ve been doing this that we have requested through a sense of the council to staff to look into things, and they’ve heard the testimony and if they need to reject that other bid, then agrees otherwise the sense of the council would be fine.

Council Member Klave stated we can make a recommendation to ourselves, doesn’t want to now or in the future as they are going though items, one becomes controversial, that we abolish a committee of the whole, convene as a council, abolish the council, etc. but should make the recommendation to ourselves, continue through the entire agenda and at the end of the agenda, all items that need action, then convene as a council and vote at that time. Council Member Gershman stated that part of the reason for the committee of the whole is to have discussion without the pressure of taking a vote, and asked if we are setting precedent and if Molstad Excavating was not here tonight and we decided to take some action on a formal vote, would not be in favor of that, and that we’re starting to erode the idea of a committee of the whole to keep the pressure off from making a decision because some of us have an agenda and there’s an item on here, nobody’s here from the citizenry on that issue and we decide to take action, not binding but committee’s recommendation to the council, but it defeats our purpose of committee of the whole, thinks we can accomplish the same thing without having a vote as they’ve done it before. Council Member Klave stated that when we established this, we left a gate that in the event that something had to be acted on without having to wait until it goes to the next council meeting, we have that opportunity, and thinks we need to act this evening so they have the opportunity to open bids so we can make a formal action next
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/MARCH 26, 2001 - Page 4

week as Mr. Grotte tells us we are under a time line to order materials, etc. and that’s why left that window of opportunity at our committee of the whole meetings to take action when deemed necessary. There was consensus to table this to the end of the meeting under council action items.

2.3 Amendment No. 1 to engineering services agreement with WFW for Project No. 5140, Upgrade
Lift Station 24._________________________________________________________________
Council Member Brooks stated concern that we were taking on the 2001 rate schedule for this project, that some percentages high when reviewing the list of what the increase is going to be, that we need to look at that. Mr. Grasser stated that what happens on the rate schedules is that they have different individuals at different rates and maybe moving people around within their salary structure, that can impact the percentage, and that we’re all struggling to hire engineers in this area and part of what you’re seeing is their attempt to be able to recruit and retain people within their own organizations. He stated that in the past we have worked on different methods of contracting with consultants, cost with fixed fee basis, etc. and alternative we may want to follow up with in the future but the prerequisite to doing that is that it takes more staff time to be able to go through and do negotiations and work through what is a fair and reasonable rate, and have compared some of the increases across the board to other consultants and don’t seem out of line.

Council Member Christensen asked which contract we are increasing fees on - all the contracts they are working on. Mr. Grasser stated this is for the specific lift station rehab. Council Member Christensen stated we have this issue before us where we have raised fees for consultants, and that is seems as though we have one or two engineering firms who have been assigned to be responsible for certain aspects of our city - water, sewer, etc., and asked how much this is going to increase the cost of the project because of the fees that we may grant the increase and that if we raise the fees to allow the outside engineering firms to make a lot more money than City’s engineers are making, we really increase the competitive advantage for the private sector vs. public sector and hurting ourselves. He stated that a private sector will have to make a business decision if they want to work for the public sector at the fees we’re willing to pay or not do the work. He stated this is something we should be looking at as we start on this budgeting process, as you start downsizing and the private sector realizes that this public sector is going to have less money to spend when we start going after engineers or consultants; that he doesn’t think it’s going to do us any good to keep raising the private sectors fees but not for our own employees.

2.4 Application for exemption of improvements to residential building at 846 South 23rd Street.
Council Member Burke asked for cost, whether it’s an abatement on taxes, etc. and would like to see that when it can be calculated to a reasonable certainty. He also asked if we grant this abatement whether it affects only the City or other entities that collect property taxes and we have the authority to affect the taxing entities without their agreement. Mel Carsen, city assessor, reported that it affects all - school, park district, county and city and stated we have a small number of exemptions - some started year ago, etc. but not a lot in force right now, and would not lose any of the current tax base, only the amount of increase would be stayed for 1, 2 or 3 years.

Council Member Bjerke stated that if you look at theory of this, if you own property the thing to do is to let it get run down until you have to make major repairs so you can get a tax break and those who maintain their properties on a regular basis, will not get a tax break, so giving an advantage to someone to let their property be run down; and he views this as a targeted tax cut - you get a tax cut because you’re doing something the government wants you to do vs. letting everyone share in the bonus of a tax cut, and that we should think about this. Council Member Klave disagreed with that - that this law has been on the books for many years and see very few and not being people who are letting their property run down and then getting it fixed up - sometimes somebody buys property that is run down, that this is replacing
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/MARCH 26, 2001 - Page 5

windows and doors and with the energy crunch we’re in right now, these people are trying to lower their heating costs by putting more energy efficient windows and doors in, steel siding, etc. and doesn’t see this as somebody letting their house run down and is looking for a way to save tax money; that is to do major repairs to homes and encourages them. Council Member Bjerke stated he was referring to the policy. Council Member Gershman stated he agrees with Mr. Klave, that when people improve their homes it increases our tax base and that’s part of the idea of this and would encourage this program, not discourage it, because it will help all of us.

2.5 Consideration of engineering service agreement on City Project No. 5229, Upgrade Lift Stations 19
and 25._________________________________________________________________________
No discussion.

2.6 Matter of request from council for estimate to install temporary traffic signals at 28th Avenue South
and Columbia Road._______________________________________________________________
Council Member Gershman stated that traffic worse because of new SuperTarget, power center that’s opened up out there and when use Options #2 and #5 together where we are able to use a lot of the equipment again, and asked if there was funding available to do this, that would increase safety and would like to see us going forward with this project. The city auditor stated they would want to use Highway Users funds and there is a balance in that account.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that he thinks a control at 28th is necessary, and that it is in the longer range plan, traffic lights according to the consultants do not reduce accidents. Council Member Brooks stated that staff’s recommendation is to leave it alone until permanent signals are installed in 2003, and should consider traffic engineer’s recommendation to wait until 2003. Council Member Gershman stated he feels there’s going to be an affect on businesses out there and need controlled traffic for safety reasons and 2 years is a long wait, and thinks that is an intersection that’s very dangerous, thinks we have a major concern and would recommend to move it up.

Council Member Bjerke asked why we’re waiting until 2003. Dan Jonasson, traffic engineer, stated the reason for waiting to 2003 is that part of Columbia Road and 32nd Avenue will be reconstructed at that time and that’s earliest time federal funds were available to do that.

Council Member Kreun asked when the earliest is to put up temporary signals if decided to do that; Mr. Jonasson stated if go through bidding process - middle or end of the summer at earliest. He also stated during installation there would be some inconvenience while putting temporary poles in the ground, string cables across, probably part of a lane for one day, and possibly detour for a day. Council Member Brooks stated if we do something temporary at this intersection, we have some intersections where heavy traffic and frustrating but need to be on schedule where rely on staff. Council Member Gershman stated this intersection is scheduled, study has been done, and can’t go to every intersection but this is designated because of traffic count to be done, and moving it up for safety reasons.

Council Member Burke asked if we went with temporary signal, how much cost would be wasted, and how much equipment reused for permanent installation. Mr. Jonasson stated if you look at Option #5, some of the equipment could be incorporated into the project (video detection which is $40,000, controller from Option #2 and opticon, which are solid components that could be used again, will have some re-installation costs, and not sure of those costs.

Council Member Christensen stated that the traffic lights by the bridge going into East Grand Forks aren’t controlling any traffic except on River Road, and asked if we could take those down and use some of the
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/MARCH 26, 2001 - Page 6

parts at 28th. Mr. Jonasson stated in order to remove the signals and have been trying to do that but the NDDOT requires that a study be done to show that they aren’t warranted any more, have told no streets and that the dike will be gong there, and has had reps there a few times - that equipment couldn’t be utilized (mast arms aren’t long enough). He stated his recommendation would be to bid Option #5.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that for council people who have not read the study on Columbia/32nd, would urge them to do so - there are some other lights, construction that would be fairly controversial - there wasn’t a light scheduled for 28th because too close to 32nd , that 24th is another high traffic area and has to be reconfigured, that on 32nd they wanted to remove one light and move it to exit from Columbia Mall but council put up another one - and we do have some choices although the NDDOT and consultants have made some recommendations, another item in the study is that people in Grand Forks are not accustomed to this - right turns are the way to go, not across and taking a left turn and that’s been some of the problem.

2.7 Information on establishment of the Downtown Design Review Board requested by Councilperson
Bjerke._________________________________________________________________________
Council Member Bjerke stated that under the Downtown Design Review Board if you appeal their decision, that goes to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the city council never hears that appeal, and that many actions delegated to the staff, all ended up being appealed to the mayor or the council; and if were to keep this ordinance questions why citizen cannot end up making appeal to elected officials over concern with issue they might have with issue downtown. He stated on page 1 of the handout re. ordinance, under (1) C. it states reasons for doing this is to protect from adverse effects of poor design and appearance, thinks poor design is a very subjective word. and under D. it says to facilitate new development, and doesn’t know how creating an ordinance that basically tells you what kind of doorknobs to put on your door is to facilitate development - believes layer of bureaucracy and adding a lot of things on to it, and if read the ordinance, an adjoining property owner can appeal a decision; we’re over-regulating and over-managing. Council Member Gershman disagreed, that if you take a drive around Grand Forks and if look at 32nd Avenue South corridor area as a shopping district, it is quite nice and if compare with other cities where happenstance growth, etc.; that at event over last weekend had a number of people from out of town tell him how beautiful Grand Forks was, not only the shopping district but downtown and don’t get that way by letting everybody put up whatever on area trying to beautify, and the issue is predictability and that is what business wants, want planning; and most beautiful cities have controls. He stated he has one criticism (on page 5) of the downtown design guidelines they talk about having the entrances to buildings being recessed, and that is a problem in this climate because of whirlwind you get and is a garbage attractor, and would make recommendation that they might want to rethink that. Council Member Brooks stated that staff put work into this report and asked Terry Hanson that next week at council meeting, bring in a motion.

2.8 Grand Forks Housing Authority Board term adjustments.
Council Member Bjerke stated that if review information presented, don’t have a council member representative on the Board and thinks appropriate to have one. Council Member Christensen stated that he reviewed statute that creates the Housing Authority which states that the appointees are supposed to be given to the city auditor and he keeps track; that he doesn’t know what process the Housing Authority is following in suggested that they change their terms, reviewed by-laws and can amend their by-laws, but the statue that creates the Housing Authority stated that the mayor is supposed to appoint the representative on the Housing Authority, and rather than our making this decision on Monday night based upon this information, it may be prudent to for a) to inquire of the auditor and this has been in existence since 1967 and let’s trace the paper trail that should exist to see who’s been appointed and when, and get a handle on what we have for appointees - that’s a suggestion. He stated we have created several
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/MARCH 26, 2001 - Page 7

commissions where there’s oversight - the Alerus Commission where working on that with the CVB and seems in the year 2001 we re-visit (not abolish the Housing Authority) how it’s been established, reporting procedure, etc. so we have a better understanding of how it operates - that it handles approx. $18 million a year and suggesting that we not act on this on Monday night until we have more information.

2.9 Bids and quotes for the Grand Forks Wastewater Treatment Plant - Bid Packages #10 and 10A-
medium voltage electrical distribution equipment, City Project No. 4371.__________________
Council Member Brooks stated that staff is looking for a motion from the council. Mr. Grotte stated he assumed they were going to go with the recommendation and would like council to consider with the other item under special council action. He stated that after they received the bids and saw that they didn’t comply they talked to the office of the city attorney and the ND State Health Department about getting quotes on items that were not bid based on the bids that were opened. Council Member Klave stated they weren’t telling us this is time sensitive and if we agreed with their findings, we would handle it at the meeting next week.

2.10 University of North Dakota (UND) fiber optics relocation for English Coulee diversion.
Council Member Gershman questioned depth for the project, and if we have standard and difference in costs. Mr. Grotte stated the difference in depth doesn’t really matter, they are not trenching this but directional boring, and best to get fiber optics deep so are done with them and don’t object to their wanting to go deeper.

2.11 Report on Civic Auditorium RFP.
Council Member Hamerlik asked why proposal rather than bids. Rick Duquette, assistant to the mayor, stated proposals are preferred from standpoint they would like to look at all options and bring different options to the city council for uses of that facility rather than just putting it up for sale; and intends to change RFP and add some additional information about capacity of parking lots.

Council Member Gershman stated there are no restrictive covenants, that we don’t want it to be used as a civic auditorium, don’t want it to be used as something that would compete with the Alerus, and should have those things upfront so that anyone bidding on this would know that’s out of play; and stated that when put a date on there for proposals to be returned (April 20), doesn’t think need a date and that would be his recommendation on this and would like opinion of other council members. Council Member Hamerlik stated he thinks there should be a date on it, it tells the individuals that after a certain date we will be making a decision, and put a deadline date for top consideration so can keep taking them after that time, which is different than a deadline date; that we’re going to be out of there by July 1 and good reason to push it up as much as can. Mr. Duquette stated he would recommend having some dates from standpoint it gives us a timeframe and the council has the option to reject the proposals that come in, and the intent is that the city council will have the final say on this.

Council Member Christensen stated we should address what it costs to hang onto this property for a period of time; he stated that he didn’t know if we’ve declared this property as surplus, and once it’s declared surplus it’s up for sale. He stated that it was approx. $60,000/yr. to keep property for heat and insurance, and when close on July 1 have to keep property so it doesn’t go into further state of disrepair, but we should decide if we’re willing to carry this property for a period of time because we have $2.3 million in the basement of this property plus whatever else we put up; that he doesn’t see a lot of property downtown moving and should probably declare this property as surplus, list it for sale and have Mr. Duquette be our contact person to entertain all proposed uses and when have a viable alternative that would meet lot of purposes/needs, then bring it to the council. He stated they aren’t going to blow away a
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/MARCH 26, 2001 - Page 8

$2.3 million piece of property for $50,000, and his opinion would be that should list the property, declare it surplus and entertain proposals - bring to council. He stated he thinks they should save this for economic development - this property has high potential for economic development for businesses such as Pro-Mark or for call center businesses - or for incubator, but have to give our economic development group some resources.

Council Member Brooks stated this is unique in terms of the property and maybe looking at a developer coming in - we put out a request for qualifications where people can bring proposals to us and we can select the one that looks like the best proposal, enter into an agreement that they have 120 days to put a package together and bring it back to us - looking at development property.

After further discussion Mr. Swanson stated he might suggest that they give strong thoughts to transferring title of this property from City to Growth Fund (Jobs Development Authority), because they would have greater flexibility in evaluating proposals and for entertaining sales; that if you hold it in the name of the City of Grand Forks and declare it surplus, you have to publicly bid it, could reject your bids and then go to a listing with an agent but puts you in a position that you have to bid it, that requirement is not true if you transfer it to the Jobs Development Authority.

Council Member Klave stated that he liked the comment that it not be a competitive use against the Alerus Center, but doesn’t know what the legal concerns are there.

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL ACTION ITEMS

The committee of the whole convened as the city council.

Mayor Brown reconvened the city council as committee of the whole with all members present.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Gershman reported they received news release where our finance department received a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting and its assistant director Saroj Jerath for the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, and congratulated Saroj Jerath and John Schmisek and the entire staff for that.

2) Council Member Gershman presented an idea - that our website is grandforksgov.com and thinks it would be nice to call it grandforks’great.com. that we have to promote ourselves a little bit, and asked that they think about this.

3) Council Member Hamerlik asked if the council would have the results of the bid openings this evening. The city auditor reported that the bids are as follows (that the bidders did have the other inclusions inside the main envelopes): Dakota Underground under the second to the last column (bid amount items 1 to 31), $5,156,325 and under final column which is items 1 through 31 and alternate #1: $5,281,325; Molstad Excavating: under the second to the last column (bid amount items 1 to 31), $4,140,710, and final column items 1 through 31 and alternate #1: $4,215,710; and that Mr. Grotte has informed him that Molstad’s bid may have some mathematical errors that make them the low bidder. Mr. Grotte stated that apparently Molstad has informed Advanced Engineering that they have some mathematical errors in their bid tabulations so when add up the unit prices, it will be less than the apparent low bid by Park Construct, bids are based on the unit price vs. the actual bottom figure. The city auditor reported that on the second bid item, the statement was not included in that bid.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/MARCH 26, 2001 - Page 9

4) Council Member Hamerlik stated that as they were discussing the civic auditorium , while they are open to suggestions from various entities, one thing that would be appropriate if possible, that that be put on the tax rolls, and would like the appropriate department, Mayor’s Office, to start exploring the usage and sale of the 17th Avenue South fire station.

5) Council Member Stevens stated that there is a need to work on our transportation system again, and thanked Mr. Feland for information that was sent to him.

6) Council Member Bjerke reported that copies of the second line of defense information were sent to council members, and if looked through that plan it would be difficult to implement that plan if needed, and the point he was trying to make was that if have a personal plan if something were to happen in a flood situation, and not to spread panic but planning and preparation, and encourage citizens that like any other natural disaster’s potential, it is their obligation to take care of your family and your property, and hope prepare accordingly.

7) Council Member Brooks dittoed the recognition of the finance department, and thanked Terry Hanson for the report on Congressional 1 and 2.

8) Council Member Kreun stated that under item 2.10 fiber optics relocations and several will be taking place for the levee and asked if there was a dollar amount in place that staff can authorize so it doesn’t have to come to council - $30,000; that it’s nice to put in the flood report but these are relocations and not bid and should put that back on staff.

9) Council Member Christensen reported that a member of the Grand Forks Historical Commission/County re. Myra Museum operation, contacted him today with concerns about when the dike construction will start, where footprint of the dike will be as far as their property goes as they have to move the oldest house (built 1872) and asked if someone from engineering department (Mr. Yavarow or Mr. Grotte) could contact Sue Ellen Bateman, president of that organization, and give her some follow up as to what is happening so they can make some arrangements. Mr. Grotte stated that they hired EAPC quite some time ago to study the relocation of their facilities and that stretch of levee is in Phase II so it will be under construction in 2002 and will follow up with that.

ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS

5-1 Memorandum regarding committees. (Information only).
Council Member Bjerke stated he had some comments - that he would like see some pros and cons of keeping these committees (Mayor Brown stated that is in the works); and would like a list of every member of all committees and expiration of terms, and should continue to work on trying to get the city representative on the Airport Authority to vote, and re. Planning and Zoning find out what other cities do when have the city engineer on the Commission, is staff passing judgment on something that could be considered a conflict of interest to certain degree and whether appropriate.

Council Member Burke stated that the director of the Urban Development Department is a voting member of the Downtown Design Review Board as well, and questioned in review of committees if they could determine if they have staff in voting positions on committee, and how often and where that exists.

Council Member Christensen stated he doesn’t know what happens to the Downtown Design Review issue, if they will be voting on that on Monday, or if something they want to think about amending the statute, having an appeal process and the appointments - maybe defer and these issues be covered before
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/MARCH 26, 2001 - Page 10

making a decision and voting on this on Monday. Council Member Klave stated when looking at committees and structure, do have 2 council people who sit on County Planning & Zoning, but doesn’t know what the makeup for that is but if maybe pared down to one person, may have to contact he County to see what needs to be done at that time.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Brooks that we do now adjourn. Carried 9 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Schmisek
City Auditor