Council Minutes

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Monday, October 29, 2001 - 7:00 p.m.

The City Council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, October 29, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Gershman, Glassheim, Burke, Hamerlik, Stevens, Bjerke, Kreun, Bakken, Klave, Christensen and Lunak – 11; absent: Council Members Brooks, Martinson and Kerian - 3.

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

1.1.1 Population Growth Task Force Report
Council Member Glassheim presented a cover letter – Population Task Force has met for a couple months including a number of people representing institutions and a number of young adults – plan to have a short presentation by the Task Force and come back two weeks from now at another COW for further discussion. He thanked staff and members of the Task Force that did their best to come up with practical recommendations to help respond to the loss of people in the 18-35 age range.

Heath Copp, 716 Chestnut, president of Paragon Enterprises said his interest is in economic development and he had a hand in putting together some of the recommendations. He said they believe that economic development efforts should devote an increased amount of energy and resources on new and expanding primary sector small businesses and entrepreneurial ventures including those that employ knowledge workers. He said a repeated theme was that higher wages are pivotal to Grand Forks’ success in retaining the younger age group. Mr. Copp said they have some recommendations for the Economic Development Corporation that they would like the City Council to consider – asking that the EDC consider some goals related to small business startups and entrepreneurial ventures - increasing the amount of risk in seed capital available to startups was one of the important points – securing 15 out of 100 statewide New Economy Initiative businesses in the next three years. He said there has been a strong energy on the statewide level for this initiative and the Task Force thinks Grand Forks should have an aggressive part of that process, focusing on efforts to create 100 new jobs each year that have wages of > $10/hour. He added it important to not just create jobs, but creating jobs that allow our young people to stay here and earn an income that allows them to enjoy the resources the city has to offer, establishing a better process to coordinate state and local financial resources, increasing assistance to UND-related entrepreneurial ventures (both faculty and student related) and establishing/supporting business mentoring programs between local business people and young entrepreneurs. He said cooperation is vital to Grand Forks’ economic development growth on all levels – as part of that the Task Force recommends that there be EDC/JDA meetings held quarterly to develop, implement and monitor short and long-term economic development goals - part of a process to create a community-wide economic development thrust that would see cooperation on all levels.

Jeanne Stenberg, Wells Fargo Bank and board member of the Chamber of Commerce said her interest was in the area of natural resources. She said, based upon public interest, there are two areas that the community should expand upon - the bikepath system and the Greenway. She said the Task Force is asking the Mayor to direct the appropriate departments or entities to aggressively plan, develop, maintain and market a bikepath system to include the creation of a complete loop or series of loops, signage and year-around maintenance – she gave the example of the Bismarck model - they have a complete loop and they have activities for different ages. Ms. Stenberg said the Task Force recommends that the City Council embrace a COE plan and encourages the city to define and create additional betterments to improve recreational opportunities for everyone but especially those in the 18-34 target group – to have ample input as to what those betterments are. She said some students said they did not know what the Greenway was - are we getting our message out in a way that is directed toward everyone. She said the Task Force is recommending that we get into the classrooms and ask the youth for their ideas and asks that the Mayor direct resources for the Greenway Director to better market the Greenway and to aggressively procure input from the community’s youth.

Darryl Sale said he is interested in internships – a viable means of keeping students in the community - students are leaving because of financial opportunities and the absence of opportunities locally, so in order to increase the bond between University students and the business community, the Task Force believes that the city, the Chamber of Commerce and UND should collaborate to increase student placement in local internships. He said this recommendation addresses drawing the business community in as a body that can provide opportunities for the students – UND comes into it because they have the students looking for employment and the city comes in as a catalyst. He said the Task Force recommends the city allocate a specific amount of funds annually to match funds – there is a Kaufmann Internship Program in place and it needs a little more involvement - recommend the city fully utilize and support various internship programs - recommend that the Chamber encourage membership to participate in and support various internship programs – a focal point for a lot of area businesses – would like to see them brought in to catalyze opportunities for students.

Kristin Hillman, senior biology student at UND said she has an interest in youth input and outreach. Through the public meetings they found that young adults feel disconnected from Grand Forks, many feel uninvolved in the goings on of the city and feel socially isolated. She said the Task Force recommen-dations aim to strengthen the ties between young adults and the city on both the civic and social level - getting young adults involved is an integral part in retaining them – it is essential that young adults feel they are being heard. She said by seeking out the participation and opinions of young adults, the Task Force suggests that the city take a proactive stance by holding meetings at places available to students – in doing this they believe the city will benefit from new ideas and optimism that young adults have to offer. Young adults will feel more a part of the city and have a voice in what is going on. She said Grand Forks must be seen as welcoming by the city’s youth – single students and especially those under 21 have a one-dimensional social scene in this city – comes into consideration when weighing options of whether to stay or go. She went on to say that recommendations in this area range from supporting private sector activi-ties that cater to those under 21 to making UND a more vibrant campus with youth-oriented businesses – by making the social scene more inviting and diverse, we are hoping students will feel more welcome.

Jeremy Falk, a UND graduate student said the last recommendation concerns marketing. He said there is no doubt that Grand Forks has an abundance of natural and cultural resources which can make it a real destination city for young adults and mid-career professionals with families. He said it is very important that marketing efforts focus on this age group - this age group is less aware of the opportunities available here than was originally thought. He said the Task Force members have seen new perspectives of what Grand Forks has to offer – we need to publicize small victories – this demographic group is progressive and at times is very impatient - can be naïve to government process as well as the progress the city is making - this age group doesn’t need to see a home run hit, they just need to see some progress. He added that all the improvements that have occurred and continue to occur, as well as the actions that may come from these recommendations, won’t matter if this section of the population doesn’t hear about them – if they are not specifically targeted - a sustained marketing effort focussed on this age group is needed - essential to the city’s future if it is going to succeed in attracting and retaining young citizens.

Mayor Brown told Council Member Glassheim that he had done a good job and asked for any comments from Council. Council Member Glassheim said they didn’t try to have some gigantic, highly expensive magic bullet that would change everything – worked on incremental improvements to make things better. He said just the fact of focussing on the topic was useful – it brought out some new people and new interest in governmental processes and this kind of thing, of finding out what this age group is interested in, can bring new energy to things. Mayor Brown said he was very encouraged with what has been done and whenever the Task Force said the Mayor will be charged with doing something, we will make it happen. He said we need periodic updates to make sure we are staying on task and living up to our obligations as elected officials. He added that he is very encouraged by what he has seen and is very happy to be a part of the solution. In response to Council Member Burke’s question, Council Member Glassheim said these recommendations are the action items – they will be brought back in a way that can be adopted by Council. Mayor Brown thanked the Task Force for their work and said problem solving can be fun be-cause we are seeing solutions come forward that we can actively engage in and be proud to participate in.

1.1.2 Maintenance Parking Concerns
Mr. Feland provided information related to the parking concerns expressed by Ms. Graves, including the ordinance, the number of tickets and amount of revenue this year – found that approximately 28% of the residential streets are posted, and based upon that area, there are slightly more tickets given in the non-posted area - a bit disproportionate but not drastically so. He brought up the issue of doing streets and avenues on Fridays and said they propose that in the areas where street parking occurs in multi-family residential, they would provide at least one night as a maintenance day so alternate parking is available. He said they will proceed to sign streets in some areas where there are multi-family units.

Rebecca Graves said she got a copy of Mr. Feland’s report and thought it very thorough and excellent, but wants to reiterate that they feel it is fair that all streets be posted if residents are to be subject to ticketing, but happy what the city has done to address the issue and happy that signs are being posted.

Mayor Brown said he was pleased to read that Grand Forks was named one of the 25 safest cities. According to FBI crime statistics, Grand Forks/East Grand Forks has one of the lowest crime rates of violent crime in the nation at 174.8/100,000 giving the city the 22nd lowest violent crime rate in nation – rankings for metropolitan areas of 50,000 people or more. He thanked Chief Packett and the citizens for making Grand Forks on of the 25 safest cities in the nation.

Mayor Brown advised citizens that children should be dressed for visibility and warmth on Halloween – be careful when driving – children should not eat their candy before an adult checks it. He pointed out that this is routine caution for Halloween, not just because of September 11.

Mayor Brown said Grand Forks is a great place to live. At the Annual North Dakota Section of the American Waterworks Association meeting in Fargo, Grand Forks won the annual drinking water taste test out of 20 submittals in North Dakota and they were presented a plaque. Mayor Brown congratulated Ms. Sletten and Public Works.

Mayor Brown thanked Public Works for their response to the blizzard and quickly getting the arterials open for the safety of the city, working overtime and doing their usual good job.

Mayor Brown asked the Council to consider at the end of the meeting, December 24 and 31 are scheduled Council meeting nights - think of a solution whether we end the year on December 17 and have the next meeting January 2 or how we would like to structure December’s meetings.

Mayor Brown thanked the Dakota Resource Council and Toastmasters for meeting in Grand Forks.

2. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DISCUSSION ITEMS
Council Members Kreun and Klave moved to suspend the agenda to move 2.18 to the beginning of the agenda for a presentation, to put 2.6 in front of 2.5 and to remove 2.21 from the agenda. Motion carried with 11 votes affirmative.

2.18 Resolution Setting the sale date for 2001, $13,000,000 Sales Tax Reserve Revenue Bonds (Dike Improvements)
Ms. Jerath introduced Al Erickson, Bond Advisor from Springsted who said this is the third in a series of financing the city is undertaking for its share of the dike project - recommending to set a sale date as of November 19 of this year. He said this issue is backed by sales and use taxes – approximately ½ of the debt service will be paid from existing general sales tax allocated to infrastructure projects, the other half is scheduled to come out of the new use tax that was approved in 1999. He said revenue allocated for this is approximately $1 million/year and therefore we try to keep the debt service just under $1 million. He said we are looking at $13 million as the par value of the bond issue. During planning a couple years ago we assumed that this issue would be $11-11.5 million but it will be a larger size given the current interest environment and to keep the yearly debt service under the $1 million level - a few more dollars are able to be financed through this method rather than special assessments. Mr. Erickson said one other item with this issue is we are having a flexible dollar amount and that depends on the interest rates in the next few weeks - if they stay where they are we will assume we can get the $13 million issued and keep the debt service under $1 million/year and if something happens in the markets we have put a clause into the bidding packet to the underwriters saying that if the interest rates go up we will lower the dollar size to keep the debt service where it needs to be - want to make sure it is affordable.

Council Member Gershman initiated discussion on the surplus of sales and use taxes, and asked if there were restrictions on those funds – could we use that money for any other dike issues. Mr. Erickson responded that you have to look at the projection of what the sales and use taxes will be. He said they have taken the city’s 2002 estimates based on their past historical records and inflated it 3% a year to 2005 and assumed no growth for the rest of the time – a very conservative estimate because 3% is a lot less than the city has been experiencing in its growth. He added by doing that it creates a surplus and, if you wish, it can be applied to other dike projects, pay the bonds off earlier, issue parity bonds equal to these bonds. In response to another question by Council Member Gershman, Mr. Erickson said the bond rating is based on a lot of different things, but the larger surplus is better for the bond rating - if this happens and you will be able to build a surplus like this, you will have options without damaging the bond rating. Council Member Gershman asked if we could use a portion of the surplus to defer the farmland payments until they could develop the land. Mr. Erickson said this meets that criterion.

Council Member Burke asked if the surplus is generated from sales and use tax, can we reduce the amount we special assess for this bond issue. Mr. Erickson said assuming the dollars come in as the model shows, he thinks you would be able to replace the assessment dollars with realized sales tax dollars – the problem is the lag in time/collections and you will have already set up some of the assessment things. He said he thought that you could cancel special assessments five or ten years down the road if there were substantial surpluses and if there were a process in place to do that. In response to Council Member Christensen’s question about surpluses on other bond issues, Mr. Erickson said that would be in the city’s annual financial statement. Mr. Christensen said he is interested in the total surplus on all our bond issues and what restrictions exist. Mr. Erickson said it depends on the type of bonds issued and depends upon what the original pledge of security was of those other bond issues, whether general tax levy, special assessments or sales and use taxes - typically general bond law will hold that you have to use the surplus funds in any debt service account to pay those bonds first and then use them for something else - depends on how written and on state law. He added that his office would work in conjunction with city staff to come up with some sort of plan. Ms. Jerath said if there are funds available in the debt service fund we can call the bond earlier than the call date. Council Member Stevens said he is depending on bonds for his livelihood and cannot afford to keep bonds with the reduced rate – are we shooting our-selves in the foot by refinancing these bonds. Mr. Erickson responded that when looking at refinancing from the city’s standpoint, we want the lowest interest possible to save the largest amount of tax dollars.

2.1 The Structure of the Council.
Council Member Glassheim said he has been concerned about structure and how things work and wanted to focus attention on it and try to have it considered - concerned that we don’t have a method to do business in a more business-like manner. Every large organization has committees and standing committees to which business can be referred. We have gone to the Committee of the Whole but it seems we don’t get the proper work done, don’t get questions before things come up and don’t have small groups to work together so Council people can get used to each other and develop the habit of working together. He said it’s the same with staff and Council where you don’t know who you’re supposed to meet with and talk to – have felt that some of the things have been disorganized in the method we have now - some Council people have a lot of responsibility and some don’t – no assigned task - no committee you sit on – you don’t build up knowledge about a particular area. He said he would like the Council to consider going to permanent standing committees - want to open this up for comment to see if there is any interest - no place to refer it for more detailed work - no way to build majorities or consensus – we’ve come up with ad hoc things for task forces. He said if there is any interest in this, at Council he will move to create a month-long task force to study it. He said he proposes six standing committees: 1) a Dike Committee for the next five years, 2) a Long Range Planning and Capital Budget Committee, 3) a Personnel, Finance and Information Committee, 4) an Economic and Community Development Committee, 5) an Annual Operations Committee, and, 6) a Policy Committee to which can be referred suggestions for changes in policy. He said we need some place where things get sent and some standard operating procedures and some return to normalcy after the events of the last four years. He said he doesn’t insist on these particular commit-tees if there are other committees or other ways of cutting the pie to get our work streamlined and done.

Council Member Gershman distributed a letter and said Council Member Glassheim’s motives are good and he doesn’t question them - he respects that Council Member Glassheim feels strongly about this. He referred to a point of frustration in Council Member Glassheim’s letter and said he does not find it valid that Council members cannot get their issues aired. Council Member Gershman explained some of the motives behind Committee of the Whole saying: 1) all Council persons would hear the same information and be able to question that information without the need to depend upon minutes of the committee meetings, 2) Committee of the Whole is held on one day at the same time so citizens do not have to run from committee to committee on different days if they are interested in a variety of issues, 3) the press was not able to cover all the committee meetings prior to the Committee of the Whole and therefore the public not as well informed as they are now, 4) the Council is more informed on all issues than with the old committee system where there were 3-4 members of a given committee and they were the only ones holding the knowledge, 5) the citizens, press, staff and Council now have one full week between Committee of the Whole and Council to flesh out an issue rather than a few days under the committee system, 6) we were successful in placing Committee of the Whole on television every Monday night so citizens are incredibly informed today and he asked the citizens watching if they are better informed about city government today than they were a year ago. Council Member Gershman continued that there is an assumption in Council Member Glassheim’s proposal that this Council has been unable to accomplish things – under our current system and in conjunction and close cooperation with Mayor Brown and his administrative staff, we have initiated the market analysis for salaries, resolved the part-time employee issue, will be developing ways of addressing overtime issues, working with the administration together with a work group, solved the senior bus issue, successfully negotiated a two-year wage agreement with city employees, created a new CVB Board, reduced the number of committees by 14, transferred 33 decision points from Council back to staff where the decisions belong, approved restructuring of the Urban Development Department, achieving positive resolutions to various difficult dike issues and there are many more accomplishments. He went on to say that Council Member Glassheim states that there is a lack of social cohesion among Council members and said that is not entirely true – what Council Member Glassheim is saying is that some Council members do not get along. He said he doesn’t think this is entirely true - each Council person should reserve the right to disagree with one another as long as it is principled, not personal – in almost all instances that has been the case – when there is an aberration, there is usually an apology. He said striving for social cohesion at the expense of good debate is not worth the trade-off in his point of view. He added that we have been in this structure for nine months and in eight months we will be reduced to a seven-member Council – under Council Member Glassheim’s proposal, Council members would at that time sit on two or three committees – that makes no sense - if this Council lacks clarity and organization as Council Member Glassheim says, why would he want this Council to restructure the upcoming seven-member Council. He said he disagrees that this Council lacks clarity and organization – this 14 member Council should not impose its will on the seven - member Council. He concluded by asking the citizens if they are better informed about city government today than one year ago - if the answer is yes then we should leave the structure in place.

Council Member Hamerlik said he is in favor of and voted for keeping some of the same structure - this structure has served us now and should continue. In response to Council Member Hamerlik’s question, Council Member Glassheim said the committees he proposes would probably replace Committee of the Whole although the Committee of the Whole might be useful occasionally for large project presentations, but not for action. Council Member Hamerlik said one of the reasons to switch was the fact that he saw most of the subcommittee items were being completely discussed on the floor again and many of them were reversed. Council Member Stevens said he was very ill-informed when he was on the Public Service Committee, but with Committee of the Whole he has more information and would like to see that continue because it is useful - would vote no to go back to the committee system. Council Member Bakken said he thinks it’s too late to go back for eight months – not necessarily sure that all the items stated as progress are necessarily progress – does not like ad hoc committees – if we are to do things as Committee of the Whole, that is where we should do it so everybody knows. He said we should do it here instead of bringing things back that everyone has not been involved in – shouldn’t be doing ad hoc committees - should fight it out here.

Council Member Gershman said especially with a big Council, task forces or special committees are very important to get certain things done that need additional analysis - 99% of what we do, we do right here - this Council doesn’t have the time to do it. Mayor Brown said speaking for staff, he hears very favorable remarks about Committee of the Whole because there is one meeting to attend and one presentation to make rather than making multiple presentations and one set of questions answered for everybody. Council Member Klave said there are pros and cons but we need to keep looking forward - part of our onset was to delegate tasks back to the staff - we have to rely on what the staff brings to us - allows us the time to look at it. He said in the beginning he really felt that Committee of the Whole meetings on Monday nights were going to be rather long meetings and they are - will continue to be that way because there is a lot to be done - somewhere there is a middle ground that we need to achieve - must keep working that direction. Council Member Christensen said the people with whom he has spoken have complimented the City Council on its openness - those who ran for fresh air in city government will continue to work toward that process – the citizenry knows how government is functioning – will vote against going back to committees - commends Council old and new for decision reached - maybe not as much collegiality – this is a work in progress – don’t see changing it for the next eight months. Council Member Glassheim said on some items we have sat up here for a half hour on small items that should have been taken care of in a smaller committee - sometimes we discuss things here with no advance information, no one knows anything about the subject – sometimes things move on to Council and we don’t know what the motion is. He said we have staff sitting here for three hours when they have 1-2 items - not organized - not a way to do business - not sure staff knows how things are supposed to flow - which Council people are the lead people on that thing – we may get things done but an awful lot is being done quietly and at luncheon meetings and not in committee meetings and not here on the Council floor - have to have some way of organizing what is done and it can’t be all done in giant, general discussion. He said he feels frustrated for other Council people, who, when they wanted something, have no process – no process by which someone concerned about overtime can get that handled in a reasonable time – no committee to go to – no methodology – no way to build consensus – each Council person is on their own – no process for referring items of concern – frustration of having no means of getting things dealt with and referred to a place that can look at the details. Council Member Lunak said when we made a change to Committee of the Whole, it passed by quite a majority because we wanted more information and better communication with Council and staff. Council Member Gershman said what he has noticed is that under Council comments people have requested information and he has not seen an item that has not moved forward – incumbent upon the Council person themselves to take the initiative and work for it - you get on the phone to try to build consensus - will be easier and take less time at meetings when we go to seven. Council Member Gershman suggested that in the future we lump the issues and rotate for staff – they stay out of courtesy to each other - should be a policy of Council. Mayor Brown said those thoughts are appreciated but when Council Members make comments at the end they direct them to various staffs and sometimes Public Works will impact Engineering so they do stay here to support each other. He said they are consummate professionals and he appreciates that.

2.2 Acceptance of Fire Grant Funds ($97,200) and related Budget Amendment ($25,000) for Fire Prevention Program.
Council Member Bjerke said he doesn’t believe this is the role of government - not an appropriate use of taxpayer money - will vote no.

2.3 Acceptance of Fire Grant Funds ($96,300) and related Budget amendment ($25,000) for Personal Protective Equipment.
No comments.

2.4 2003 Transportation-Enhancement Request to NDDOT.
Council Member Bjerke said bikepaths should be Parks and Recreation – if this is gas tax money the state should have a tax on bicycles – Council does not take time to evaluate the issues – should take the time to examine how we spend our money – we are taking Highway Users Fund - we have a chance to recoup some of that money if we would quit spending on some of these issues. He questioned the need to get an outside consultant - when are we going to make the decision if we are going to do this or if we are going to hire an outside consultant to do this. Ms. Voigt explained that all the states get federal money which is separate from their highway funds - North Dakota has about $900,000 for 2003 to spread for urban uses on either bikepaths and pedestrians, senior projects or historic projects – can make an application to get a project approved and if it’s approved it is 80% funded – we would pay for 20% of construction costs only – no engineering costs. With regard to a consultant, Ms. Voigt said once it is determined we are going to get the grant, we will decide how we will pay for the engineering - DOT projects require a concept project report – very time-consuming – if we didn’t have the report we would probably do the whole thing our-selves. Council Member Bjerke said it will probably pass the vote and down the road we might have to pay for a consultant, so if you vote to do this, there is a very good chance we will spend another $40,000, and for Engineering who are so pressed for time and so short staffed that we have to hire a consultant, where are our priorities if we have to cram in a bikepath when we are building a dike. Council Member Hamerlik said he is supportive of bikepaths and was on the preliminary committee for the Alerus Center (Core Committee), but does not remember voting a promise to those residents - we ought to be building it but not necessarily for the last sentence in there. Mr. Potter said a promise was made when the City Council approved the PUD and the subdivision map in which we would construct a bikepath sometime in 1998 – that has been put off because of the flood. Council Member Hamerlik said he stands corrected.

In response to Council Member Bjerke, Council Member Kreun said the state government has indicated that that is the way it is directed to spend these monies – it isn’t just picked out of the air - required to be spent - that is why we developed the plan – this is a three-way split, it is to divide the commercial from the residential – that was supplied by the developer. The Park District came in and seeded and put in trees for barriers and the city’s responsibility was just the bikepath itself so there were three different entities developing an aesthetic area – we are not trying to cram in a bikepath – there is a reason for it which is development and enhancement so there is a dividing line so we can sell the property to have property taxes coming in – we have businesses to develop out there and also have taxes and sales tax coming in so it is long-range planning - in the long run will bring in tax money. Council Member Burke said what will separate the houses from the other side of the street is not the bikepath but the fences they build behind their yards – the easement is there, whether or not the bikepath is built is immaterial to the property values of the houses, who probably will build fences and the bikepath will be on the other side of the fences. He said he is interested that it will take $200-250,00 to build 6 blocks of a bikepath – its just nuts. Council Member Christensen said it is ridiculous to spend that much money on a bike path and he is troubled by $40,000 for a consultant. In response to his question, Ms. Voigt said it is ten feet wide, bituminous and a lot longer than six blocks. She said when they do the application they can’t be low because we can’t get more money later – we didn’t want to come back and say we are short – this is 80% federally funded so we want to make sure we didn’t have to come back and say that our bids are too high and we need more money – asking to be on the safe side. She said the state sets up the requirements for what is in the concept report, environmental section, costs – have never done one myself and it if was easy I’d do it myself, but from what I hear from staff it is not an easy process - had a very low cost for the engineering and they made me increase it quite a bit after they told me how much work concept reports are to do. She said she still hopes they can do the design, engineering, layout and surveying in-house and not have the consultant do that. Council Member Lunak said he doesn’t believe we will get grant dollars in the future for bikepaths we’ve already made. Ms. Voigt said if we get the grant she will come back if they need the consultant. Council Member Kreun responded that if you don’t like the regulations the way they are, you have to go to your federal representatives and see if you can change the way the grants are written - don’t kill the messenger because they have to fill out the proper forms and do the proper assessments to get the job done - they are not the ones bringing the requirements in – the federal money is bringing the requirements in – they are asking for a particular amount of money and if it comes in less, they will spend less. He went on to say don’t make it look like the Engineering Department is padding the bill – it’s just a request for the grant money and it will come back to Council again for the actual dollars.

Council Member Klave pointed out that we started this meeting out with five recommendations from the Task Force as to what we can do for the betterment of our community and one was a continuation of the bikepath in this city and if we are able to do this by acquiring some federal dollars, it is a smart move and hope we can curb the cost on design work. Council Member Burke repeated that the bikepath goes from 17th to 11th and that is six blocks. Ms. Voigt said it is at least 2,500 feet. Council Member Burke said it is going six blocks. He said the City Council does have a CIP process and this was part of that process and it is on a priority list that was acted on the last time the CIP committee met which was late last year or early this year. Ms. Voigt said she knows the process for the next CIP isn’t finalized yet – recommending the one shown in 2004 and we are moving it up to 2003. Council Member Burke said he doesn’t see how it fits into our CIP priorities. Ms. Voigt said part of the large cost are in the working conditions – not paving a street where you have the trucks dumping right into the paver – limited access – will have to back everything in – we made sure we had the costs covered for that - not a typical easy paving job – it increases the cost. Council Member Glassheim clarified that what Council will be asked to approve is the application for a bikepath that has been in the CIP and is on the plat that we agreed to construct four years ago. Ms. Voigt agreed. She said once we have the money we can go to the next step and decide how to engineer it. Mr. Potter clarified the status of this project in relation to the CIP. He said we currently have an adopted CIP and this project currently is forecast for 2004 and the reason we are here is that we have an opportunity to go after federal dollars that would become available in FY2003 so we are asking to amend the existing CIP and move this from 2004 to 2003 and that will keep us in compliance with the ap-plication guidelines of the federal government, which, assuming you do this this evening, we can submit to the MPO and have them package the requirements with the others that may come in and make a deci-sion and send it off to Bismarck. He added that if it never gets funded, our request for federal funds will lapse and we will have to make a decision to update our CIP to leave it at 2003 or move it back to 2004.

2.6 Revise the Engineering Service agreement on City Project #5222 – Root Removal and Analysis of Sewers in Back Yard Easements.
No comments.

2.5 Bids for City Project No. 5222 – Cleaning & Televising Easement Sewer Lines.
Council Member Lunak asked how long they have been around and how long are they going to - they’ve been here since the flood - what's going on? Tom Hanson, WFW said initially following the flood they did televising and cleaning work to determine damages to sewers and those determined to be damaged were repaired and inspected again to make sure the repairs were correct. He said these specific areas were inspected after the flood and the Wastewater Department is having problems with those areas already with roots so they have asked that we go in to find out what is going on and how to fix it. He said when they got into it they found they can’t get a camera through all of them – most of it appears to be associated with roots coming out of private property owner’s leads – the city sewers are repaired and in most cases the problem is not there, but with the leads. He said to do this they have to meet with the residents and convince them that we have to get pictures of the roots coming out of their lead and tied to their lead and do these things so the residents know what is going on and we explain it to them. He added that when they started this, the Wastewater Department said as long as we are in here, lets clean it all and that is how we bid the project, because it went from documenting what the problem was to a significant project to actually go in there and remove the roots and clean all the sewers. He said a lot of the manholes are difficult to get to because they are in easements, there are fences, swing sets and swimming pools so it is tough to get back into some of those areas. He said they received very favorable bids for this - you will continue to maintain your sewers as long as you own them so they will be around forever. He said the city has some of that equipment but in doing their normal day to day work it is difficult for them to do – makes sense to subcontract it out. In response to Council Member Lunak’s question, Mr. Hanson said they have been doing this since 1976-78 and so far the city has hired them to do a lot of the work.

2.7 Consideration of Requests from Red River Snowmobile Club.
In response to Council Member Gershman’s question, Mr. Grasser said they don’t have a good routing mechanism for a group like that to come in with questions - have no city policy or guidance on how to evaluate a request like this – Engineering agreed to prepare the staff report for them and a representative will speak to the issues. Mr. Swanson said the current ordinance has the speed limit at all locations within the city along the trail at 15 mph – the request is to increase the speed limit. He said the ordinance requires City Council to annually approve routes in and around the City of Grand Forks.

Steve Magnus, on the trail committee of the snowmobile club said they had a meeting with some people from the city, Park Board and the Greenway – the main area is on 42nd from 32nd to DeMers, traveling on the west side from 32nd to 17th and on the east side from 17th to DeMers. He said one of the police officers patrolling said it is really hard even for him to drive 15 mph in that area. He said they talked about raising speed limits in different areas of town, but thought it best to do one speed limit for the whole city – there are certain places where you will not be able to go 25 mph, but most of the places are in fairly open areas, not in residential areas at all. Council Member Hamerlik asked about not having any limitation on the hours of operation. Mr. Magnus said the hour now is 11 p.m. and a lot of people ride to Oslo or Fisher for the fish fry and don’t get home until midnight - if it’s 11 p.m. the police will be giving tickets - a lot of people want to ride later. Council Member Hamerlik said people he has talked to complain about the noise after a certain hour – concerned about that in certain areas – when you get near residences there has to be some concern about speed and hours of operation because of the noise factor - we should change our ordinance so we don’t act on it every year. Council Member Klave disagreed saying that this gives us the opportunity to make changes if necessary. He said he concurs with the area drop off, would want some discussion on item 2 and it appears they have already met with our Police Department and the Police Department has informed them that they feel that 25 mph is a speed that can be maintained – we need to look at that. He went on to say that Item 4 seems sensible and item 5 says they are maintaining the trails and trailheads. He suggested we do something that addresses Friday and Saturday evenings only. Council Member Glassheim said one of the reasons you have committees is to try to resolve conflict and this is a perfect example of an item that should be dealt with in a small committee so some of these things can be negotiated out. Council Member Bakken said this is one of the sports that young people enjoy doing, the club puts on safety seminars and trains them to ride properly – it is good for our community as long as they do as is meant to be done – a good activity.

2.8 Additional Height on Permanent Flood Protection Project Floodwalls.