City of Grand Forks - Print Friendly Form

Council Minutes

MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Monday, May 14, 2001

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, May 14, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. (following special council meeting) in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, 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 microphone, and advised that the meeting is being televised.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DISCUSSION ITEMS

2.1 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Lenthe Investments, for preliminary approval of a replat of Lots
C thru I and Lots K and L, Block 1, O.J.’s Addition._______________________________________
Dennis Potter, Planning Director, stated that when this item comes before the council on May 21, the request will be to set a public hearing on this item for June 18.

Council Member Hamerlik moved to suspend the agenda and consider item 2.15, which is the Community Events and Arts Grant Program because of number of people in the audience. Council Member Brooks seconded the motion. Carried 11 votes affirmative.

Council Member Brooks moved to suspend the agenda and consider item 2.20 transfer of Deraney’s liquor license. Council Member Hamerlik seconded the motion. Carried 11 votes affirmative.

2.15 Community Events and Arts Grant Program.
Mayor Brown asked for comments from the audience.

Sheryl Smith, Executive Director, North Valley Arts Council, and DLG (Downtown Leadership Group) stated she was here to answer questions.
John Hanson, 803 South 22nd Street, representing VFW Post 1874, VFW State Convention, stated this program would assist groups and organizations providing for events which attract visitors from within and outside the community and region, and that the State Convention will be attracting people from all over the State, from our national office, from other states, Congressional delegations - Senators Dorgan and Conrad, and Congressman Pomeroy; and would bring economic benefits for the city, and asked for small amount of $9,500 as matching funds - this would be good way to sell and market the city. He felt that the VFW would fulfill the requirements to attract visitors from within and outside the community region.
A. O. “Pete” Peters, 514 Chestnut Street, representing VFW, appeared in support of their request.

Mason Hollifield, Red Cross (Frosty Bobber), stated he was here to answer questions.
Bonnie Sobolik, ND Museum of Art, appeared in support of Jazz 2001 proposal, stated they believed their event is in its fledgling years and has an opportunity to become something major for this town, it’s something that is outside the coordination of ND Museum of Art, that last year the Museum extended the seed money to the extent of almost $30,000, the people who attended saw the vision of what they were trying to accomplish, people who were here from Jazz Winnipeg and from Jazz Duluth told them they had more people than when they first started their event - that Jazz Winnipeg is now a well established jazz festival; that they have a strong committee of 25 community leaders who want the festival to go forward
and feel this can become a destination event for the city of Grand Forks on Labor Day (a weekend that is a very slow weekend for hotels) and would like the City to make an investment to help them go through the second year to see if they can double their numbers, that they had asked for $30,000 but
MINUTES/COMM. OF WHOLE/May 14, 2001 - Page 2

hoped they could have a realignment of priorities to get at least $10,000. They have discussed with the Park District about partnering with a golf tournament at King’s Walk in future years, and if they can get past the second year and into the third and fourth years have an opportunity for a very major weekend activity for Labor Day.

Alex Reichert, appeared in support of Jazz 2001, stated that when he looked at the items that were funded, sees many items that are established in Grand Forks, items that by this time should be self-sufficient, that the Jazz Festival is asking for the opportunity to become self-sufficient in its own right.
He stated they are in their second year and if can’t make this work in two or three years, will not be coming back to the City asking for money. He stated he thinks this would be a fantastic draw for the community; and stated only 13% of the money is going to the Arts and believes a little bit more of a commitment to the Arts would be beneficial to the city; this is to be held over weekend (Labor Day) that business people will tell you is almost completely empty in Grand Forks and if going to have a destination event this is the time to have it if want to bring in new people and showcase the city. He asked if they could re-think the priorities and give $10,000 for the jazz festival.

Council Member Gershman stated that in response to the support for the arts, that $35,500 allocated for the arts, then we set aside $100,000 for special events and that he wouldn’t support arts activities at that point because very grateful to the council and mayor for getting their assistance for the arts. He stated if we could pick fewer of the events and make them larger would be better for the city. Council Member Christensen stated that it appeared there was approx. $10,500 left over at the end of the granting; and to re-think the final allocation of the $10,500 and begin thinking about allocating that to something like the Jazz 2001; that this group is selecting a long holiday weekend and working in cooperation with Winnipeg; not sure that this can hurt us to fund this for $10,000 this year to see if they can get it off the ground, and asked the council to think about that - that it’s a dead weekend in town and they’re trying to get something going on - that students are coming back.

Council Member Burke stated that the committee did allocate all of the $100,000 in its recommendation, copy of the table of the events was distributed, and if Council Member Christensen wishes to allocate $10,000 to the Jazz Festival, he should also include in his motion where he would like to reallocate the funds. Council Member Christensen stated he would be happy to do that and would reallocate funds where increased events (Sertoma went from $15,000 to $17,500, Potato Bowl went from $10,000 to $12,500, and DLG went from $7,500 to $13,000) and would move to amend those events down to the first amount, freeing up $10,000 for the Jazz Festival, but not sure if it’s appropriate to make those motions at this time - but listen and discuss and then make the appropriate recommendation or amendments on what you are allocating to each group; and that he would make that motion on Monday. Council Member Burke stated it’s not appropriate to make a motion or amend tonight because meeting as the committee of the whole. Mr. Swanson stated there is nothing in either the Code or Roberts Rules which would prohibit you from making recommendations from a committee of the whole to yourself as a governing body seated as a city council at a later date, at your discretion. Council Member Burke stated that when they were re-organizing the council by resolution said they were not going to vote on motions in the committee of the whole, and if we had action to take it would happen in a special council meeting during that meeting. It was noted that was not correct - that they were not going to vote on anything unless they decide unanimously or all agree, then vote on it.

Sheryl Smith, NOVAC and Downtown Leadership Group, asked that they not support the proposed recommendation by Council Member Christensen to reduce the proposed allocation by $5,000 to the DLG, they’ve been working very hard in the years since the flood as merchants volunteering their time, putting immense amounts of their own resources, not asking for advertising money but asking for pro-
MINUTES/COMM. OF WHOLE/May 14, 2001 - Page 3

motional funding to enhance those things that they are already doing, things have been very successful,
the downtown light parade which was started with some Riverforks funding, street carolers, etc.

Council Member Brooks stated they need to support their fellow council members in the work that they did, listening to the presentations and making hard recommendations, however, next Monday he hopes they will support the committee’s recommendation but should there be a motion to transfer some dollars around and if they get into that and start prioritizing - and looking at a State VFW Convention from an organization versus more dollars into the Arts, then get into a debate next Monday.

Council Member Hamerlik stated he has served on several committees allocating funding, and each time they have listened to the various requests and came out with a conclusion but unless you sit on a committee and hear all the presentations and discussions - that he has a real concern when hear only two or three people and want to make changes - that perhaps on Monday night all the agencies should be here and go through it again because unless you hear them all and unless you discuss it all, we’ve got difficulty in arriving at a decision.

Council Member Kerian stated that when she looks at this list and appreciates the work that the committee did - that when she looks at the Grand Forks Foundation for Education, it is the one that looks like it’s a one-time event but it also has a significant budget and would be interested to hear why that was selected, their budget is at $180,000+ and wondering if better way to leverage our dollars than to spend $10,000 there, that she appreciates the Veterans conversation, all good events, but that’s her justification for saying that maybe the Jazz 2001 would be one of those, and would be interested if someone can give reason for funding the All-Schools Reunion 2001, and maybe that’s a source of funding for the Jazz 2001. Council Member Burke stated he took the same stance as Ms. Kerian, however, most felt it was a significant event and did meet the criteria that they set down in terms of attracting people and having an economic impact on the community, event planned before this money became available, etc.. He also stated reasons for not supporting several other events that were associated with fund raising activities (the Sertoma event, the Frosty Bobber, and several others) as not the goal of this committee; that for on-going events that had been held in the past, asked if this money would allow this to be bigger and better and do a better job of meeting the criteria that we set in our motion; that he did not support funding the Potato Bowl because couldn’t see where our funds would make it different than in the past. He also stated that he supported Mr. Gershman’s point on the arts activities and did not support those events, and when finished was only willing to allocate about $50,000 or $60,000 and was his hope that if could not find events that met our criteria, that we would withhold the money and bring it forward to next year if we intended to do this in the future, because next year harder to come up with this money because actually taking tax dollars as opposed to dollars that were carryover or rebate of money that the council allocated a couple years ago to the Riverforks Commission.

Council Member Glassheim stated that when a committee makes a recommendation that you should have a good deal of confidence in it but shouldn’t stop from asking questions, that’s why have smaller committee that tries to anticipate the will of the council, and the council needs to be able to amend it, supporting that if you feel the need there should be changes that you should ask those questions and make those motions; he stated he wanted to talk about the issue of whether we send recommendations from the committee of the whole to the council, distraught at committee of the whole meetings where there’s just talk but neither council members nor the public has any idea of what may happen - no shaping of what the
council will vote upon a week from now and no way for people to lobby us because not sure what we’re going to do, and at some point need to talk about whether there should be recommendations (not final motions) from the committee of the whole to the city council. Council Member Hamerlik stated that most anyone of these items had some positive ideas and people on the committee might have questioned any
MINUTES/COMM. OF WHOLE/May 14, 2001 - Page 4

one of them, however, when all discussion was done, it was a unanimous vote by committee.

Council Member Klave stated sometimes in looking at this, get a new perspective, and that the whole council looks at it a little differently and that in reading the minutes, it took four motions to get to the very end and it was not a unanimous vote; Council Member Hamerlik stated that the final vote was unanimous.

Council Member Christensen stated that the Chamber’s request didn’t have a budget or have a firm decision so $20,000 was set aside for future events that may not occur in 2001, money that’s being used to fund something to fund a start-up event; that the council probably will go with another $100,000 next year if we feel this has some benefit for the community, and have an opportunity to reallocate some of these funds and look at the $20,000 that’s funding something that hasn’t even started but money for a budget, and have the opportunity to revisit the reallocation of the last $10,500, maybe we have to rethink how we conduct the committee of the whole meetings and have a sense of the council, and that’s what he is doing tonight, so those who have aps. in for funding are here to tell us why their funding ap. should be honored, and suggesting there’s a broader reason for funding beginning organizations or reallocation.

Council Member Burke commented on the Chamber of Commerce’s major events committee funding, their application was non-specific, and if that had been the extent, it would have been rejected on that basis; however, the Chamber committee came forward with somewhat more specific idea (a curling tournament) which would draw substantial numbers of people to the community and probably had the potential for meeting our criteria better than any other event, and it was the committee’s recommendation not to fund them the $20,000 outright but to earmark or hold that money pending a more substantial proposal that had a budget and the estimates on the impact, etc. but that the money be there should they be able to do that event.

2.20 Deraney’s liquor license transfer.
No comments.

2.2 $23,000 budget amendment for Central Fire Station remodeling and permission to approve bid with
Concrete, Inc. for construction as a sole source bidder.____________________________________
Chief O’Neill and Capt. Rod Hadland presented information, that they tried to move project along but informed by the city attorney that they have to go to bid, and if they accept the fact that his employees are willing to build this project, that they allow the fire department to bring specs. in next Monday night and go to bid and proceed as quickly as possible; that he was informed by Concrete, Inc. that if they don’t get this material erected before July, that they might have to wait until fall. No further comments.

2.3 Alerus Center budget amendment.
(to move Builder’s Risk insurance settlement of $47,756.82) The city auditor stated this is a method for us to amend the budget recognizing the revenue from the Builder’s Risk so can make the expenditure to the appropriate contractor that did the work.)

2.4 Engineering service agreement on City Project No. 5143, Repair Wastewater Stabilization Pond
Banks.________________________________________________________________________
No comments.

2.5 Engineering service agreement on City Project No. 5222, Root Removal and Analysis of Sewers in
Backyard Easements.______________-________________________________________________
Council Member Brooks stated this is a $51,000 amendment and $11,000 is for engineering and they are going to sub-contract the work to televise and work to remove the roots (which isn’t engineering
MINUTES/COMM. OF WHOLE/May 14, 2001 - Page 5

firm’s normal function). Mr. Grasser stated they are melding an engineering project with a contractor and using some of the City equipment and is more of a time and materials contract - need to get into those
backyards where there aren’t any alleys to identify if repairs have to be made and identify what they might have to be - roots prevent us from being able to get in there and televise. Tom Hanson, WFW, stated they estimated what it would take to clean those lines, need to determine condition and compare with condition right after the flood, lot are causing the Wastewater Department problems and want to identify if there’s a more economical solution (report) to determine if we should insituform or line those lines to reduce the amount of problems in those areas which are difficult for maintenance people to get to.

2.6 Nodak Electric Cooperative power line relocation for English Coulee Diversion, Amendment No. 1.
2.7 Grand Forks Trail Water District, rural water line relocation for English Coulee Diversion.
2.8 Quest Communications, relocation of telephone facilities for English Coulee Diversion.
2.9 Xcel Energy, power line relocation for English Coulee Diversion.
Mike Yavarow, project engineer, reported on item 2.6 increase was for additional lines they found that were not on the original drawings. He stated that the City’s share of the project is to purchase lands, easements, rights of way and relocations of the utilities within those lands.

2.10 Grand Forks Historic Preservation Commission annual report.
Information. Peg O’Leary stated that invitations had been sent to the council for dedication of the Griggs statute, which was funded largely with beautification funds and has been completed by the sculptors and is being installed the end of this week and beginning of next week, and dedication is Wednesday, May 23, at 4:00 p.m., that Mayor will be doing the welcoming and presenting the Griggs preservation award, and hope many members of the council can attend.

2.11 Request from CPS, Ltd., on behalf of River’s Edge LLP for final approval (fast track) of a
Replat of Lots 1, 2 and 3, River’s Edge Resubdivision.____________________________
Mr. Potter stated this will be on the May 21 council agenda, will ask council to set a public hearing date which will be established by the city auditor.

2.12 Approval of combination sewer cleaner bid.
Council Member Brooks questioned how many bids had been received; Todd Feland, public works director, reported one bid received with two items (one a demonstration model but pump not sufficient) and recommending purchase of the new cleaner at $189,900.

2.13 Approval of Wastewater Treatment Plant vehicle bids.
Council Member Bjerke questioned need for a Ford Explorer for the wastewater superintendent. Mr. Feland stated the area where the wastewater treatment plant is located is in an open field area outside the city limits and often times crucial to be able to move around in a larger vehicle with a 4-wheel drive, road is paved to the baling facility, gravel to lagoon banks and drive into the plant from there, and important to have a 4x4 vehicle - it was noted that the additional truck they are purchasing is also a 4x4 for use around the site for snow removal and put a snowplow package on that unit so can remove snow. Council Member Bjerke questioned if superintendent needs a 4-wheel drive truck if already have one on site and asked what purpose was of the vehicle. Council Member Burke asked if there was a policy about which employees are provided with vehicles; the city auditor stated there is no specific written document stating that, but generally been done through the budgeting process and assigned by the departments, and
those not provided with vehicles get a car allowance. Council Member Christensen asked what the employee was driving now - Mr. Feland stated that the wastewater superintendent (not a treatment superintendent) drives an Explorer (same vehicle as this unit). Council Member Christensen requested listing of all vehicles being purchased, cost and who drives the vehicle as in the budgeting process. Mr.
MINUTES/COMM. OF WHOLE/May 14, 2001 - Page 6

Feland stated that vehicle cost part of the project cost - that the budget was set up so that any equipment (whether lab, etc. for plant) would be provided. Council Member Christensen stated he felt we should
have a survey or inventory before purchasing vehicles for everybody; how many miles for vehicle and when trade it in - Mr. Feland stated normally they keep vehicles 10 years. Mr. Christensen also stated perhaps should be leasing vehicles and turning them every 2 or 3 years and see what negotiate there. The city auditor stated they can assist in providing listing of those who have vehicles and those who receive car allowances, and majority of department heads don’t get vehicles.

Council Member Kreun asked why would they buy a SUV vs. another pickup with dual purpose, and whether time utilizing to move people; Mr. Feland stated they will have 7.5 employees at the plant and maybe 4 or 5 at one time, and lot of times have equipment inside the vehicle. Council Member Kreun stated do they need that kind of vehicle for this - can buy another pickup which is the same price, and is that type of vehicle we need.

Council Member Bjerke stated there will be a pickup out there, only 7 employees, can’t see 2 trucks for 7 employee department - can see pickup truck. Mr. Feland stated it is in an area outside the city and not typical city street - he stated they will try to run the plant 16 hours/day and during mid-day would have 4 people there which would include superintendent, chief operator - that lot of the superintendents have been provided a vehicle - in winter conditions more difficult to get out there. Mr. Feland stated they need to review - landfill people punch in at the public works facility and drive out together on their shift time to landfill or baling facility, and with this facility may want to do something very similar and probably punch in at public works facility and then go out. There was some discussion re. employees punching in at public works and then to baling facility in City vehicle or driving their own vehicle - under normal conditions could get there in their own vehicles (City pays mileage - IRS requirement is that you don’t pay the commute mileage to your first stop of the business day which would be their punch-in site, and then if drove out to the facility, pay mileage - IRS rate is 34.5 cents mile and with gas prices that will go up) It was noted that most people drive to their jobs - why not drive to their job and why punching in somewhere else and then being paid to go to work) doesn’t know of any other department that does that, questioned why doing that and pay mileage to go to work - Mr. Feland stated some of these work sites are outside the city limits. Mr. Feland stated reason some people have vehicles - lot of people on call and go out on emergency calls. Council Member Bjerke stated that people in ND drive on gravel roads all the time, can’t believe punching in and then driving to work; and need to look at how doing this. It was noted they should rethink this before voting on this issue in its entirety.

2.14 Approval of oil product bids at Central Garage.
Council Member Gershman stated this is a 3-year bid, and questioned how they could bid out oil products with what’s going on right now in oil industry, how keep that in budget. Mr. Feland reported they allow each party to come in once a year based upon if their costs have increased and showing justification for it before they can get an increase on an yearly basis.

2.16 Budget amendment request. (Office of Urban Development - $898,871.00)
2.17 Budget amendment request (Office of Urban Development - $80,387.00)
Council Member stated when they voted to put the $600,000+ in Reserve for the Alerus Center, thought they looked at setting that aside for this year but each month release or transfer back $50,000) The city auditor reported they did set that aside in the current year budget and they were instructed to do was to
reserve that dollar amount and if a project had come in and needed funding, would have needed budget amendment to do it, the discussion was held about reviewing it as they moved through the Alerus operations and whether the funding would then be released, but no specific determination made . Council Member Christensen questioned making the transfer now if no monies spent; Joe Scheving, Urban
MINUTES/COMM. OF WHOLE/May 14, 2001 - Page 7

Development, stated this is as of 12/31/00 and during the balance of the year there could be transfers but generally they take the cash carryover from the prior year and obligate it towards growth fund activities
and because those funds generally happen out of the JDA, that’s why have operating transfers in and out; it was noted that there’s no need to do this right now; and with amendment only is moving excess monies in the sales tax fund into different funds. Mr. Scheving stated they are not moving it, only setting up the budget to move it if needed; and this is something that staff does annually. Council Member Christensen stated they’ve already set a budget and in that budget have made the allocation of the $600,000 and if get short, know they can come to the fund 2163 and use that money - Council Member Christensen stated he didn’t want to create any more excess cash carryovers - that if in the Growth Fund if you put funds in there now and it doesn’t get allocated, doesn’t get spent and then becomes an item of cash carryover - that he doesn’t have a list of cash carryovers so doesn’t know what carrying around here for cash carryovers but doesn’t want that money in a reserve that can be used for something else as they get into the budgeting process -

After considerable discussion the city auditor stated that what has happened in the economic development fund is that there is a history where they’ve amended it every year, and don’t do that in any of the other funds, we wait until there is a specific need and then do the budget reallocation, that Council Member Christensen is saying that when the need arrives, then do it, not ahead of time. Council Member Christensen agreed, that the $135,000+ should be moved but the balance should stay where it is until needed. Terry Hanson stated that when the budget for 2000 was prepared, they estimated in the budget $780,000 in cash carryover, when the year 2000 was completed, they did not have $780,000 in cash carryover, had close to $1.6 million and what they are attempting to do by making this budget amendment which they’ve done in years past, is to actually reflect in the line item within this budget the availability of what is available to fund projects out of the budget and if did not make this entry and looked only at the budget, we would say we have $1.3 million to fund projects but in effect have over $2 million to fund projects to include the $600,000 for the Alerus, just trying to get the budget that they can see the budget amount less the expenditures, and give them the amount available to date, and that’s what they are doing. He stated he is looking at it just the opposite of you, Mr. Christensen, say that they don’t have a hidden cash carryover, but make actual. Mr. Christensen said so not building up any more cash reserves.

Council Member Brooks stated carryover of $1.6 million, again talking about economic development, and have to look at doing something there - concern with all these dollars sitting there and have cash carryovers, that we don’t have an economic development plan or goals and if have to save money for 3 or 4 years to make a pitch for a big operation, maybe setting our sights too high - might attract something else or put in another direction - need to look at as a council. Mr. Scheving stated that the definition of economic development needs to be set so that when things like this come forward or different projects, have certain standards to measure it against.

2.17 Budget amendment request. (Office of Urban Development - $996.88)
2.18 Budget amendment request. (Office of Urban Development - $136,746.11)
Council Member Christensen asked on 2.18 if that was infrastructure, and if it’s money we’re going to spend or did spend - Mr. Scheving stated these are projects that have been set in place, about $80,000, and were not completed and being carried over into 2001 - that council approved about 2 weeks ago $95,000 in beautification projects and City obligates 1 mill towards beautification, which comes to approx. $77,000, that they obligated $95,000 on a $77,000 budget, which means some of the $80,000
worth of projects will be de-obligated and put towards the current year’s projects. Mr. Hanson stated that what they are doing with the cash carryover is funding projects that were approved last year but not completed, and have last year’s projects sitting out there as well as this year’s current projects, the funds after your action 3 weeks ago, when you funded the $95,000 for the 2001 projects made total obligations
MINUTES/COMM. OF WHOLE/May 14, 2001 - Page 8

from this line item of approx. $150,000 - they are increasing this year’s budget officially but bringing last year’s projects over to this year’s line item as well. It was noted that a large portion is under contract.

2.19 Budget amendment request.
Held.

2.21 City owned property to be declared surplus and offered for sale.
The city auditor reported there are 3 properties which were taken back by the County because of delinquent taxes, and when lots within the city limits the City pays the County $20 and have council declare them surplus so can offer for sale trying to get them back on the tax rolls - we do not have the values established by the city assessor and he will have that information by the council meeting. He stated they wished to declare these properties as surplus and offer for sale, but will change that recommendation for council and leave 2 lots for sale, except 707 4th Avenue South - this is a piece of property adjacent to 3 lots owned by the City and in visiting with Mr. Hanson it seems to make sense that we would turn that over to the JDA, and turn that into a full-sized lot which couuld be used for in-fill housing, etc. on that property, and may wish to consider doing that. Mr. Hanson stated that if the property is in the 100-year floodplain today, you can build on it but have to build a floodproof structure, which means that the floor joists of a new house have to be 12 inches above the floodplain - these lots are not in the floodplain and can be built on.

Council Member Burke asked why would we want to give the property to the JDA instead of replatting the lots and putting on the market. Mr. Hanson stated that the three adjacent lots are very small and other lots have been transferred to the JDA for disposition - but should retain all of these lots either within the JDA or the City just so can create a full-sized buildable lot - if we disposed of this lot like the other two, which are 25 ft. lots, can’t building on them, but adjacent homeowner could build garage; - these lots so small can’t build anything on them so combine into one lot, replat to one lot and someone can then build or infill a house on it and put it back on the tax rolls. Mr. Swanson stated that for approx. the last 3 years the City has been holding or transferring title to many of the real estate acquisitions to the JDA, that the JDA does not need to meet all the requirements of Code for the public sale of property and some of the hoops that have to be jumped through to sell them - they have more flexibility on listing agreements, negotiations and outright sales of property than the City does. Council Member Glassheim asked if houses couldn’t be built on 25 ft. lots - that when they were doing Habitat for Humanity, they did get permission to build on a 25 ft. lot, and Code allowed it - and asked if that could be checked out.

Council Member Burke asked if tool for affordable housing if going back to smaller lots, that they had a gentlemen who ran for city council who won an award for designing affordable housing to go in small urban spaces, and that we have a lot of those 25 ft. lots, where people who have run down structures on 25 ft. lots because they can’t tear down because the grandfather goes with the building and not with the lot. Council Member Christensen stated that this is something Planning and Urban Development Office could give us a position paper on, otherwise won’t get rid of the undeveloped lots in this part of town. Mr. Hanson stated that at the last city council meeting he was directed by Mayor Brown to come back in four weeks with a complete plan of affordable housing and that they are going back and looking at the study that was started in 1994 and completed in early 1997, as well as the other plans they have on the table and proposed, and will be suggesting utilization of these 25 ft. lots or what would have to be done to
allow utilization of 25 ft. lots - and hopes to have a proposal for consideration on some structures that can be built in these areas that they have been working on.

2.22 Update of 2002 budget timeline.

MINUTES/COMM. OF WHOLE/May 14, 2001 - Page 9

The city auditor reported that the timeline is included in the binder - that the mayor asked that they update the budget timeline to meet the objectives needed to present his budget for your review - that for the past while going through some educational sessions with council members and learning about the various departments trying to pick up on what their responsibilities are, giving highlights, and several
issues have come up and are keeping track of those - those meetings are scheduled to be completed on June 6 of 2001 - the council had also asked that the mayor’s proposed 2002 budget be submitted to them by June 1, 2001 and it is the intent to submit a proposed budget to council at that time - the mayor’s budget will be based on his vision of creating a community that people choose to and want to live in and house their businesses in, and will bring that to you along with an outline of the items of discretionary spending that are in those budgets and only an example (ie., $25,000 that you give to the Historical Commission, $165,000 to the EDC) and will try to highlight all of those for your review in preparation for when making presentation of the budget - will also outline the budget issues that have come up, either from council members or brought to you by departments when they have gone through their presentation - and have a summary document of those issues - there have been many issues discussed but no actions taken and also talk about a continued collaborative effort among the council, mayor and departments to establish a budget for 2002. He stated they have given a schedule of additional meetings starting on June 27, which will be a summary presentation of the 2002 budget - the meetings may shift or change and the following week would talk about the discretionary spending programs, on July 11 there would be some discussion on city council budget issues and those will be itemized and sent out with the budget - after that will start going back through the budgets for the general fund, the enterprise funds, etc. where talk the dollar amounts and issues; goal will be to come back with those discussion and present a revised summary budget the last couple weeks of August in preparation for the preliminary and final adoption of the 2002 budget in September. He stated as to whether this will work with you or if other thoughts that can be implemented or other processes that can try to do for you.

Council Member Bjerke stated he has put together several suggestions and has a lengthy detailed list, and asked to meet with Mr. Duquette this week to give him those 25-30 items to make sure that they are included in our discussion points. Council Member Glassheim asked if there was a process or guidelines for reviewing the budget, that in prior councils did a budget resolution of the four chairs, and what are the guidelines for the mayor (increase taxes, decrease by 30 mills, aim for an even budget, give wage increase to employees) tried to give the mayor some sense of where the council was at on the major outlines - and then it’s the mayor’s budget - or if each council person write the mayor a list of 3 things that need to be looked at seriously - major items you want cut or increased or discussed and mayor would have some sense of where there is agreement or where total disagreement before finalizing his budget. The city auditor reported that early on the chairs got together during the process and came up with a budget resolution but it was brought to the full council for adoption, and that was the guidance. Council Member Brooks stated he has some budget resolutions that he has written out and will provide copies to the council for discussion. Council Member Kerian asked the mayor if he could give council members his own guidelines he’s using in preparing the budget.

Council Member Christensen stated that at the last council meeting, the mayor was in the process of selecting some council persons to assist in negotiations for proposed salary increase - that it’s two weeks before submitting the budget and stated that the proposed budget will only have a recommended increase and council persons selected to sit on that committee will deal with what he’s looking for; that 85% of the total budget has to do with wages and benefits and is a significant item - that there are some suggested
increases from department heads which would result in a significant mill increase or spending down reserves - that we cannot spend down reserves to meet current salary or funding needs unless we have significant input from the city auditor as to what is the current level of reserves this community should have for future bonding, and as part of this group’s educational process he believes a presentation from
MINUTES/COMM. OF WHOLE/May 14, 2001 - Page 10

Springsted would be important to understand what level of reserves they need because may be hitting some of those reserves for capital improvement requests - a) won’t have salary increases negotiated; b) what level of reserves do they need, how much, etc. - need broader picture of where going when addressing some of these issues. He stated he would hope they would have Springsted here the first ten
days in June because that will be important when start talking about reserves and spending down or building reserves..

Council Member Hamerlik stated the wage negotiators should know what the council members are thinking about relative to raises, thinks it is inadvisable to include any amount for salaries in any budget during negotiation process, that we need to be very cautious not to imply what the amount is for salaries, while negotiation process is going on. The city auditor stated that would be the intent on the initial presentation and that is a preliminary presentation, that they anticipate this being a fluid document working with the council, that in the initial presentation to the group of council members who attended these early on meetings, gave out supplemental information as to what 1% would mean in a salary increase and benefit increase, and that is information that would be providing the preliminary presentation and what any type of raises would mean. Council Member Brooks questioned why negotiation team when no union; Mr. Swanson stated that the Civil Service Code does have a provision for annual determination of pay plan; Mr. Brooks asked for a copy of that Code section for basis of why voting for that committee.

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR COMMENTS

Mr. Duquette reported they’ve been meeting with department heads and the mayor and have some items they are going to work through and get into policy and budget process during June: the part-time employee matter, the temporary to classified, putting together some options and ideas on that; the market analysis, that he along with the city auditor, and Human Resources have been working with the city attorney; the overtime, exempt and non-exempt issues; and are hoping to have some options for review during the last part of May or early part of June to incorporate these issues into the budget and policy process; will bring reports forward for discussion, and options to streamline these issues and make them affordable for the 2002 budget process and carry forward in ensuing years as well, esp. in market analysis. Council Member Hamerlik asked if there was much or any deviation from those committee reports, and if so, would hope those committee reports would be distributed at the same time and discuss why if they are different when a broad representation of committee members met for 2 to 3 years.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS