City of Grand Forks - Print Friendly Form

Council Minutes

MINUTES

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Monday, April 23, 2001

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, April 23, 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, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim (teleconference system), Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Kreun - 11; absent: Council Members Lunak, Bakken, Martinson - 3.

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

Mayor Brown stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission had two items for consideration under the city council special action items and asked for motion. It was moved by Council Member Bjerke and seconded by Council Member Klave to add the following items to the agenda for consideration under the City Council Special Action items: 1) matter of final approval of plat of Birkholz’s 7th Addition and amendment of Street and Highway Plan; and 2) matter of petition to vacate all of South 17th Street and utility easement as platted in plat of Ulland Park First Addition. Carried 11 votes affirmative.

REPORT ON EVENTS CENTER HOTEL

Council Member Hamerlik reported that the Events Center Commission met and had copies of report from HVS International, consulting firm relative to the hotel and after the meeting copies were distributed to all the council members; that this item is not on the agenda but that Darrell Larson, chair of the Com-mission and Dave Evenson, member of the subcommittee, working with HVS are here this evening and with your permission asked them to give a brief summarization of the report.

Mr. Larson stated that the hotel report was delivered by HVS International, that we are in a situation where in analyzing it, it was their opinion that the Alerus Center was a successful venture at this point, it would be successful going forward, they felt that a hotel would be beneficial to the property but would likely not result in a sufficient economic adjustment upward at this point in time to justify going forward with it, that the committee met and accepted that report and have forwarded it on to the council, and it is their opinion simply that at this point in time, they not go forward with the venture and use tax-payers dollars to help achieve the result of obtaining three to three and a half star 150-room hotel which is what they were recommending, it is still something that they are strongly in favor of and would like to see in the near future and after discussions with them, believe that may be possible. He stated they were authorized to spend $45,000 by the council on the study, and commended them for coming back and stopping without finishing it at a cost of $22,500 plus expenses. There were no additional comments.

FLOOD REPORT

Al Grasser, city engineer, reported that the river was staying very high and had forecasts of various precipitation events, that the river is on downward trend and the precipitation events (two missed us and third one farther south) but not a big effect on us on the river. He stated they made some decisions today about removing clay, sandbags, and sand, and have been removing some of the clay on Bacon Road today, probably start on Columbia Road tomorrow, contractor will be out making sweeps of the community picking up sandbags placed on bottom apron of driveway, and pick up loose sand and that will happen over next week or so, property owners will have until Monday, May 7, for pickup of sandbags, and realize that with warm weather coming up people want to get in their yards and get this out; looks like the risk associated with the river are substantially contained at this time and are proceeding with this work.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 04/23/01 - Page 2

Council Member Kreun stated that many questions being asked about how many levees can we leave and what is criteria for leaving the levees in place or taking them down. Mr. Grasser stated there are only two reasons why they wouldn’t leave a levee in place - one is that it’s on a transportation road (Highway 81, Bacon Road, North Columbia Road) or in an unstable area. He stated they have a lot of information on where they do have slope stability problems and if those areas have been identified, they won’t leave the clay on there because it could slip into the river and that can jeopardize buildings, etc. and could also prevent the permanent flood protection project from being able to build a floodwall, that once the slip plain starts to move, further movement is easier and if that happens may be precluded from putting in floodwalls in some of the areas. He stated they are putting dirt in places where more easily accessible for next year’s floodfight if need it; lot of it in Central Park and some stockpiled on Alpha Avenue; taking some of the dirt and building up some lots for areas where will be moving historical homes, particularly in the Riverside area and trying to make good use of the clay. Council Member Hamerlik asked if there was a storage area for clay hauled on North Columbia Road; Mr. Grasser stated some of that dirt will be hauled to Alpha Avenue; a lot of the dirt that was on North Columbia Road came out of the Campbell site which is on the west end of town and not refill those stock piles as they found they are not very accessible during floodfight but are also overfilling in Central Park which was a good access area. He stated problem with stockpiling is can’t do it on a small scale because when trying to access some stockpiles, had to rip out 6 ft. of frozen material and have to factor in a lot of things where locating stockpiles.

PRESENTATION RE. MARKETING BY INFO CENTER

Kevin Dean, Public Information Center, stated he had a brief presentation - that approximately a month ago he had mentioned that one of the things the Public Information Center was going to be doing was entering into some marketing of the city and are at the point where start doing that - that he has invited Steve Eickman, Anchor Marketing, and that they will be working with him. He stated they were looking at four things - main points, objectives, strategies and questions they might have. He stated they want to try to develop a single point to gather and distribute city information that they believe will help save city staff time, will improve overall communication and generate a consistent message; and that is what they were able to do during the floodfight this year over at the EOC - they were able to develop a consistent message that continued to come out day after day, able to keep residents informed, and found there were a lot fewer questions because people were informed and were up to date, and were hoping to be able to work with other departments to develop that consistent message and be able to let people know when things are coming up, how being organized and how being run. He stated they feel this will provide for efficiency because it will save city staff time - many departments do their own marketing (advertising) and this will help bring it together - help guide people to answer their questions at our web site www.grandforksgov.com and feel that’s very important - that one day the web is going to be a phenomenal communication tool and now on the cutting edge of technology and want to take advantage of that, want people to know about it and want to have people accessing information through that. That this will provide one location for information, preparation and distribution through the Public Information Center. He stated it will increase awareness for community events and for facilities, that Town Square is a perfect example and Public Information Center is in charge of taking care of that for people who want to use a public facility for some kind of private event. He stated they have a number of events that are already booked there this year, including farmers market for a number of Saturdays and a number of other organizations that are doing things as well; and the Public Information Center provides a community link to help answer questions. He stated in looking at public/private partnerships see a lot of businesses, community organizations, departments within the city and city officials and they’ve all got messages that they want to try to get out there - businesses that would like to work with the public on through the Town Square, etc., departments that want to get information out about the cleanup week in the city, city officials
have messages they want to get out to the public and if we can funnel this information through the Grand
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 04/23/01 - Page 3

Forks Public Information Center and then in turn funnel that through the Grand Forks Herald, web page, local cable stations and other media throughout Grand Forks will be able to provide an effective manner of disseminating information throughout the public.

Steve Eickman, Anchor Marketing, stated they met with staff and came up with four strategies that if implemented can help them achieve their goals: 1) identify what the different departments are and the events they have throughout the year that they need to increase awareness of, 2) develop a creative treatment for the Public Information Center so that when people see a newspaper ad or see logo they know who that message is coming from; 3) increase awareness of the web site as they feel that is the central point of what they do; and 4) implement some traditional advertising to get that happening. He stated re. web site that they have on-site control because web master here, inclusive of departments, accessible to anyone who has internet access - technology based and much less expensive than traditional methods of getting information out. He stated putting the web site address everywhere - on all communications that go out and have web address on city vehicles, have on screen during council meetings. He stated they would like to develop a tag or identification number for the Public Information Center; create some standardized newspaper shells that can be used in the Grand Forks Herald so every time see message from the City it looks the same - see placing ads on local television, using 15 second commercials, promote web site on an on-going basis and promote 746-info so people who don’t have web access have a phone number to call, and other 15-second commercial would promote the event.

Council Member Gershman stated that the name of the web site is grandforksgov and not very attractive in his opinion and suggested using grandforksgreat.com and put forward for discussion.

Council Member Christensen stated that if this is an initiative of the mayor’s office as far as public information goes, have a department of that, there’s a budget, and hope brought forward as part of the budgeting process for the marketing plan and see what it costs.

Mr. Dean stated that the initial cost for this is about $2,500, and they had a budget that was approved for 2001 that does include for advertising, $13,000, and didn’t bring this tonight to ask for permission to go ahead, this was part of their budget and wanted to inform council how they were moving ahead and how they were planning to use part of this money. Council Member Brooks stated this needs to be presented in the budget process, that have cut down the number of newsletters and have newsletters that could combine under that area, etc. that should realize some savings by centralizing.

2.1 Presentation regarding Alerus and CVB merger.
Steve Peters, president of Compass Facility Management, Ames, IA stated they were here as result of request that they submit a proposal for them to extend management services to the operation of the Convention & Visitors Bureau; that in the fall a report was formulated by Richard Warne and James Tismanakis and was presented in January relative to the advantages and feasibility and gave some structural analysis as to how this might be accomplished; the intent being to maximize the marketing opportunities that the City has with the growing number of attractions that begin to qualify Grand Forks and East Grand Forks together as destination cities. He stated their proposal is in response to a request, and committed in mid-February to come back by late March, early April, with a proposal that would try to accomplish the goals as they were stated to them. He stated in their process they have had many conversations with Mr. Warne, CVB executive committee of the CVB Board, visited and been in attendance at meetings of the Events Center Commission, and tried to bring a proposal that is realistic and to actually grab hold of the opportunity that is in front of us to maximize the marketing effort that is going to be needed in a very competitive market. He stated their booklet includes a recommendation and a proposal. He stated he wouldn’t get into the recommendation, that it was up to the council to decide how
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 04/23/01 - Page 4

they choose to govern the CVB and what that structure ought to be, but wanted to point out the fact that there were revenue elements to this and the whole funding picture of the CVB effort that you want to guard against and be sure you’re not losing advantage of (gaming revenues as CVB is a non-profit corporation and can operate charitable gaming) and the other being the resource of memberships that are sold in the CVB.

He reviewed his proposal to the city council. He stated they have done a lot of work with Convention Bureaus, and have fashioned a proposal which would put together the functions that the CVB now does as two departments of their operating element here in Grand Forks - 1) being the running of the Convention Visitors Bureau (sales, marketing and services) and the other being the gaming division that brings a portion of the revenue that contributes to the overall effort. Most critical to this is the Convention services and sales and visitor services, and the organizational chart in the book demonstrates that they would propose a department, and also maintain the marketing department at the Alerus (the marketing department at the Alerus has certain things that don’t overlap into the broader CVB, they are selling suites, advertising, operate an in-house ad agency that assists users and sponsors and promoters in placing their ads, etc.; and also do CVB sales and that will overlap and work hand in hand; the CVB marketing sales and service department then becomes a 7 person department answering to our general manager; he stated that if feasible for them to operate gaming on behalf of CVB, that they are trying to put together the marketing and sales component of the CVB with the Alerus Center; that they would take payroll, maintenance, administrative functions that would become small chores in the overall larger operation at the Alerus Center, that of the 7 staff people they identified in the organizational chart reviewed their duties that 5 people have primary responsibility of actually trying to make sales (visitor sales, sports tournaments, conventions, meetings, bringing people to the greater grand cities) and think that’s an improvement on the existing situation as have taken a lot of the administrative and detailed work and put it with their finance department. He stated they want to extend every effort to keep the involvement and stakeholder nature of the existing membership so they have a cooperative effort as they move forward. He stated they have provided an organizational chart and some brief job descriptions, that their intent would be to assume the employment of existing staff to transition them forward, there would be a transition time and evaluation of matching skill sets to jobs. He stated they go in and assume management of a convention center or arena and are experienced in that, and they have a very positive experience of being able to achieve new results with incumbent staff. He stated there is information on how they manage personnel, given personnel manual in the book. He stated he thinks there are operating expense savings, etc. that help them put more money into staffing, also expect a slight increase in revenues by exporting more sponsorships and by seeing a growth in the revenue from gaming, as stake limits have been increased from $5 to $25.

Mr. Peters stated that in terms of Compass’ compensation in this, they’ve suggested that Compass’ existing contract has certain variable fees that can total as much s $60,000/yr. for Compass’ performance tied to various performance measures and are suggesting that a portion of that - half of that - be substituted for the CVB rather than increasing the City’s overall potential fees to Compass, there is no particular increase to the City; they would also hope that to get this going and part of that compensation package would be that they would extend the term of the existing Compass contract by 2 more years as part of that new arrangement. He stated that while they are not right now managing another convention and visitors bureau, they feel they have the expertise both corporately and on-site at the Alerus Center to do this.

He stated can the activity for the marketing not be so tilted in favor of the Alerus that it continues to accomplish the more objective mission of the CVB, confident that they will do that; there is a healthy
competition between hotel properties that go on, between attractions in town, but will be marketing
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 04/23/01 - Page 5

outside of town - bringing people in and as a separate department that would be set by the client, they would be held to the measure and to the accountability of living up to those goals and objectives, and confident of their ability to do that in an objective way and not just to the immediate benefit of that particular building, and synergies certainly do benefit the Alerus as well as all of the other attractions in the cities of Grand Forks and East Grand Forks.

Mayor Brown stated he was encouraged that they are establishing a dialogue between the CVB and Compass and the Alerus Commission, Engelstad and UND, Park District and East Grand Forks, and thinks this is a work in progress until cooperation or buy-in from all the parties involved.

Dave Holmstead, CVB, stated they are very interested in starting that dialogue and feel have to reassure their membership that they are watching out for their interest as well, everybody has to have an equal shot; that is their primary focus and feel this could go on very positively and have a positive aspect of the marketing of the greater Grand Forks area.

Council Member Bjerke asked when the current contract expire for Compass. Mr. Peters stated they have a 3 and 2 existing contract which started January 1, 2000, the IRS requires certain outs available to cities if you use tax exempt bonds, and that’s 3 year safe harbor, so it has 3 years and 2 more years onto that, and if ran the whole life it would go to the end of 2004, and this would take it 2 more years, with options for non-performance for the City’s protection.

Council Member Bjerke stated that we won’t be voting on this in a couple weeks, and what is time line. Mayor Brown stated 3 weeks. Council Member Christensen stated before they went to the committee of the whole they had some on-going conversation with the CVB, that staff and some members of the council went to those meetings, and that they would like an opportunity to go through this report and look at the proposed ordinance that we delayed the second reading on and see if we have to amend the ordinance, get rid of the ordinance, what we do with the CVB, deal with those issues in the next 2 weeks and bring this back and proceed.

Deb _______________, CVB, stated one of the concerns they have on the ordinance or first reading is that if that goes ahead then they become an arm of the city council and see that they could lose a lot of the other dollars that they count on now to use for advertising, that membership dollars will go down and lose the gaming revenues, etc. matching funding from the State of Minnesota, that would be lost dollars that they currently use, and asked council to reconsider first reading and look at this type of a system; the only other concern they have is the timing issue because from a gaming standpoint we have to sign leases with the current people that they have and some people that may not want to continue as part of the gaming if connected with the City in any way; that they are looking at additional $60-100,000 in income from gaming revenues that they could lose.

Council Member Burke stated that he hoped during the first meeting in May that they would bring up the second reading of the ordinance and defeat it, there’s no need for that if we move ahead with the plan that’s in front of us; what we have here is the need for the city council to nod their heads in agreement with their going ahead because then a contract between the CVB and Compass Management and that would provide for the savings of resources and personnel that would be able to work in both entities and bring that closer relationship. He stated he didn’t see where the city council would have to become involved at all in this other than whatever contractual arrangements we have with Compass through the Alerus and the Alerus Commission and any budgeting changes that there might be.

Council Member Gershman stated he believed the ordinance would have to be changed with the new
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 04/23/01 - Page 6

structure of the membership. Council Member Christensen stated they could just amend the existing ordinance at the second reading; change the membership and direct that the mayor direct x number with the right players, do that rather than go through another reading because that would drag this out; meet as quickly as can with the membership and move forward.

Council Member Brooks stated revenue issues have to be addressed, esp. gaming before approving; and Council Member Hamerlik stated that if City involved might be some legal issues.

2.2 Application for abatement for 1999 and 2000 taxes by John Hoffman, 815 Duke Drive, Unit #5.
No comments.

2.3 Application for property tax exemption by Auto World, 210 N. Wash. St. (new or expanding business)______________________________________________________________________
Mel Carsen, city assessor, reported this is preliminary review at possible new business exemption at 2nd Avenue and North Washington Street and if the council wishes to proceed with exemption, then need to hold public hearing. Brad Huebner, 5056 West Elm Court, presented request re. proposal to take a lot at 210 North Washington Street and develop as a strip mall, bring in some businesses from out of town, create new jobs, asking for an abatement from current taxes to the proposed taxes over a period of five years. Council Member Glassheim stated it sounds like a good project but that they tried to hold for primary sector businesses and businesses which don’t compete with other businesses in the same field, and would need some discussion on that, and whether staff is going to make any recommendation, and didn’t know if wanted to open up to strip malls or competing businesses.

2.4 Budget amendment, transfer from Cash Carryover to Temporary Wages in Assessing Dept.
Council Member Bjerke asked if approved, if this project would be completed (computerizing all building sketches for assessment records.) Mr. Carsen stated they hoped to complete the project this year, they have 2 people lined up to do this work this summer pending funding, second year architectural students from NDSU that live in Grand Forks (if not finished this year would finish with own staff).

Council Member Christensen asked that when we receive request and go with cash carryovers and if not an enterprise fund but out of general revenues, does that nick the $3.8 million cash carryover that was in last year’s budget. The city auditor reported that the $3.8 million is exclusive of the carryover that was allotted to the departments and you will have a $3.8 carryover plus there would be the additional $1.2 that the departments had as carryover from prior year’s budgets; that the $1.2 is not shown in the budget but shown in presentation at the time of the budget process (and is in the comprehensive annual financial report in detail), and would review with Council Member Christensen. Council Member Christensen asked if they could receive information at every meeting of breakdown of cash carryover, and balance.
The city auditor reported they would do that as well as detail for the fund balances. Council Member Burke asked when receiving requests for budget amendment and if coming from departmental cash carryover, show balance in that department’s carryover so know where each department stands as well.

2.5 Two-year property tax exemption for new homes.
Council Member Kreun stated he brought this up to spur discussion on this issue, home building starts have been reduced in the last few years, low at this time, and that a lot of other cities in the state have been doing this, and use this as a tool to accomplish the goal of creating better and more competitive edge as far as taxes and costs of home ownership in Grand Forks, maybe spur discussion of complete plan
of how accomplish building new homes into Grand Forks, and perhaps start a process to create home building in Grand Forks.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 04/23/01 - Page 7

Council Member Burke stated this was brought up several years ago and council did not approve at that time, and asked why that decision was taken not to reinstate the abatement at that time. Council Member Hamerlik stated this matter has been brought before council at least twice (once by developer and by another group), most cities in ND have this program but not a lot of proof on how much success there really is. One of the concerns after the flood was our tax base and thinks that has diminished, however, one of the other considerations would be is how fair is it to others who are paying taxes, especially those who built houses last year and by law this cannot be retroactive. He stated the idea is important but would hesitate bringing this to a vote next Monday, that there are other things that should be considered, one of which they had a detailed study on affordable housing and included within that there were some incentives that had to do with upfront costs, requiring 50% and seems all of those need to be put together before deciding. Council Member Burke stated that one of the things that’s been a recurring theme with regard to economic development the past couple years is the desire to rebuild and grow the population base and while State law doesn’t contemplate providing any kind of tax abatements for new residents, that’s maybe something we might be interested in taking a look at, whether having authority under Home Rule and whether it is a possibility, and would spur housing development as well.

Jerry Youngberg, 3514 10th Avenue North, stated he’s been in real estate business since 1984, that he is not speaking either for or against this issue, and raised some questions - a list of questions was presented to the council. He suggested a task force be put together to review the policies, regulations and laws that impact the growth of both population and businesses, taking input from the community, businesses, etc. and advise council of recommendations and at that time would be a reasonable basis for making some decision. He stated there should be an annual review of the goals and plans that would be very helpful for the council and beneficial for the community to know that our resources are being used in reaching those specific goals that the council decides upon.

Council Member Klave stated this is economic development for the city, that most communities around the outskirts of Grand Forks have the exemption, and need to make sure we keep people in the community, and not give opportunity to move to Thompson, Buxton, Reynolds, etc., that all have it in place for a reason and exemption is only on the structure. He also noted that they cannot build $80,000 housing at this day and age. Council Member Gershman stated that if we go through an analysis, that we do have the down-payment help with low and moderate income that we will be looking at and if get housing fair going where bring more people together to be able to afford homes, we can accomplish that end also.

Council Member Kreun stated this type of action is good for everybody, doesn’t segregate any segment, and creates housing stock and is available to new people coming into the community, and what’s wrong with giving our existing people in the community a break as well. Council Member Glassheim stated that the council has gone back and forth on this issue for more than a decade, that we want to encourage new home building but he has become persuaded over the years that city tax exemption is not decisive in whether people build or not in most cases and doesn’t accomplish its purpose, but rather put money into recruiting people to come to Grand Forks and housing market will take care of itself - it does seem discriminatory to 95% of the homes for sale which are older homes and giving advantage in sales to new housing, and esp. now when interest rates must be lowest in long time and is much more incentive to buy a new house than our exemption; and need more general approach to growth and not sure this is a productive way to get growth.

Council Member Brooks noted that when someone moves to Thompson that is a positive economic impact on the city, that we’re metropolitan area, and not compete within our metropolitan area; and also stated that we have to do the analysis and look at a total package.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 04/23/01 - Page 8

Mr. Carsen reviewed stats of the program: the program started in 1983, two-year program which State law stopped at the end of 1984; then the State reinitiated it in the legislature during 1985, the City adopted it starting July 1, 1985 and was in force through the 1988 building season; however, in 1987 we reduced the limits from $75,000 to $50,000; no exemption for 1989; started September 1, 1990 and lasted until September 1, 1992; no exemption until April 7, 1997 on a sliding scale and 2 ½ months later stopped it. Council Member Gershman asked if there was home building going on when we had the program; Mr. Carsen stated they could never correlate the number of housing starts with the exemption, could not see correlation of more homes being built because of the exemption. Council Member Gershman stated one of the fundamental rules in business is consistency - and program was most inconsistent type of program and no wonder it doesn’t work - people have to know when something is in place.

Don Dietrich, 5198 West Lanark Drive, stated he is in the real estate and auction business, reviewed statistics of counties and cities involved in the tax exemption program, only way can tell if people build homes because of the exemption is by taking survey, one of the problems he finds in his business is affordable housing - affordable housing is hard for people who want to move out of an apartment into a house - they are looking for housing from $40 to $90,000 and looking for first time home-buyers program which is a program by the State of North Dakota, only homes that qualify are $90,006 and down, on new homes go up to $130,000 - and biggest problem is finding homes in that range, lost those houses in Central Park, in Lincoln Park and in Riverside Park - and now need housing starts, have to have some type of incentive. He stated if analyze for 3 - 4 months, then get into next season, this year have 5 housing starts in the city of Grand Forks, and asked that they get on with program.

Rusty Wysocki, Rusty Wysocki Building Company, president of Forks Builders Assn., stated they don’t have to look at Thompson, Manvel, etc., that East Grand Forks is seeking and soliciting houses right now - they have two programs out there and build 20 houses this year and that’s a lot of housing for that size community - need incentives.

2.6 Moving permit application to move house from 207 Hughes Court to 561 Evergreen Drive.
2.7 Moving permit application to move house from 203 Hughes Court to 573 Evergreen Drive.
2.8 Moving permit application to move house from 109 Grassy Hills to 2401 South 36th Street.
2.9 Moving permit application to move house from 4619 Loamy Hills to 2765 S. 38th Street.
Brian Kristjanson, 621 Evergreen Drive, stated he lived in Sunbeam Addition and was bought out by the City, that he built two years ago, that last year they moved a 40-year old house onto Evergreen Drive which didn’t fit into the decor of their neighborhood (low, one story, low roof line- the basement already poured and building permit was on the front lawn and then neighborhood got a letter that this was being moved in and thought it was a done deal) and now they want to move two more old houses in their neighborhood, many of neighbors couldn’t make it this evening but are asking what’s going to happen to the value of their homes, when get 30-40 year old homes moved next to them - don’t feel it’s fair, that this is a new neighborhood, and don’t feel older houses should be allowed in their neighborhood.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that one of the things that Inspections does is assure that houses fit in the décor. Bev Collings, Inspections, stated that the houses going to this neighborhood are 13 to 15 years old, the other home was an older home but believes very well kept up house - she stated houses being moved in fit into the market, houses that were purchased by the City and owners are moving them to the new location; that they inspected houses and are in very good shape. She stated that when a house is being moved to a new property, they post the property and show address of where the house is presently located, do a direct mailing to everyone within 200 ft of the proposed lot and inspect the structures. Mr. Kristjanson stated they don’t feel buildings fit in their neighborhood. Ms. Collings stated that one of the property owners has chosen to go ahead and start the foundation and if he cannot move the house there,
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 04/23/01 - Page 9

he has signed letter that he will either remove the foundation or build a house there.

Rick Vari, 203 Hughes Court, stated they moved here in 1993 from New Orleans and house was built in 1989, and house in very good shape and fits in with neighborhood; can’t control what happens in the past.

Bob Kvistad, 207 Hughes Court, stated they have followed regulations to move a house, that their house is 15 years old, built the house in 1986 and feels house will fit into the neighborhood, and hope they will be allowed to move the house.

Gordon Hoeger, 2498 South 35th Street, stated he is concerned about application to move house from 109 Grassy Hills to 2401 South 36th Street, and asked what assurance he has that house not moved in and set on timbers for period of time; that sometime ago had a house moved in next to where he lives and sat on timbers for 2 years. Ms. Collings stated that they would have to pour the foundation and get a building permit to have the foundation for the house before they would issue the moving permit to move house to that site. She also noted that they do have values of the houses in the packets; that the approximate value of the houses in the same range.

Council Member Christensen asked if there were building restrictions in Evergreen, declarations or covenants that go with the ground. Ms. Collings stated that the City and Inspections Department does not enforce covenants and that developer would have received letter on this also. Mr. Kvistad stated they visited with Crary about this before even considering moving the houses and that they came and looked at the houses and that they would fit into that area. Council Member Christensen stated that if there aren’t any building restrictions or covenants that run with the land, that he may not appreciate the size of the house or dimensions, etc., there’s nothing they can do about it - that if no restrictions or covenants, don’t have the ability to tell your neighbor what type of home he or she can build, etc. and if it meets the criteria it isn’t within our authority.

2.10 Amending clauses to the Grand Forks City Code regarding duties, responsibility and authority of Community Service Officers, Amendments to Chapters V, VIII and XI.__
Chief Packett stated this is an amendment to the City Code that supports previous council action and of the Civil Service Commission changing the job descriptions of the animal warden and parking enforcement person to community service officers and the city attorney has drafted language that brings City Code in alignment with those changes in job description.

2.11 Consideration of bids for Project Nos. 4815 and 4816.1, Sanitary Sewer and Water System Modifications._____________________________________________________________
Mark Lambrecht reported they had excellent bid opening of project involved with relocation of utilities to accommodate the Phase I levee construction on Corps of Engineers project, that Webster, Foster & Weston was consulting engineer, that 5 bids received and low bid was from United Crane & Excavation, no irregularities in the bid opening and Engineer’s Estimate was $310,000 and low bid was $209,771.59, and recommendation to award work at this time.

2.12 Request from the Grand Forks Planning and Zoning Department for preliminary approval of a resolution to adopt an ordinance to amend Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, amending Article 8, Comprehensive Plan, Section 18-0802, pertaining to the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks 2022 Transportation Plan Update, (1999 Bikeway and Pedestrian Elements, 2000 Transit Element, Year 2000 Street and Highway Element, and 2000 Metropolitan Intelligent Transportation Systems Comprehensive Plan Element), together with all maps, information and data contained therein.______________________________________
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 04/23/01 - Page 10

Dennis Potter, city planner, stated this is an informational item and will have on the May 7 council meeting agenda to set the public hearing for May 21; that this is to implement the bus deviation route study and would be a component of our general plan transit element. Council Member Bjerke stated that if we’re going to implement this we’re going to 3 routes and there’s 2 types of deviations, point deviation and a route deviation and that we need to establish which type we’re going to use, and asked why go to a route deviation, and if do that need to consider setting up designated points to pick people up.

Council Member Christensen stated he would like to have the comprehensive plan - what trying to get done in busing in this community, where does it fit into comprehensive plan, smaller buses and more efficient public transportation system.

Council Member Brooks stated that he thinks the city needs a public transportation system but we have one that is far too expensive and has continued to grow, and unless we figure out we have to have some controls over it, there could be more and more support for no public transportation at all.

Todd Feland, acting director of public works, stated that a lot of things that we’ve done as looking at smaller buses, that buses empty during non-peak hours and also need to go to 30-minute headway, one of the higher ridership routes we have is on a 30-minute headway (Med-Park), and also looking at dial-a-ride bus and when look at the point route deviation that was an attempt to gain a larger economy of scale with our public transportation system; if we could pick up people that weren’t on the route that are currently being picked up by taxi, our buses are fuller and better rather than picking up on an individual ride. He stated that partnering with the MPO in planning and public works and city council, and have a lot of decisions to make today and can affect the future. It was noted that we have gone from 14 buses to 10 and are also going to a smaller buses but have to remember that the buses are full in the morning with students; and by going to the 30-minute route will increase ridership, especially if its consistent.

Council Member Burke asked if routes are 30-minute routes - it was noted they are 1 hour routes with 2 buses on the route (30-minute headway); he stated one of the opportunities with this is that it provides the opportunity to scale back service in the off-peak hours (take bus off each of those routes) and save cost of those buses - Council Member Gershman stated that fundamental rule of business is consistency. predictability for the customer - cannot have 30-minute headways and in afternoons back off -- you don’t make money every hour, stay open until you close and staff. Council Member Christensen asked if they take bus off the route - what do you do with the driver, what do with bus in the interim; that an average ride on the bus runs the City $5.27 and an average student ride is less than $1.00 - these are things the citizens should know when they look at public transportation service - what’s subsidy per rider and lets get an overall picture of what we are doing here rather than piecemeal. He also stated re. 80-20% and that we should be running it so that our 20% is spent efficiently.

Mr. Feland stated that when the do the budget briefing on May 2 will talk about public transportation as part of that component of the public works presentation, and important to distribute the information and answer a lot of the questions so can make good decisions.

2.13 Approval of bid on emulsion tank.
2.14 Approval of bid on the melter/applicatior.