Committee Minutes

MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
Tuesday, October 1, 1996 - 3:45 p.m.

Members present: Carpenter, Babinchak, Bakken, Hamerlik.

1. Matter of cancellation of sidewalk assessments:
a) 2532 8th Avenue North
Mr. Schmisek distributed copies of current CIP policy, that section pertaining to cancellation of assessments for low to moderate income property owners had been retyped and word "sidewalk" left out. He asked that this be held for 2 weeks while Planning & Zoning researches. Held in committee.

2. Matter of offer to purchase property at 4464 16th Avenue
North Circle (Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Auditor's Subdivision
No. 27.
Mr. Schmisek reported offer is for Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Auditor's Subdiv. No. 27, which is area north of McDonald's on Gateway, that they have sold all lots except these two. He reported offer is made by Bradley Beyer, 110 Rolling Hills Circle, for $17,500. He stated that purchase price of 30-cents sq. ft. (which other property sold for) totals $17,025, and his recommendation is to sell property at this price. Mel Carsen, city assessor, concurred that this offer appropriate and noted that all these properties sold in 1996. Moved by Hamerlik and Babinchak to accept the offer. Motion carried.

3. Applications for five-year property tax exemptions:
a) LeRoy and Barbara Bross Trust dba J. W. Perry, Inc. for building to be constructed at 1250 South 46th Street.
It was reported that the public hearing had been held on September 16, that no protests were filed and matter was referred back to committee to establish rate of exemption, if any. Chairman Carpenter stated that he understands there is one competitor, however, didn't appear at hearings or file written protest, but made comment to Economic Development Foundation staff that if this application granted, they would build their own building and pursue exemption. Mr. Schmisek stated competitor wouldn't qualify at this time unless build or expand.
Moved by Bakken and Babinchak to proceed with exemption on 100, 80, 60, 40 and 20% basis.

Mr. Carsen informed committee that exemption would be about $10,000 over the 5-year period. It was also noted that several applicants have received exemption where there has been competition; ie., Butler Machinery, whose competitor urged approval, and that council can approve in spite of competitor or protest or can deny even if no protest or competition; is at council's discretion. Member Hamerlik stated it is imperative that we note that there wasn't any protest, and if there is another application, there be some equality in that also.

Upon call for the question, the motion carried.

MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
October 1, 1996 - Page 2

b) RDO Foods Company
Mr. Schmisek reported that council found there were no competitors and rescheduled public hearing for October 7. He stated he had discussion with Abe Muscari of Simplot prior to the September 16 meeting and he stated they did not feel they were in competition with RDO Foods, that they process different products; and this was sent back for committee to make determination of what tax exemption allocation would be.

Moved by Babinchak and Bakken to approve the exemption at a rate of 100, 80, 60, 40 and 20% over a five-year period. Motion carried.

4. Matter of cable television franchise agreement.
Howard Swanson, city attorney, reported that the council has had first reading of this ordinance, that at the request of TCI the second reading was held to the second meeting in October to provide additional time for their legal staff to review the franchise agreement. He stated that since that time he has written and made two suggested changes to TCI and has not received response; one had to do with cable burial depth and burial time and asked them to consider proposal as to what kind they would utilize. He stated that he has no action to be taken at this time. He noted current franchise agreement has been extended to November 1.

Committee asked at what depth they should be buried; Mr. Swanson stated he was asking them for proposal, engineering is recom- mending min. depth of 6", but has made no recommendation as to time. He stated he expects to receive response, doesn't think depth is going to be concern, but bigger issue how fast they are going to be required to bury the cable. He also noted that TCI contracts burial of cable to sub-contractor.

Held for 2 weeks.

5. Matter of city sales tax on amusement devices.
Mr. Schmisek reported that the State cannot separate out the amount based on amusement devices by the city; don't keep track of that individual calculation, so cannot determine what that tax generated unless each of the vendors in the community would be willing to share with us their gross proceeds and what they are paying taxes on.

Pat Morley, attorney representing vendors, stated he was asking for committee to consider matter of repealing city sales tax on amusement machines; and distributed copies of statement from Coin Machine Operators Assn. and asked Mr. Lowell Thomas, Minot, president of that organization to speak to the committee.

Lowell Thomas addressed committee, stating that he has been

MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
October 1, 1996 - Page 3

associated with Modern Coin Equipment, Inc. in Minot for the past 26 years, and stated that when ordinance being considered in Minot he testified before the council there. He stated they are dealing with increments of a quarter, that everything in the coin machine business is a quarter, and coin acceptors only take quarters; that it is his understanding that the city sales tax is to be passed on to the ultimate consumer, and in this case there is no way to pass this penney or 3/4% on to the consumer. Therefore, they have asked the cities for an exemption, that Minot granted them an exemption, along with 17 other cities in North Dakota; that because impossible to pass on to consumer, they were granted an exemption; and asked for the exemption for the city of Grand Forks. He also stated that whole industry nation-wide based on quarters, no manufacturer going to designate machine for individual; all video games, pool tables, juke boxes in increments of quarters, and no way to set differently.

Council Member Sande, 1110 Belmont Road, asked what they do about the state sales tax. Mr. Thomas stated they have special rate, they pay on 80% of the gross. It was also noted that there are 27+ cities in the state imposing a sales tax. Mr. Thomas stated many of those are small towns.

Jim Carlson, 3211 Elmwood, rep. A & H Vending, stated they hadn't protested before because not aware that other cities granting exemptions; that when 3/4% hike initiated and it was stated that tax was to be passed on to the end consumer.

Mr. Swanson advised that this has nothing to do with Home Rule Charter, if council decides exemption is appropriate would be done by adoption of ordinance; and there is a section where there are some exemptions (incl. those items exempt by the State, etc.) Committee questioned whether they could separate l% and 3/4% and Mr. Swanson stated they couldn't, exemption would have to apply to both, or would require drafting of entire sales tax ordinance. It was also noted that sales of tangible personal property of 99-cents or less in coin operated vending machines shall be exempt.

Moved by Babinchak and Bakken to provide an exemption for amusement devices under $1.00, with effective date of January 1, 1997. Motion carried; Carpenter voted against the motion.

6. Matter of agreement with Springsted, Inc. for continuing
disclosure and/or arbitrage and rebate monitoring.
Mr. Swanson reported he had talked with Wally Dornfeld, Springsted, as well as their legal counsel and in principal came to agreement on all of the issues that previously had been raised by committee, and are waiting to receive some draft language; they addressed all of his concerns. Mr. Swanson informed committee he will not be here next week, and probably wouldn't have by Monday night. Held for 2 weeks.

MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
October 1, 1996 - Page 4

7. Matter of disciplinary action policy.
Mr. Swanson reported that after last committee meeting he had redrafted the ordinance (copies were distributed), including definition for "working day" and other changes discussed by the committee. He stated he had talked with Mr. Hamerlik re. reprimand, whether there should be a time limitation, but doesn't have recommendation as to what that time should be. Mr. Hamerlik stated this was a concern, and there should be limit and for safety net for employee and for employer to be fairly prompt should be time element, that in another section they talk about reasonable length of time rather than specific number of days, and wouldn't have problem with that; and should be worthy of consideration. Mr. Swanson stated he doesn't take position, would defer to committee or council, that reasonable is a standard that the law uses all the time; and thinks that for purposes of advising either department head or the mayor on any discipline one of the concerns in due process would be whether or not discipline is contemporaneously related to the act or omission and would feel very comfortable with the provision that either the reprimand must be given within a reasonable time after learning of the event or whether a specific time period stated.

After some discussion it was moved by Hamerlik and Babinchak to change Section 6-0602 (1)(A) to incorporate language with intent being that reasonable time element coincide with the rest of the ordinance. Mr. Swanson stated he probably would use some type of phrase incorporating "due cause" which is basis for any discipline and incorporate with that an issue of whether they knew or should have known. Motion carried.

Dan Gordon, director of human resources, reported that his office hasn't received many comments with the revised draft and would appreciate committee's support in conducting training session for all department heads and pertinent supervisors (supervisor key fact finder as relates to discipline).

Moved by Hamerlik and Bakken to approve the policy and to introduce ordinance for first reading. Motion carried.

8. Matter of mayor's salary.
Chairman Carpenter reported this matter had been referred back from council, whether $24,000 appropriate level or whether
it should be higher or lower, that the impression of the council has been there would be a discussion of full-time vs. part-time mayor and what the level of salary should be.

Council Member Hagness, 1423 11th Avenue South, stated that in the past he has encouraged council to look at a higher salary for the mayor, that it warrants it and that they have budgeted for it. He stated he is in favor of a full-time mayor, that it is a
full-time job as seen today and in the past because of the
MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
October 1, 1996 - Page 5

responsible position it is, that it requires 60-80 hours work a week, and encouraged committee to consider a salary of $24,000. He stated that it's a 7-day a week job, and is a reasonable salary and should honor that position no matter who's in it, and would like committee to consider $24,000 for the mayor's position. He stated that if they discussed anything other than salary, he would have further comment.

Chairman Carpenter stated that he thinks what they are saying with a $24,000 salary is that we only expect a part-time mayor.

Member Hamerlik stated that we have part-time mayor working much more, and what is a reasonable salary for a part-time mayor; then if City should wish to go to full-time mayor, then pay accordingly; and could still have, and what he would prefer, is a city administrator. Member Babinchak stated that it is important to define whether part-time or full-time mayor; Code just states mayor.

Mayor Owens stated she ran because dedicated to Grand Forks and not for salary, that she talked to council president, Mr. Hagness, and he worked with Mr. Schmisek to come up with what they thought salary should be for a part-time mayor; she stated she is working many hours but reason for that is because she doesn't have an assistant, and that assistant should be on staff within three weeks. She stated that position no matter what they do in any aspect of government, is needed as right arm to the mayor. She stated she would work the hours to get the job done, and that the assistant needs to be someone who has ability to analyze, research information for the mayor. She asked committee to delay any discussion on any change in city government for six months and until she has had chance to get into her administra- tion and to work with that person, and then see where they are at that time.

Carpenter stated that the issue before them today is mayor's salary, and other issues have been side-stepped for past year and a half, and out of courtesy to the mayor's office could delay for another six months, and do need to look at form of government. He stated that council last spring went on record as wanting to look at these issues.

Moved by Hamerlik and Bakken to recommend a salary of $24,000 for a part-time mayor position, effective January 1, 1997.

Council Member Beyer questioned if they fill the assistant's position, and then choose to do a city administrator, would they have duplication of duties and salary; would they be under civil service.

Dan Gordon, director of human resources, stated this is a civil

MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
October 1, 1996 - Page 6

service position, and individual would be probationary employee for the first six months. He stated that the position, in the realm of the new wage study, is placed in the lower level of asst. department heads, or mid-management. He stated that with any significant change in job description would require civil service to reclassify the position. He also noted that the job description of this position was written to lessen some of the authority of the position. Mayor Owens stated that after meeting with the four committee chairs, they did lessen the duties of that position and was placed in the wage study. Mr. Swanson stated that council has complete control over job descriptions. He stated there are two different theories here, one is change in form of government and the other is the use of city adminis- trator, and city administrator does not have to be civil service employee; and that job description would also be in the hands of the council.

Upon call for the question, the motion carried.

9. Budget amendment.
a) Assessing Department - $700.00
Mr. Schmisek reported amendment is to fund a computer programmer who has been writing a program for real estate data bank; this was previously approved and now coming back for additional monies to complete the program. Moved by Babinchak and Hamerlik to approve. Motion carried.

10. Request from The Children's Science & Technology Education
Foundation to install phone lines in space on third floor.
Mr. Schmisek reported that the council had approved leasing the third floor, and included in that lease is provision that any modification must be submitted to committee and council; they need to install three phone jacks and extension line from Golf Course Clubhouse; they have contacted US West for installation and will be billed directly by US West, and asking for approval to do the modification. Moved by Babinchak and Bakken to approve request. Motion carried.

Moved by Hamerlik and Babinchak to adjourn; meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk

Dated: 10/02/96.