Council Minutes

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Monday, July 9, 2001 - 7:00 p.m.

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, July 9, 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, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak (teleconference); Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Kreun - 11; absent: Council Members Bakken, Martinson - 2.

Mayor Brown announced that when addressing the committee to please come forward to use the microphone for the record, and advised that the meeting is being televised.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Brooks to suspend the agenda to consider the CAFR for the year ended December 31, 2000. Carried 11 votes affirmative.

COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE REPORTED PRESENT

2.25 The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City of Grand Forks for the year ended
-December 31, 2000, and the Independent Auditor’s Report.__________________________
Saroj Jerath, Deputy City Auditor, presented the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000 and stated that the responsibility for both the accuracy of the data and completeness and fairness of the presentation including the disclosure rest with the City and the staff of the finance department. The City is required to undergo an annual audit by an independent certified public accountant and the City selected the firm of Brady, Martz & Associates to perform this audit; that the audit is performed and confirmed with the provisions of the single audit act and U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A133 Audits of States and Local Governments and Non-profit Organizations.

Ron Johnke, Brady Martz & Associates, stated they performed the annual audit of City records; and about 14 pages of good overview of what City has going, summary financial information. He stated there are 3 parts in report and their opinion is on the financial section, that there are a couple items in the report he would like to draw their attention to: 1) is on balance sheet, Grand Forks Airport Authority which is shown as component unit of the city, the Government Accounting Standards Board requires that be shown as part of that and that the City does have authority over the Airport Authority; and one of the notes in the financial statement called Conduit Debt - that the City has put their name (name only) on bonds issued mostly by the Hospital and other tax exempt organizations (Hospital and Valley Memorial Homes), lending City’s name to those bonds to get a favorable tax treatment but are not the responsibility of the City. He stated that the financial statements preparation - their opinion is that they are expressing an opinion on the financial statement stating they are presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, along with that they do a lot of tests, 3 different levels of testing, all the way down to some of the details in federal program testing, and their testing allows them to express an opinion that that they are presented fairly in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals. He stated their opinion is an unqualified opinion and is the highest opinion that is out there, there are no items that would cause it to be qualified for any reason. There is a separate report on the federal side of that and that is a report on all of the federal dollars received by the City and that there are no findings of any consequence in those. He stated they do have a management letter and there are a couple items - that as part of their testing and is more of a housekeeping item, with all contracts and construction, you are subject to the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act requirements (that pay prevailing wage rates for those projects and along with there is supposed to be some testing by the City to make sure they are in compliance with those, that part of their testing revealed those item were in there, not all documented and put in the right spots, more of a housekeeping item and need to be brought up to speed and files completed for those projects. He stated their management letter is one that is going to affect you going forward, that there is a
Committee of the Whole/July 9, 2001 - Page 2

new government accounting standard, which will change the reporting model of the City, and what you are seeing now in the financial statements and how they are prepared is going to change significantly in June of 2003, and is designed to bring governmental statements more in line with private business/enterprise, and more shown on an accrual basis - all fixed assets will be required to be put on the balance sheet, appreciated, and a lot of work involved in the finance department to get those numbers and get that information and take some time. He stated they put it in the report now so they are aware and finance department is aware of that and they are structuring accordingly.

2.1 Presentation by Mr. Al Erickson on bond rating analysis.
The city auditor reported that several months ago Council Member Christensen had asked that we have a representative from Springsted, our bond and financial advisor, review bond rating analysis and Mr. Al Erickson from Springsted to give a brief presentation on that information.

Mr. Erickson, Springsted, Inc., reported he had brought 3 reports which were passed out: 1) Municipal Bond Essentials, that have received letter from him discussing this book and offering to come out and do the full course and is something they can refer to. He reported there were two other handouts which they would also discuss. He reviewed information on pages 43, 44 and 44 of the Municipal Bond Essentials: what is a credit rating and purpose of it - that the credit rating agency is coming out to rate the debt and you are paying for that, they are not doing it for the City’s benefit as much as for the investors who are going to buy that debt - that the purpose of the credit rating is to provide an understandable measure of the risk of the securities that are being issues and ratings used by investors to help them in making investment decisions - there are 3 rating agencies that do this - Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and Fitsch and City uses Moody’s and they do lion’s share of work in the country and most often in the Midwest. Page 44 talks about the type of ratings which are identical from all 3 of the firms - either Triple A which is the best rating under any circumstance and the lowest investment grade rating called a Triple B- or B Double A3; that the City of Grand Forks is a Double A3 which places it in the Double A ranking, probably less than 10% of all jurisdictions that are graded receive a Triple A and probably only 20% or next group which are in the Double A ranking so Grand Forks in with a lot of very high test organizations and a very high ranking and something to be proud of. Page 45 talks about factors affecting credit ratings - what does Moody’s look at - they look at 4 basic areas: debt management (revenue sources to pay it off, how long before payoff, reliability of stream of revenues and look at amount of debt outstanding and create a number of ratios to compare it to, tax base and population, ratios that they use to compare with other jurisdictions so know how you stack up and that’s where you end up getting your rating); 2) management and governance factors - look at department heads and see how they run the day to day operations, look at the city council and want to know if they have fortitude to follow through with things that they say they are going to, willing to raise rates when they need to be raised and follow these things closely; 3) financial performance - see how doing financially, creating surpluses or creating deficits, fund balances, budgets coming in close or not budgeting well, etc.; 4) socio economic factors - look at demographics of the town, how old the town is, population growing or stagnant, losing great amounts of population, income levels, etc. - taken together and not any one factor on its own and trying to determine any particular jurisdiction’s credit rating.

He briefly reviewed Moody’s Investors Service - that this is the credit report that came out on the City of Grand Forks last September (when did new money issue) - that earlier this spring did some refinancing and this is report they did on new money issues that came out; that this is standard report they put out - rating is Double A3 and under opinion they give reason why they gave the opinion and it states “..that the high quality rating and stable outlook are based on the City’s strong regional economy, committed leadership and sound management strategies that continue to successfully guide the City through the extensive development and redevelopment needed as a result of the spring 1997 Red River flood and
Committee of the Whole/July 9, 2001 - Page 3

catastrophic downtown fire. Well managed finances that continue to provide ample liquidity to absorb the cash flow pressures from flood-related reconstruction and redevelopment and a high debt position which may increase further in the short term but is expected to moderate as the tax base grows with new construction…” and each of the next paragraphs has a fairly large title and those four basic areas that they look at and a short synopsis on each of them. He stated when talking about the debt position increasing further, one of the things they wanted to do - that they follow things very closely, the analysts from Moody’s were on the phone with him within hours of watching the flood and fire on TV, they called him the next morning, and that he and John Schmisek were probably on the telephone with them within another 12 hours after that telling them what was going on and had more extensive phone conference with them a couple weeks later. He stated as discussion of the dike came into being and it became clear that something had to be done and not a cheap proposition, he and John put together a model they put together and brought to Moody’s at a conference in the Midwest and reviewed - that it talks about the dike debt, schedules it and shows when it will come on line and projects it against some of the ratios we know that they calculate. They were a little concerned at first but continued to have meetings with them and brought them out here on sight and when they say that the debt did go up for a few years, peaked and then started to go back down and be much more normal and manageable and understood the process that the City was going through and that it was being well managed and taken care of. That this was one of the things they did in an effort to keep the lines of communication with them open and allow them to feel comfortable so kept the rating where it was.

He stated what the rating is worth in terms of cost, and typically find that between the Triple A, Double A, A and below that can be anywhere between 10 and 25 basis points - and anywhere between 10 and 25 basis points over a 10 or 20 year time period can add up to a great deal of money and interest and those with better credit ratings have got better rates on their bonds and paid less interest.

He stated one of the questions posed to him as part of the discussion was reserve funds - how much should you have and how much should you keep - Moody’s doesn’t like to give you an exact figure, but they say that in normal circumstances, changes depending on regions of the country, but would like to see a minimum of about 10% unrestricted, unreserved fund balance in the general fund, minimum of what they would like to see and understand that more would be better depending on people’s individual needs and circumstances - particularly northern climate cities that fall prey to strange snow storms and middle of winter that exceed snowplowing budgets, etc. possibly more in hurricane country where repairs need to be made - on regular basis the 100-year storms and hurricanes can be occurring every year somewhere or other - that here around 15 to 18% level now and thinks they would see that as being appositive and drew attention to debt report they issued - Strong Financial Position, they said the City’s strong liquidity position continues to absorb cash flow pressures without the need for short-term borrowings, and prefer to see in general is large enough fund balance to get those peaks and valleys that people go through on occasion from no cause of their own and that the maintenance of ample balances attests to management controls and are key to the high quality rating. They say in general nationwide about 10%, slightly more in certain areas that need it. He asked if there were any questions.

Council Member Lunak asked how much we are in debt bond wise; Mr. Erickson stated as of the end of the year 2000 approx. $68 million of outstanding debt and for a city of this population size that’s a little bit higher than comparable cities around the country - for a free standing regional center it’s not unusual.

Mr. Erickson stated that every time that you issue debt they go through the rating process and spend a considerable amount of time going through the finances and debt of the City and always results in a fairly long telephone call with Mr. Schmisek and himself. Mr. Erickson stated they have several bonds that are outstanding that are paid for by tax increment districts but small portion; a tax increment district is well
Committee of the Whole/July 9, 2001 - Page 4

bounded in terms of description and the money that would be going to pay any debt off a particular project on tax increment district would come solely out of that district. He stated that a tax increment debt is issued by the City and is a City bond.

The city auditor reported that the $68 million of debt outstanding at the end of 2000 is for the G.O. and Refundings and do have including revenue bonds a total of $178 million.

Council Member Glassheim asked at what point per capita debt for a city would start to become concerned; Mr. Erickson stated that varies, depends on what the debt is for and public purpose; model shows about $1400+per capita and peaks at little over $2000-2500 at height of having finished all the financing in order to build the dike and then goes back down from there. He stated we’re probably in the middle or slightly over the middle with those kinds of numbers.

2.2 Department head contracts.
Mr. Duquette reported employment contracts are for the city planner, police chief, fire chief and public works director - they moved to a standardized contract form used in the past for coordinator position and city engineer, and to negotiate a fair salary with department heads, that he met with them and utilized some of the market analysis information in these discussions and thinks bringing a fair salary, and will be looking for approval of the contracts at the city council meeting on Monday evening.

Council Member Hamerlik asked for objectives used to arrive the vacation hours or salary (training, education, experience, etc) and realizes that’s not in the standard contract and would have to have some background information and in looking at the 4 contracts, there seems to be quite a variance in their training - vacation hours are all the same and salary fairly much the same - and what will you use in the future. Mr. Duquette stated one of the variables was what does similar position pay in similar municipality, 3 are renewals (used performance of individual and department, and lower in concern was actual education and training they brought to this position - because they are continuing to gain on-going training but not primary concern at this point.) Experience is a consideration but that is something we look at when renew contracts as move forward. Council Member Lunak questioned that in 1996 the city engineer and public works director were one position and now split the jobs - paying double and with public works director not being the city engineer’s responsibility, should retention pay go with it - and run into same problem with finance director and IS director; that the reason they received retention pay was because they had so much responsibility, now they don’t have the same responsibility and if it’s fair to pay them this kind of money. Mr. Duquette stated he was looking at those as stand-alone department head positions and whatever happened in the past is in the past, that the positions are what they are today and should be compensated based upon what they do. Mr. Lunak stated they have to look at retention because not only receiving double the retention and should have looked at that before drawing up these contracts. Mr. Duquette stated the 4 positions before council are not involved in incentive benefits, these are at will contract positions, the contracts represent salaries that are appropriate for the professions and also represent that they are at will contract positions (at risk premium); they are not part of the market analysis and not an additional adjustment placed in these contracts. He noted that this does reflect an increase in salary and percentage increase is about 8% over 3 years.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that they are putting on a public works director but recently eliminated the assistant public works director.

It was also noted that the contracted department heads have agreed to an annual negotiation with the mayor; and it’s also in their contract that they receive like benefits with the employees.

Committee of the Whole/July 9, 2001 - Page 5

Council Member Bjerke stated the contracts should be voted separately, and in disagreement with the contract for public works director and doesn’t agree with the amount that is set, that in a couple years he’ll be at the high end and doesn’t see it based on experience.

Council Member Kerian asked for information on the AMA; and asked for criteria for the negotiations on an annual basis, if there would be performance measures that the mayor can use to decide that. Mr. Duquette stated they’ve been moving in that direction for approx. last 3 years.

Council Member Christensen asked for a copy of Fox-Lawson report and on page 1 of the report, summary process and included will be salary data effective January 1, 2000 and each position is charted in the report and list benchmark positions, and have the numbers available and that this report does not say that we’re 8% under market - this report says on a whole, that the City’s base salaries are competitive with its defined labor and in comparing salary ranges the minimums are below market by about 7% and total compensation salary plus cost of benefits is above the market by about 2%.

Council Member Stevens suggested that in firing anyone in contract or whatever, that we may be making a mistake of letting individual take the brunt of the firing and criticism, should be a joint effort of mayor, city administrator and city council.

Mr. Duquette stated he was not sure what effect this would have to the numbers in 1999 with 2000 salary information but they were based upon civil service positions vs. contract position in this information, and that is a consideration in your deliberation. He also stated that the contracts are non-term at will contracts, and there is a clause in the contract that they will have annual negotiations with the mayor.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that when they were negotiating the first contract, more with second contract, and there were people on the council who thought there should be an ending date and not an endless contract and that’s one of the reasons why there is a certain amount of severance pay, etc.

2.3 Market Analysis recommendations.
Mr. Duquette reviewed process and Fox Lawson analysis, provide an overview of recommendation and respond to questions. He stated he worked with department heads out of finance department, Human Resources, IS and his office with staff members from those departments. He stated they again looked at the Fox Lawson analysis and recommendations and realizing they had a specific amount of money to work with to try to implement those recommendations, stated that the working group met with all department heads and with employee representatives - that Fox Lawson surveyed 57 public and private organizations with 80% return rate, they constructed a salary benefits position survey (that working group looked at and approved) and went to various organizations, part of that survey took 57 benchmark positions (have 154 positions in city) and compared to other organizations and other cities and Fox Lawson came back with specific recommendations - they didn’t look at each particular position, and did not look at an internal equity circumstance; and their findings were that overall the salary range is about 8% below median across the board and that we had at risk positions (positions being paid at least 15% below median) and made two basic recommendations: 1) to incrementally increase your pay range over time (bring 8% up) and if goal is to have the pay equal with the market median (2% per year over 4 years) and also recommended 2) adjustments to those at risk positions as part of implementation. They utilized 2000 salary information for their analysis and the decision was made to move forward on this bringing recommendation back to the city council. This group is recommending that we increase salary range by 3% by creating an I step, currently A through H in pay ranges, difference in pay between those steps is normally 4.5%, create an I step which is increased beyond that by 3% and by applying 3% across the board to the salary range have now moved entire range to 5% below median - question came up and why
Committee of the Whole/July 9, 2001 - Page 6

not take 3% and apply it somebody else in H or G step but that would cost more money - we currently have 60% of our employees are at the H step, the other recommendation are to provide payments in 2001 and 2002 to these “at risk positions” in amounts mentioned. The final recommendation they have brought is the City needs an actual wage study (that Human Resources be tasked to conduct a wage study during 2002 and to be implemented in 2003 (last one in 1995 or 1996 by Ralph Andersen). He stated difference between market analysis and wage study - market analysis took benchmark positions compared to positions in other cities and organizations in the market - wage study looks at each individual position, both internally and externally, it compares with comparable positions in other cities and looks internally whether positions compared with like positions in different departments. He stated that they strongly recommend that they have a wage study done in 2002 implemented in 2003. They took a report that was completed in 2000, had a budget for that and exceeded the budget by about $30-35-40,000 overall, they he and city auditor are hoping to look at future revenues to see if that number is going to change, look at some utility fund use if approve this. He stated they didn’t satisfy everybody - still some positions that may be below median.

It was noted that out of the 400+ employees we have 34 people at risk.

Council Member Hamerlik asked if members of the original committee had been notified of this; Mr. Duquette stated he had worked with individuals who were still with the City (had not notified Mr. Marhula) Mr. Hamerlik suggested instead of adding another step to add 3% to the top of the range, in long run a real difference. Mr. Duquette stated the recommendation is to add an I step which would be an additional 3% - that by adding to the H step would have people going from step G to H would add to the expense of doing that and to make this work was to create the I step where people will reach but not quite so soon.

Council Member Brooks asked if recommendation 3) to do the wage study was to be done by Human Resource or contract the study - Mr. Duquette stated they should discuss that further, whether utilize existing HR information and use our own information, but as a policy decision it may be time for an outside look. Mr. Brooks stated by having an outside firm lends credibility to the study and important thing to do on a regular basis.

Council Member Burke asked how this goes with longevity pay and whether longevity raises included into the analysis grades and steps. Mr. Duquette stated they examined that under variable compensation (pay for performance, skill based pay, longevity pay, etc.) - longevity pay is made after 6 years and continues to increase by years of service in dollar amount - was separate but taken into consideration in the variable compensation - after 6 years, $45; after 9 years $55; 12 years $65; 15 years $75; and after 20 years $85/mo. .

There was considerable discussion relating to funding of the wage negotiation proposal, and Mr. Duquette stated that he and the city auditor would put together a breakdown of the various costs of these individual pieces and the total cost.

Council Member Bjerke asked if there had been any study to our entire system of this grade step, longevity, etc. and if we’ve done a comparison of how other cities pay their people - and it was consultants sense that what we use was pretty comparable to other municipal organizations - the grade step process.

The rep. of the Fire Department stated they wanted to keep in mind that these are two separate and distinct issues - the market analysis is designed to bring us closer to the market median, whereas the cost
Committee of the Whole/July 9, 2001 - Page 7

of living has nothing to do with it - dollars will come from the same pocket but have already fallen behind in cost of living increases. Mr. Christensen stated that the median is the average - some above and some below. Barry Peterson, employee rep., stated that the market median is the average, that the city council asked for this study to be done, and just to bring us up to a market median; that going from the 8% below market medians and range to get closer to it would be the additional 3% for the I step to make a broader range scale. Mr. Duquette stated that he and the city auditor will put together some summary information to get a sense where this all takes us as we move forward in the 2002 budget process.

Council Member Christensen stated he would hope we don’t drop this issue about studying the wages that Mr. Duquette suggests we do, doesn’t know if internal or external, and also stated that the City Code deals with that, Section 6-0401, we are supposed to look in the area in which we compete and would hope they would come with a plan to implement a wage study and proceed. Council Member Hamerlik asked Mr. Duquette if it was their plan as bring back more information to bring it to the next committee of the whole or to city council - Mr. Duquette stated that some of their information is not going to change - summary information and cost of recommendation from Fox Lawson are not going to change, what may want to consider doing is creating scenarios of wage negotiation and other impacts to the salary changes as move into the 2002 budget process and try to fix each one of those variables in look at the total cost.

There was some discussion re. retention - where payments continue - there were 8 positions approved in 1999 were in the at risk group because they were receiving 16.5 - 17% at risk because they are receiving 8% incentive adjustment and took them out of the at risk and pushed them above the 10% so no longer have them in that group. Council Member Lunak stated that once the people get these retention payments each year, and get to the top of their pay scale, the retention was to stop, but now it’s built into their wage and that some are getting double pay, and that under the market analysis adjustment should then eliminate the retention. Mr. Duquette stated if they took them out of the at risk list because they’re being paid an 8% retention amount of money, that originally they were running close to 17% below median, and if take 8%, that takes them up to 9% below median, and if following his suggestions would be to add them back into the list and end up providing them in 2001 and 2002 because below the median; larger issue is why having to recruit and retain certain positions with these adjustments, and why have not done a better job of looking at a wage study to get a clear picture of where these at risk positions are at. Mr. Lunak stated he was on committee and that it was a program that never should have started and questioned how they came up with a market analysis for 8 people in 3 weeks and now 2 l/2 years in trying to get some of these city employees paid right, that city employees are all hard workers, don’t get their money when it’s due - that market analysis should have been done a long time ago, and if we could figure out a way to correct the whole personnel situation - dealing with part-time employees, temporary employees, civil service employees and tonight have job reclassifications, should be a faster process.

2.4 Job description recommendations.
Daryl Hovland, Human Resources, reviewed the job description recommendations - that Civil Service has met and gone through deliberations and heard each job description request, members of the Commission are here tonight (Fred McGregor, Arvin Kvasager, Patricia Neese) to answer any questions about the process. He stated they went through the 2001 reclassification, which shows positions and then it shows the hourly rate, proposed grade hourly rate and what it will cost the General Fund and what it will cost the other funds.

Council Member Hamerlik stated when he reviewed the specifications for each of the job description, and asked if that was what you recommended and what they passed, and if so, where would he find what they didn’t accept from your recommendations or pass all. Mr. Hovland stated at the end of the report, will see the actual work sheet for each position and show current points, requested points and HR
Committee of the Whole/July 9, 2001 - Page 8

recommendation and Civil Service decision, and at bottom show what was acted upon by the Commission, and in addition papers presented tonight is 2001 classification and show the current grade, requested grade, HR recommendation and Civil Service action and whether it requires a job description or not - Mr. Hamerlik stated that their chore has consistently been to make sure that the job description is the way it should be, not point value or classification, and on the job description itself, never found where your recommendation was acted on or denied. Dawn Wilke, HR, stated there is nothing in the job description proposed that has not been approved by civil service and if they denied it, it does not show up in that particular job description and it is by strike out in bold underline or additions that were approved by the Civil Service Commission. Mr. Hamerlik stated that we turned over our responsibilities to the Civil Service because we couldn’t make decision, but now we don’t know how they acted with your recommendations, if they denied it - the wording isn’t there.

Council Member Bjerke asked if we do not approve job descriptions change, what happens. Mr. Hovland stated that if you do not approve the changes to the job description, logic would say that employee would stop providing those duties and reclassification would die as they need city council to approve the job descriptions. Mr. Swanson stated that in the information you have the Civil Service Commission has identified those reclassifications which do not require changes to the job description, they have also identified those reclassifications which are dependent upon the adoption of a new job description - there is nothing that this council does or has any jurisdiction over with respect to the reclassifications where it does not require a modification of the job description - that lies solely in the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission, however, where the Commission has given you a proposed grade, assuming that the council passes a change in the job description, that is at your discretion and if you do not change a job description the grade does not change - except for those positions without an amendment to the job description.

Council Member Bjerke stated there’s a cost of approx. $44,000 to the General Fund, and if this would start in 2002, January 1, and if that is in the proposed budget - the city auditor stated that it is not in the proposed budget at this time. Mr. Bjerke stated he looked at some of the trade inspector criteria in job description - in construction environments, on scaffolding, ladders, etc. potentially hazardous chemicals, etc. and in potentially dangerous situation with continuous risks - but if in construction equipment exposure, noise, fumes, smoke, etc. and if adding is point to get reclassified.

Council Member Brooks stated columns are current grade, requested grade, HR recommendation and Civil Service action and on 7 HR recommendation considered too low, how does that happen. Mr. Hovland stated that when they went through it, they met with the department head and employees and based on their professional opinion as to point factors, that would be their recommendation, at the actual reclassifications the department head and employee brings forward to the Civil Service Commission their request and Commission can go on either one.

COUNCIL MEMBER LUNAK EXCUSED

Council Member Christensen questioned why in the 2000 reclassification the assistant finance and administrative services director is Held; the city auditor stated that in discussion with Ms. Jerath, the item was held pending final disposition by council as to her request for correction of disparity between the finance director’s pay and the assistant finance director, depending on what would happen here, then it would be their intent to bring it back to Civil Service.

Mr. Christensen stated of the positions being reclassified, how many were at risk. Mr. Hovland stated some will be addressed during the market analysis - community health nurse II is an at risk position and
Committee of the Whole/July 9, 2001 - Page 9

that is also a reclassification, support specialist, wastewater /storm water supervisor - Mr. Christensen asked if they could prepare a list.

2.5 Request from the Grand Forks Planning and Zoning Department for final approval of a resolution and to adopt an ordinance to amend Chapter 8, Comprehensive Plan, Section 18- 0802. pertaining to the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks 2022 Transportation Plan Update. (2000 Bikeway and 1999 Pedestrian Elements. 2000 Metropolitan Intelligent Transportation Systems Comprehensive Plan Element). Together with all maps, information and data contained therein.________________________________________________________________
Dennis Potter reported that when this item comes before the city council, staff will ask for an exten-sion on the public hearing date from July 16 to August 6 and will help the public transportation commit-tee and staff and MPO staff to continue discussions on this issue; there may be some individuals in the audience who wish to speak to this issue. (Mary Weaver and Blair Sondrol had left meeting). Todd Feland stated he talked to those individuals - they were confused that this was going to be the public hearing date, and based upon action that occurred at the public transportation committee on July 3, that the new public hearing date based upon changes that were discussed will be July 18 at public trans-portation committee meeting, and then come back to Committee of the Whole and council.

2.6 Maternal Child Health - Nutrition Grant budget amendment, HL50.$723.6/25/01, New 2001 Revenue____________________________________________________________________
Council Member Brooks stated this is a $723 budget amendment and maybe need to look at minimum size; Mr. Shields reported that any budget amendment, regardless of amount, has to come before city council unless it was approved in the budget, and wishes there was another option. The city auditor stated that under State statutes in order to increase a budget it requires council action.

2.7 Maternal Child Health Grant agreement #02-041 ($71,792, 7/1/01 - 6/30/02).
No comments.

2.8 Easement from Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad for City Project Nos. 4648.3 and 4948.2 - Transmission Pipelines and Residuals Force Main, Phase 2, S. 34th St. to WTP.
Mr. Swanson reported that their office has not yet seen the easement document and action would need to be preliminary or subject to final approval by the city attorney’s office.

2.9 Bids for City Project No. 4371 - Grand Forks Wastewater Treatment Plant (Bid Pkg. #7 - Process Mechancial Equipment. _____________________________
No comments.

2.10 Amendment No. 2 to engineering services agreement with WFW for Project No. 5140,
Upgrade Pump Station 24. _________________________
Mark Walker, project engineer, stated this project was bid and was brought in at the last council meeting where Robert Gibb & Sons was low bidder. Council Member Bjerke questioned length of time to do the project. Dale Bergum, WFW, stated they have estimated about 3 months before it is completed and depends upon delivery of pumps and equipment - actual construction is probably less than a month as doing minor modifications to controls and install pumps, that WFW has been working approx. 4 to 5 months doing shop drawing review, process, contracts, actual construction is month of construction.

2.11 Bids for City Project No. 5250 - Bio Solids removal at the Wastewater Treatment Stabilization Pond.______________________________________________________
No comments.
Committee of the Whole/July 9, 2001 - Page 10

2.12 Special Assessment District for City Project No. 5266, District No. 582 - paving Nordonna
Circle.____________________________________________________________________
No comments.

2.13 Location List #2 for Project No. 5196 - 2000 Sidewalk Repairs.
No comments.

2.14 Project Concept Report and design engineering services agreement for City Project No. 5145 - University Avenue Mill and Overlay.______________________________________________
Council Member Hamerlik asked length of project - Mr. Walker stated from 21st to 42nd. Mr. Walker reported that when acquiring engineering services, request that engineering firms provide them with a proposal, and after evaluation of proposals, make a selection of the most qualified engineer, then negotiate a price with them, and that there are laws that do not permit cities to bid engineering services - hard to quantify the work.

2.15 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5262, District No. 581 - paving Mighty Acres Drive.
No comments.

2.16 Matter of “No Right Turn On Red Signs” on South Washington at the intersections of 17th
Avenue South and 28th Avenue South.__________________________________________
Council Member Gershman stated he would like to see signs come down - that fuel prices are high and have number of cars sitting in lane that can actually make a right turn, and very confusing in the city when have some areas that have no right turn on red and other areas have turns on red, and those roads safer than other roads where they offer right hand turns. Mr. Grasser, city engineer, stated they have sent letters to the DOT re. issue of protected left turns and that if take a left turn on Washington to a side street, there is a protected left turn arrow and can only turn left on the arrow, many of the other areas in town, have a protected permissive where can turn left on protected arrow but also allowed to turn left on the green at your own risk; that when brought that up to the DOT the answer received is that it’s a condition that’s being created partially because of the medians on Washington Street (the left turn lanes don’t line up with each other, are off-set, and DOT’s analysis to that situation is that they are off-set far enough that it obstructs the sight distance that creates a potentially unsafe turning situation and their interpretation of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is that should only be a protected left, but can’t dispute their analysis.

Mr. Grasser stated on the “no right turn on red lights”, that when first brought the issue to the DOT they asked about the right turns and it appeared that the DOT was going to determine that they thought that no right turns were appropriate, whether City maintained or not, because they have comments and approvals on some of our traffic analysis, subsequent to that time, they have come back and said there’s a lot of discretion in this analysis and if City wants to determine that it’s appropriate to take them down, they would not dispute it. Mr. Grasser reported that on the staff report they had noted that the City should take over maintenance of the project in the summer or fall of 2001 - that they were going to get this decision done as soon as the maintenance came to the City, but the DOT has now said that the maintenance is now ours and can act on this.