Committee Minutes

MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
Tuesday, January 12, 1999 - 3:45 p.m.

Members present: Babinchak, Brooks, Carpenter, Hamerlik.

1. Application for abatement of 1997 taxes:
a) Glenn and Marcia Rost, 520 South 5th Street.
Mr. Carsen, city assessor, reported this involves an application for abatement for a duplex located at 520 S. 5th Street, that assessing department had under-estimated flood damage of the property when did initial inspection, then property moved into Phase II and was scheduled for buy-out, however, percentage changed to less than 50%, and fixed up; assessing restored the value but failed to give credit for damage to the main floor, and this corrects that. He recommended the abatement be approved with reduction in value by $10,100. Moved by Carpenter and Brooks to approve the application for abatement with a reduction in the value by $10,100.00. Motion carried.

2. Matter of annual contract amendment for chief of police
for pay increase.
Dan Gordon, Human Resources, stated that this would be a request for the Chief of Police but also for the City Planner position as both are contracted department heads; request is from the Mayor that she be allowed the authorization to enter into a salary increase with both individuals using what was negotiated for all civil service employees 3.65% as well as a step increase, and total of that is 8.05%. He stated that there is a performance evaluation which Mayor Owens will undergo with both people and need to present an acceptable performance review.

Hamerlik stated that he had been told that the increase would only occur upon the anniversary, and is pay increase now or at the time of the annual contract renewal. Mr. Gordon stated that when it’s a mid-year contract the 3.65% would be effective January 1 and step increase of 4.4% would be at anniversary date.

Hamerlik questioned the form that was sent to committee - it went from temporary probationary, change to contracted salary and then a grade and salary, and questioned whether because contracted would they go by the grade. Mr. Gordon stated he wanted to show them whre it was within the established pay
range (that it is still within those ranges) and is only on there for comparison purposes, and committee has authorization
MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 12, 1999 - Page 2

in the future to go beyond that.

Hamerlik questioned whether they were moving that this is a generic kind of motion or a yearly motion, are they or not making a motion that with a positive performance evaluation do the same for these two contracted positions in the future or is it for just one year. Mr. Gordon stated he thinks it should be brought back. Hamerlik stated there may be appropriate time for it to be more or for it to be less, and that may not be easy to justify.

Babinchak stated she had called and asked for copies of the contracts for chief of police and city planner and asked why this was not addressed in the contract. He stated that in discussions with Mr. Swanson and Mayor didn’t want to specify a step increase or any type of percentages but that could be determined on an annual basis, No. 10 is included to allow alterations to the contract when needed or to keep open ended.
Babinchak stated she thought it should be more specific because the council agreed to a contract based on information in the contract for a three-year period, and that’s where she’s having a little difficulty. Mr. Gordon stated they have the decision, but it’s not realistic to think that for three years they would keep a person at the same rate of pay and to keep that person here. Babinchak stated there are other employment contracts that have automatic increases, and stated that they are giving all employees the 3.65%, not uncomfortable with that, but as far as the step increase there are other employees within the city who have reached the maximum, and that this would be an annual thing because people do reach the maximum. Carpenter stated he doesn’t like the idea of this tied to a step increase. Hamerlik stated they should eliminate the step increase and give an increase and that’s one of the reasons they have contracts, that it’s a three-year contract and should be worded that the
contract may be for three years but salary differential is determined by the mayor and council.

Brooks moved approval of the salary increase of increase for city planner and for chief of police; motion failed for lack of a second.

Carpenter stated he felt they were put in extremely uncomfort-able position, have both gentlemen here, and this isn’t per-


MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 12, 1999 - Page 3

formance being discussed, and hope they recognize that, but would like committee vote to allocate x number of dollars for
the mayor to allocate potential raises for these positions, and come back with budget amendment for 1999 budget, but to put back to the mayor to make the decision, because difficult for committee to determine if they should get paid exact amount, and shouldn’t be tied to anything based on the steps within the pay scale. Carpenter moved that we allocate up to $7500.00 for the mayor to utilize for pay increases for these two contracted positions. Hamerlik seconded the motion.

Hamerlik asked what the 3.65% comes to for Chief Packett. Mr. Gordon stated $3200 would bring initial request of around 8%. Carpenter stated that this is more than mayor’s request, that in picking the $7500, mayor doesn’t have to spend it all, but she is as their supervisor, should make distinction and determina-tion and what each one should get and at the appropriate time during the course of the year (paid at one time either first of year or anniversary date, not split both ways). Babinchak stated she in uncomfortable giving a lump sum because $7500 is more than enough to carry the $63,192 and to a certain degree thinks it’s committee’s decision and not only mayor’s, and what the mayor and Mr. Gordon have proposed is linking it somewhat with civil service, that she would like that they authorize the 3.65% and table the so-called step increases until next meeting so have little time on the information that Mr. Gordon has presented and decide on that.

Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried, Babinchak voted against the motion.

3. Matter of release of funds budgeted for UND’s enhanced
recruitment program.
Mr. Schmisek reported that when the 1999 budget was being established, the University had come in and requested some
funding for an enhanced recruitment and retention program due to the loss of students after the flood; that council did approve that in the 1999 budget under economic development area of sales taxes in the amount of $100,000. He stated they did receive a call from UND about releasing those funds to them and they have submitted their proposal which committee received with the
agenda, and Don Piper, UND, is here if committee has questions
or clarification on what they are doing.
MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 12, 1999 - Page 4

Hamerlik raised a question re. statement on the last page, “…..fund priorities for the first year…” and that may imply that this the first of a series of years or could imply this is first year of their plan, and would like that clarified.

Don Piper, UND, stated his understanding is that after formed the enrollment management team in August have been working very hard to try to get enrollments up where think they should be. He stated that Vice Pres. Boyd was in Bismarck, otherwise would be here, and it is his understanding that the discussion from the beginning was about a several year kind of relationship with the City, has heard both 3 and 5 years. He stated the relation-ship, partnering with the City, is a very important kind of thing to foster, and would hope that it isn’t just to get the $100,000 and implement this plan and that’s the last they and the City do together. He stated that in the years he has been at the UND he has never seen the City and the University as close together as in the aftermath of the flood. He stated that what he understands to be their goal is to keep working with the City and to have City and UND see the goal of raising enroll-ments as a partnering kind of a goal. He stated he wouldn’t have understanding of what a future year funding would be, whether another $100,000 or zero dollars, but hopes the partnership will continue.

Hamerlik asked if the City doesn’t partner for the $100,000, are they prepared to pick up the rest of it, if City pulls out, where does plan go. Mr. Piper stated they are not thinking in terms of planning one year, but for the foreseeable future. He stated that legislature is in session and will have better answers to questions 3 months from now. He stated there is no budget in place that will cover what this $100,000 is intended to purchase in the plan, and if the City does not continue with that in another year, they will do what always done, scrounge around and try to find money to support this effort. He stated the recruitment and retention effort at UND is no longer an
option, can do if have money to do it; that they are still down 900+ students from where they think they ought to be, where they were in pre 1997 and President has made it very clear that they
will do whatever they can to get those enrollments back up, and
will continue with the effort to recruit and retain students, and would be nice if the money to support it from the City would continue also.

MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 12, 1999 - Page 5

Hamerlik asked what intent was of budget committee, that it is illegal to bind future councils but if it is intent. Carpenter stated that discussion was that intent was to be multi-year, that they can’t bind future councils, and would be determined each year if has been successful, and have money available in economic development, is it still a valid economic development objective, and if it is, will fund it. He stated that the value of the University and those students to the community is such that allocating some dollars out of economic development is worth-while objective, and intent was that it be multi-year but each and every year would have to be approved in the budget.
Hamerlik stated that he wasn’t speaking for a one-year or a five-year, only for clarification purposes.

Mr. Schmisek stated that the way Dr. Boyd presented to budget committee was that they would hope to come back if they need the funds requested from the City so would like City to keep in back of minds each budget year but will also understand the City’s financial position to see if feasible and possible.

Moved by Hamerlik and Carpenter to approve request. Motion carried.

Dr. Piper thanked committee for help and that it is appreciated.

4. Matter of proposed expansion for City Hall parking lot.
Mr. Carsen reported that he and Mr. Schmisek were charged with the task of looking at various alternatives to the parking expansion for City Hall about a month ago, which was triggered by an offer to sell a parcel to the City which might become a one-time opportunity and since then they have done some contacting and put together memo, and because presenting it today doesn’t mean it would have to be approved today.

He reported they looked at two alternatives for additional parking and that map sent out shows City Hall with 3 current parking lots around City Hall, and shows one proposed parking lot across University Avenue (Salvation Army site) with 36 spaces, and another on 4th Street (Lots 2, 4, 6 and 8, Blk. 10)
(corner of N. 4th St. and 4th Ave.N. with 72 spaces. He stated he took count of City employees and need for parking for current employees (part-time and full-time but not including flood-related employees); that there are currently 93 parking stalls needed for City Hall and doesn’t include flood-related employees
MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 12, 1999 - Page 6

nor does it include anything for visitor parking. He stated they have 86 stalls between the three lots closest to City Hall and if looked at sq. ft. of the building it would require 150 parking stalls, but that’s not realistic, and that in a B-4 zone not required to have x number of parking stalls but only becomes prudent to have adequate parking for employees and visitors, etc.

Site 1 (on N. 4th Street at 4th Avenue North): He stated they have site 200 ft. by 140 ft. up 4th Street and own all of that except for a 25 ft. parcel which is owned by John French, that Mr. French bought that parcel to provide parking for his building across 4th Street (purchased after the flood) and then proceeded to demolish that house and knows cost he has in the lot purchase and demolition. He's willing to sell the property to us but his main concern is to retain 4-6 parking stalls. He laid out the cost in that lot, acq. of cost between $10-15,000, concrete curb and gutter, and paving, est. cost of $98,000, and didn’t include anything for lighting, total of between $108-113,000 and would provide 72 to 80 stalls. He stated they could save considerable cost if graveled lot first with intention of paving later. (gravel may cost $5-10,000). He stated there are some drawbacks: R-4 zone and not contiguous to City Hall and in order to get approval for parking lot to serve City Hall, have to go through Planning & Zoning for that approval; and might be some resistance from property owners. He stated there is a bar across the alley and they have expressed interest in buying this land from the City for their parking lot. He stated they could also use land for moving houses in there, but some negative influence because of bar patrons parking there and breaking bottles, etc. He stated that Mr. French would like to have parking stalls for his building and could work that out with him.

Site 2 (Salvation Army site on University Avenue across from City Hall): He stated this is made up of two parcels, one is old Severson Realty building and other one Terry Anderson’s building which was sold to Salvation Army and fixed up after the
flood). Parcel B is former Severson Realty bldg. and that’s where Salvation Army has lease with an option to purchase, and that option expires 6/30/99, and could buy for about $92,000; Parcel C (office building which was rehabbed since flood), have offered building to City for $140,000, acquisition of those two

MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 12, 1999 - Page 7

parcels $225-240,000. He figured demolition of those two buildings at $30,000, concrete curb/gutter and paving at $49,000 so total for that lot $304-319,000 for about 36 spaces. He stated there are a lot of negatives with doing that lot; that it’s useable and best location but negative of tearing down two relatively good buildings for parking lot, and don’t gain lot of parking spaces. He stated there are two other parcels to the north of those 2 parcels that are available, one is for sale currently and other probably for trade.

Hamerlik stated it’s much closer to parking ramp than to use property Mr. French has, and with 36 parking spots across from Central High School, a half block farther away from there is the civic auditorium parking lot, and they didn’t consider any of the parking spaces in those in the survey. Mr. Carsen stated a portion of the civic auditorium lot closest to 2nd Ave. N. is designated for students, and there are times when no parking available; that they have some sites designated for employees in parking ramp and only handful that use them.

Hamerlik stated that in the future the civic auditorium may not need that whole lot if things go with the Aurora would have
whole lot all the time, that School may be interested in buying
that lot and have off-setting. He stated he didn’t see those lots included in the survey and that’s why raised the issue.
Babinchak stated that perhaps if civic auditorium not used, City may sell it or purchaser may need parking.

Brooks stated that there are so many things coming up, water plant, dike, etc. and at some point in time have to start prioritizing and looking at what spending everything on, and can’t rank these parking spaces real high, and can’t support any outlay of money now to purchase additional parking spaces.

Committee felt that spaces across the street from City Hall (Salvation Army site) are too expensive. Carpenter suggested they look at area where the City owns the land where fairly
reasonable cost to put parking in, so if gain 72 spaces - or other alternative uses there (Veits Hotel - sell for residen-tial) or other uses they could utilize it for vs. parking. Mr. Carsen stated they could move houses in there - historical homes
(possibly 4), but would have to buy out Mr. French. He stated there is one house on Lot 6 which is historic (rated at 2 or 3)

MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 12, 1999 - Page 8

and probably demolished but house sits in way and not totally resolved, but would be torn down.

Hamerlik questioned if it would be in the interest of Salvation Army and Anderson’s that the City make a decision on Lots B and C. Mr. Carsen stated they are waiting for a decision and need that before June; he stated he cannot recommend buying those properties as too many negatives, but would like to see them move ahead with the other site, takes our parking off the street, could open up some of the parking lot for visitor parking, sign it, etc. It was noted that they could gravel the parking lot with special permission from Planning & Zoning Comm. and also Planning would have to give authorization for the parking lot.

Dennis Potter, city planner, reported that it does require approval by the Planning & Zoning Dept. and to utilize gravel have to get a variance from the Board of Adjustments. He stated that Planning staff would recommend to the Board of Adj. or Zoning Adm. that it be a short-term one because don’t want to set the policy that the City can permanently go off and do
gravel when they are enforcing/requiring everyone else not to do that. It was noted that the parking lot lying next to the next parking lot that the Herald put in was graveled and was put in so there was a surface over the wintertime, but springtime and using DDC dollars, that will be hard-surfaced. Babinchak asked if it was possible to send this to Planning to see if give zoning for it before buying the property. Mr. Potter stated they could do that and would give an opinion.

Mr. Schmisek stated that the advantage of additional parking is that they have heard consistently about the lack of public parking, and have to take serious look at long-term impact and knows concrete expensive but if can buy some time with it and give a test period and have public parking in the one lot next to the building.

Hamerlik stated that enforcement is the way to get something through and one of our problems has to do with the number of city vehicles parked permanently in the street when meetings going on; that the other day he counted 6 city vehicles which had been sitting for several days in the parking lot; and when have meetings here can see city vehicles sitting outside taking

MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 12, 1999 - Page 9

up several spots and people trying to come in to get permits, etc. and we’re not very service-oriented when it comes to this and doesn’t do a bit of good to buy more if we don’t free up some spots and enforce it.

Hamerlik stated he would prefer to hold this matter and get answers to some of the questions raised, whether or not get a variance, zoning and take action on property across the street at later date. Mr. Carsen stated that Mr. French leases from the City a 25 ft. strip next to the lot he owns on a one-year lease and that lease expires in March of 1999, and he has called about that also. Mr. Potter stated that the planning staff if only have to do in-house, turn that in less than a week, but if have to take to Planning Commission would be first Wednesday in February; Board of Adj. meets on call.

Held in committee.

Moved by Hamerlik and Brooks to adjourn; meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk

Dated: 1/13/99.