City of Grand Forks - Print Friendly Form

Council Minutes

PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
January 7, 2002

The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in the council chambers in City Hall on Monday, January 7, 2002 at the hour of 7:00 o’clock p.m. with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken (teleconference), Kreun, Martinson - 14; absent: none.

Mayor Brown announced that anyone wishing to speak to any item may do so by being recognized prior to a vote being taken on the matter, and that the meeting is being televised.

AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS

Mayor Brown announced that Dale Sailer, accountant in the finance department, retired January 2, 2002, that Mr. Sailer worked for the City 10 years, and his primary work area was in special assessments and did an outstanding job of assisting the public in understanding some complex projects, including the flood protection project, and thanked him for his years of service.

Mayor Brown announced that Pat Morrison retired last week after 39 years of service with the City of Grand Forks, that he retired from the wastewater department and will be missed.

Mayor Brown announced that we were saddened by the untimely death of Bernie Haugland who worked for the sanitation department and our thoughts and prayers go out to his family and friends.

FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT UPDATE

Al Grasser, city engineer, briefly reviewed the update on the flood protection project:

Technical Works Update:
Corps of Engineers: Stanley Consultants submitted design on Phase II, review is underway and comments submitted by mid-January and final technical review held shortly thereafter.
Nodak Contracting is working on pump stations, Phase I, and have demolished most of the old floodwalls in the Lincoln Area.
Bids for English Coulee Diversion were opened on December 18, 2001, review has been completed and the Corps will be approving that award to Gowan Construction, low bidder, at approx. $15 million, engineer’s estimate was $19.3 million.
Negotiations have been completed with the Railroad and documents are being executed and that will allow the DeMers Avenue Railroad Bridge to be scheduled for next summer in the English Coulee Diversion project to be constructed.
City staff/Consultants update:
Gowan Construction has completed the interim levee work.
Most of the relocations are complete along the English Coulee Diversion project.
United Crane & Excavating, Inc. has completed relocations required for Phase I of the levees and have started work on relations required for Phase II.

Mr. Grasser reviewed what the individual items mean when looking at the project as a whole, and wanted council to be aware of some issues and concerns; that the English Coulee bids were bid about 10 months behind the original schedule, that the English Coulee Diversion looks to be about 3 to 4 months behind schedule - and that the closure of the English Coulee probably won’t be ready for 2003, possibly 2004; and that prediction is about 25% for and 75% against getting that work done.

Phase I of the levees was bid about 2 months behind schedule, but with the nice fall the contractor was able to make good time, and that is likely being operational for the 2003 flood fight.
Phase II is more difficult to predict, may be able to meet a shortened version of Phase II, and move more difficult phases out of that project to later phases. Providing there is funding availability may be able to bid on schedule and if lose a month or two may have lost a construction season, and trying to keep that on schedule; that last phase of substantial completion of the project was predicted for 2004, and gives that a 50-50 chance of meeting that schedule. He stated he doesn’t see any particularly easy routes where they would catch up, sees specific issues changing as they move forward, but basic issues of land acquisition and refinement of the process are going to continue.

Mr. Grasser reported that issues that staff is looking at in conjunction with the flood protection project is the greenway maintenance, looking to have some public input meetings in January on level of maintenance where possible with cost associated with that and what public would like to see in there, with cost constraints, and then come back and give council a sense of thoughts. He stated they are also looking at trying to identify the maintenance costs for the overall flood protection project because that will be a maintenance concern for the City, have walls, dikes and ditches, pump stations, etc. He stated they need to discuss how they will organize to meet those maintenance challenges, add to existing departments, create some different divisions, shift work, etc.; that once find out costs and organization, need to discuss funding.

He stated that the staff is working on plans in Phase II and in Phase I, and where can save some capital costs in the project - looking at how to maintain the basic concept of the flood protection and the greenway and where they can save money (reducing tree size and quantity, making parking lots easier to maintain), looking at on-going operation and maintenance costs. He stated they are planning to have a senior leadership group meeting next Monday, with information in packets as to discussion items, time and location.

There was some discussion by the city council - relating to difference in Gowan’s bid which was approx. $4 million under engineer’s estimate and whether in review to see whether project could increase in cost; Mr. Grasser stated that the Corps would be reviewing that bid and in their review they have not identified anything, that the contractor seems comfortable with the bid; and that relating to the acquisition of St. Anne’s property if they know where the dike will be located. Mr. Grasser stated they are still evaluating some options of a wall versus a levee and seems like the wall between St. Anne’s and the river has some significant engineering problems and is questionable. There was some discussion if the levee went behind it that the building would still be preserved and floodproofed, not used on first floor and turned into parking area, and how proceeding with negotiation for a taking if not sure what will happen there. Mr. Grasser stated they have not started negotiations for taking, that they are recognizing that is a difficult property and don’t want to leave difficult ones to the end and have spent some time on it along with RDO; that while St. Anne’s has some historical ramifications, RDO has some technical issues with where their treatment system is. There were some questions re. historic properties and if this mitigation agreement was separate from historic mitigation agreement with the State Historical Commission; Terry Hanson, Urban Development, reported there are two memorandums of understanding, one with HUD on the acquisition of property that is not part of the Corps project, the other has to do with the Corps project; but the State is involved in both memorandums but two separate funding sources; and this acquisition refers to different 14 houses. Council Member Burke asked if under the two memoranda Urban Development could provide information and status on each.

Melanie Parvey-Biby, Greenway, thanked Ben Ehreth, student at University, working on the greenway project through a co-op position at UND, and providing general information to distribute to the public on the project.

She reported they applied for a TSCP Grant and have been informed that the Transportation Appropriations Bill for 2002 has been signed by the President and they are waiting for an announcement from the Secretary of Transportation and have been working with the local NDDOT office to see if the projects they submitted, including downtown pedestrian bridge, bridges along with the Corps project and trails and trailhead facilities, are eligible for these funds; and will bring more information to the council for assistance in helping to decide how those funds are going to be spent. She reported that the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District is reviewing a grant that was submitted last year on the community green project and will be making an announcement soon. She also reviewed a schedule of upcoming meetings and events.

Council Member Burke asked if the $1 million in the Appropriations Bill for the pedestrian bridge and of that money was for use on the Grand Forks side of the river; Ms. Biby stated they are checking into because of the way the language came out of the Senate bill (North Dakota Grand Forks greenway project $1 million), and having some discussions with Congressional delegation as well as the NDDOT because the grant application was written by both cities (Grand Forks and East Grand Forks for $1 million each) and was a total of a $2 million grant, and trying to sort out if $1 million for both cities or whether they interpreted that as money to be served between the two communities on a joint project. Mr. Burke stated that the application was for downtown non-motorized and asked if the money could be reprogrammed for use on other bridges; or if it could be used as our match for the Corps part of the funding on the recreation features. Ms. Biby stated it was a possibility and is something they are checking on because the Corps requires a 50% local match to their recreation portion of the project, and would need to get approval to use federal dollars as a match for federal dollars. It was noted that with regard to the $150,000 grant application to Garrison Diversion Conservancy District was tabled, that the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District only had about $127,000 to give out that year, and the City asked them to reconsider our grant application and determine an appropriate amount that they felt was appropriate for the project; they are reviewing that; and if we receive the grant it would go toward the community green.

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE RELATING TO TATOOING
AND BODY ART

The staff report from the health department relating to an ordinance - tattooing and body art (Article 10, 13-1001-13-1021), with recommendation to approve tattooing and body art ordinance change.

Don Shields, health department, reported they met with the city attorney regarding a number of items that needed correction, including increase of the fee; that there are two other areas regarding the retail establishments where could continue to do ear piercing of the lower ear lobe and his department will take on the responsibility to go out and make sure everyone of those establishments has a copy of the new ordinance and educate them so that they know what they are limited to in terms of that type of a procedure which is a very low risk. He stated that concerning the requirement that is in the proposed ordinance for a separate facility entrance, that they discussed cross-contamination and the department reviewed those and amenable to the suggestion concerning leaving that in the Code but delegating responsibility for waiver ability to the department to make sure that they had appropriate mixed use of a joint area.

Mr. Swanson, city attorney, reported he met with the health department and one of the suggestions that his office made with regard to Section 13-1013 was to remove the requirement of an exterior entrance but to draft it in such a fashion so that any separation between the area in which body art is occurring and any other facility or service has to be such that it cannot cause even a potential contamination of equipment, work services or work area; and that it would be the health department to determine what risk there is for cross-contamination and what means to alleviate that. He stated that the appeal process already exists under the procedural resolution that was adopted last year. He stated that the other items his office recommended were not particularly significant but in Section 13-1009 they included specific authorization for the health department to inspect any premises under which an application is being considered; and gave authority so they could condition a license either on a repair or some issue which may become necessary for purposes of contamination or sanitary needs. He stated they have included a continued requirement under unlawful practices of Section 13-1011, that no person shall perform body art in an establishment which is not maintained in a clean and sanitary condition in good repair, and was implicit in there but now have expressly stated that; and required that the operators have to comply with professional standards under Section 13-1017; and proposing that the penalty clause fall in line with our other licensing penalties, that when this was drafted it included a fine and imprisonment for up to thirty days, all of our licensing requirements have removed the jail time to remove it from the category of a criminal offense, and if want to keep it a criminal offense that if there is a challenge, you would be required to provide legal counsel for an indigent, request for a jury and carries quite a bit of additional requirements that would not if go to a fine but proposing that fine be applied on a per day basis as opposed to a straight fine - that is consistent with normal licensing requirements. He stated that the other discussion with the health department was to allow minimal or allow certain retail sales provided they were not a sales of certain items that would be causal of potential contamination of work product equipment or areas. He stated the last provision was that in the professional standards that no person could perform body art on any individual that was intoxicated under the influence of narcotics or drugs or incapacitated or incompetent and what they had omitted was that they had no prohibition from the operator being under the influence of alcohol or drugs and have now included that.

Council Member Martinson asked for explanation of why the operator needs to be certified in CPR; Mr. Shields stated there are issues associated with either allergies to the paints or the procedure that is being done where someone may have a reaction to that; and stated that this is a very restrictive ordinance.

There was some discussion as to the matter of an exterior entrance or not and Mr. Swanson stated that if the health department can show that either the activity or the premises that is associated with the location where this is being conducted, poses a threat of cross-contamination you’re in a stronger position to require whether it be some other form of entrance or exits than to give authority and discretion to waive that; and thinks the concern is not so much the exterior entrance but rather the concern is potential cross-contamination issues. Mr. Shields stated that it is their position that the business should prove that it is a safe environment and meets those minimum standards as opposed to the City to prove that it is not a safe environment and would be their intent to put the burden of proof on the business through the Code vs. the other way around, and is a matter of policy and how the council would want to approach it.

After further discussion it was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Klave to give preliminary approval to the ordinance. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Brooks, Hamerlik, Burke - 10; voting “nay”: Council Members Lunak, Martinson, Bjerke, Stevens - 4. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

Council Member Kreun introduced an ordinance entitled “An ordinance repealing and re-enacting Article 10 of Chapter XIII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987 as amended relating to tattooing and body art”, which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.

ADOPT RESOLUTION VACATING DRAINAGE EASEMENT
IN BLOCK 1, SHADY RIDGE ESTATES SECOND ADDITION

The staff report from the Planning Commission relating to the public hearing re. petition from Lavonne K. Adams to vacate a 30-foot wide drainage easement, 15 feet on each side of the lot line common to Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Shady Ridge Estates Second Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota (located east of Adams Drive midway between Shady Ridge Court), with recommendation for approval of the petition to vacate a 30-foot wide drainage easement 15 ft. on each side of the lot line common to Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Shady Ridge Estates Second Addition to the city of Grand Forks.

The city auditor reported that pursuant to instructions by the city council after having received a petition to vacate the 30-foot wide drainage easement, 15 feet on each side of the lot line common to Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Shady Ridge Estates Second Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota (located east of Adams Drive midway between Shady Ridge Court, the required legal notice had been published calling for a public hearing to be held this evening, and further that no protests or grievances had been filed with the auditor’s office.

Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed.

It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Klave that we do hereby find and determine an insufficiency of protest to the proposed vacation. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

Council Member Kreun introduced the following resolution which was presented and read: Document No. 8122 - Resolution.

It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Klave that this resolution be and is hereby adopted. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3911, AMEND ZONING MAP
TO INCLUDE WITHIN SOUTHERN ESTATES PUD, CONCEPT
DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 1, ALL OF
COLUMBIA PARK 24TH AND 25TH ADDITIONS; ALL OF
SOUTHERN ESTATES FIRST ADDITION, AND ALL OF UNPLATTED
PORTIONS OF WEST HALF OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER AND
ALL OF SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF OF SECTION 21-151-50

An ordinance entitled “An ordinance to amend the Zoning Map of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, to rezone and exclude from the Southern Estates PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, and to include within Southern Estates PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 1, all of Columbia Park 24th and 25th Additions; all of Southern Estates First Addition to the city of Grand Forks, ND, and all of the unplatted portions of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter and all of the Southwest Quarter of Section 21-151-50 to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota”, which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on November 19, 2001, and upon which public hearing was continued until this evening.

The city auditor reported that the required legal notice had been published call for a public hearing on this matter and further that to date no protests or grievances had been filed with his office.

Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none.

The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to the public hearing re. matter of request from Steve Adams on behalf of Art Greenberg for preliminary approval of an ordinance to rezone and exclude from the Southern Estates Planned Unit Development and to include in Southern Estates Planned Unit Development, Amendment No. 1, all of blocks 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7, Columbia Park 26th Addition, with recommendation for final approval of the ordinance.

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Lunak that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

Upon call for the question of adoption of this ordinance and upon roll call vote, the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 14; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the ordinance adopted.

ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3912, RELATING TO WARD MAPS

An ordinance entitled “An ordinance repealing and re-enacting Section 4-0102 relating to ward maps”, which had been introduced and passed on its first meeting on December 17, 2001, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.

Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none.

It was moved by Council Member Lunak and seconded by Council Member Kreun to approve the ordinance. Carried 13 votes affirmative; Council Member Bjerke voted against the motion.

Upon call for the question of adoption and upon voice vote, the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 13; voting “nay”: Council Member Bjerke - 1. Mayor Brown declared the ordinance adopted.

CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING
OF ORDINANCE ALLOWING TATTOOING AND BODY
PIERCING STUDIO AS PERMITTED USE WITHIN A B-2 ZONE TO
JANUARY 22, 2002

An ordinance entitled “An ordinance amending the Grand Forks City Code of 1987 as amended, Chapter XVIII, Land Development Code, Article 2, Zoning; Section 18-0215, B-2 (Shopping Center) District, subsection (2) Uses Permitted”, which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on October 15, 2001, and upon which public hearing had been continued. The city auditor reported that this item was missed in the official publication of the agenda, and it was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Klave to continue the public hearing and second reading of the ordinance until Tuesday, January 22, 2002. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

AUTHORIZE ACCEPTANCE OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
` FUNDS AND PERMIT FIRE DEPARTMENT TO PARTNER
WITH STATE AS A REGIONAL RESPONDER FOR WEAPONS
OF MASS DESTRUCTION INCIDENTS

A staff report from the fire department relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction Grant funds ($200,000), with recommendation to allow acceptance of Department of Justice funds and permit fire department to partner with State as a regional responder for weapons of mass destruction incidents.

It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

APPROVE LEASE OF LOTS A AND B, BLOCK 1, UNIVERSITY
PARK ADDITION

The staff report from the city assessor’s office relating to land lease of Lots A and B, Block 1, University Park Addition (2403 University Avenue) to Jerry and Teresa Harmon, with recommendation for approval of the lease.

It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Kerian to approve the recommendation with the lease to commence on January 1, 2002 and to continue thereafter, ending on December 31, 2002, with the option that the lease may be continued for similar terms during the calendar year 2003 and 2004, rental of the property is for the sum of $1.00 payable annually. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

APPROVE AGREEMENT FOR EMPLOYMENT AT WILL
FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SUPERINTENDENT

The staff report from the director of public works relating to the wastewater treatment plant superintendent contract, with approval of the wastewater treatment plant superintendent contract.

It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

APPROVE SECOND AMENDMENT TO CITY OF GRAND
FORKS RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN

The staff report from the finance department relating to the second amendment to the City of Grand Forks, North Dakota retirement savings plan, with recommendation to approve the second amendment as proposed: Document No. 8123 - Second Amendment to Retirement Savings Plan.
It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

HOLD MATTER OF PLEDGED COLLATERAL REPORT
TO JANUARY 22, 2002

The staff report relating to the pledged collateral report, with appointment of city council member to review and approve pledged collateral report, was held until January 22, 2002.

AUTHORIZE WORKING GROUP TO WORK WITH
STARLITES CENTER RE. CIVIC AUDITORUM PROPOSAL

The staff report from the administrative coordinator relating to civic auditorium proposal, with recommendation to review the proposal submitted by Starlites Center for the Arts, and if appropriate use of the civic auditorium to direct the administrative coordinator, the finance director and the city attorney to finalize the lease/purchase details.

Mr. Duquette, administrative coordinator, recommended that the city council authorize the working group that was appointed by the mayor last week to begin working with Starlites to develop a lease, reviewing their business plan in detail, financial background work with the group and report back to the city council on the progress of that procedure. Group includes Council Members Christensen and Martinson, the administrative coordinator, finance director and city attorney.

It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Gershman that the recommendation be approved, post-haste.

Council Member Bjerke asked if discussion would include the matter of property taxes; Council Member Martinson stated that would be a part of the task force’s job to come back with a proposal re. property taxes, special assessments, etc. It was noted by Council Member Glassheim that what goes into the amount of the rent is 100% to the City and what goes into the property tax goes 25% to the City and should be noted as discussing this. It was also noted that as long as the City is the landowner the City is paying 100% of the specials; and Council Member Burke stated he would have liked to have a letter of agreement or memorandum of understanding that would outline the main hurdles that we identified last week; Mr. Duquette stated he would recommend that we move cautiously with any letters of understanding or memorandum of agreement until we have taken the time to go through and will work diligently to make that happen.

Council Member Bjerke stated that the reason the property tax issue is important is that only one-quarter of it goes to the City, the more buildings this council takes off the tax rolls is less money for the schools, park, and the County, and they raise the mill levy; and should make sure we don’t affect other taxing entities.

Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 14 votes affirmative.

DEFEAT MOTION TO RESCIND COUNCIL ACTION
TAKEN ON AUGUST 21, 2000 RELATING TO ADDITIONAL
HEIGHT ON PERMANENT FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT
FLOODWALLS
The staff report from the engineering department relating to matter of additional height on permanent flood protection project floodwalls, with original recommended council action to reduce the additional height on the floodwalls from 3 feet to 2 feet.

Council Member Kreun asked for clarification on the motion for rescission. Mr. Swanson stated that assuming that a motion is made to rescind the prior action on August 21, 2000, a yes vote would mean to revoke or rescind prior action, a no vote would mean to maintain the action previously taken by the city council. Council Member Kreun moved to not rescind the prior action of the council on August 21, 2000. Mr. Swanson stated there is nothing in our City Code nor is there anything in Roberts Rules that says you don’t make a negative motion, it is not entirely the parliamentarian acceptable method, typically you want to vote on an affirmative motion of that nature. Council Member Kreun withdrew his motion.

Council Member Brooks moved to rescind the prior council action taken on August 21, 2000 regarding the floodwall. Council Member Bjerke seconded the motion

Council Member Burke stated he had hoped to have this rescission vote which would get us back to the time before we had the confusion over the funding issues and the cost estimates for the dike, and could then address it; if the rescission motion were to pass, he would make the motion to increase the floodwalls to 2 feet rather than 3 feet; and if that were to pass, that’s where they would be; if it were to fail, the proponents of the 3 ft. increase could then make that motion. He stated that the point is to have a clear vote in light of the cost estimates that are current, and should have been before the council before the November 5, 2001 vote.

Council Member Brooks called for the question on the motion to rescind the previous action on the floodwall height from the August 21, 2000 meeting.

Upon call for the question on the motion to rescind the previous action on the floodwall height from the August 21, 2000 meeting and upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Member Lunak, Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Burke, Glassheim - 6; voting “nay”: Council Members Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson, Hamerlik - 8. Mayor Brown declared the motion failed.

DEFEAT MOTION TO RESCIND COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN
ON NOVEMBER 5, 2001 RELATING TO FLOODWALL
AESTHETIC DESIGN

The staff report from the engineering department relating to matter of floodwall aesthetic design, with original recommended council action to approve the aesthetic treatments requested by neighborhoods at an estimated cost of $50,000 to be paid out of flood protection betterment funds.

Council Member Kreun moved to rescind the prior action of the city council on November 5, 2001, regarding floodwall aesthetics. Council Member Christensen seconded the motion.

Upon roll call on the motion to rescind the action taken on November 5, 2001 which approved aesthetic treatments to floodwalls, the following voted “aye”: Council Members Lunak, Martinson, Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Burke - 6; voting “nay”: Council Members Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman - 8. Mayor Brown declared the motion failed.

APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT, FIRE DEPARTMENT
A staff report from the fire department relating to budget amendment for fire department, $83,000, with recommendation to approve budget amendment in order to complete smoke detector program already approved and funded in 2001.

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Kreun to approve the recommendation. Carried 13 votes affirmative; Council Member Bjerke voted against the motion.

DEFEAT MOTION THAT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEET
ON LAST MONDAY OF MONTHS WITH FIVE MONDAYS

A staff report from the mayor’s office relating to holding committee of the whole meeting on the last Monday of months that have five Mondays was presented.

It was moved by Council Member Burke and seconded by Council Member Bjerke that in the months with five Mondays that the second committee of the whole meeting be on the fifth Monday.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that since you can call in by phone in event there is a meeting and can vote, that we leave it flexible and defeat the motion so that we can have a committee of the whole, or regular meeting or not meet at all, and change makes it more difficult for the people, and should leave it as it is.

Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Kerian, Bjerke, Stevens, Burke - 4; voting “nay”: Council Members Christensen, Klave, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson, Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak - 10. Mayor Brown declared the motion was defeated.

APPROVE APPLICATION FOR FY 2003 SECTION 5309
EARMARK AND TO INCLUDE PROJECT IN THE 2003 TIP

The staff report from the public transportation department relating to request for 5309 Capital Assistance FY 2003 funds, with recommendation for approval to apply for FY 2003 Section 5309 earmark and include project in the 2003 TIP.

Council Member Christensen stated that we are just receiving the money, not committing to the buses we’re going to buy, and have established a policy that we have a resolution and a sense of this council to down-size the size of the buses, that once we get the money to buy some buses would give us chance to show citizens that we are working affirmatively to reduce the size of the city’s bus fleet. He asked what we need to do to include in this that when we receive the money that we’re not obligating ourselves to buy a certain class or size of bus. Mr. Feland reported that included in the application is that we are going to get a low-floor bus, that’s one of the concerns re. policies but the long range transportation plan does have in the document itself that we’re seeking to get low-floor coaches to replace our current fleet, and one of the reasons for doing that was that the goal was to migrate everyone onto the fixed route and the low-floor coaches were seen as the best way to do that; and that’s the only thing he can see in policy that the council has passed, is the low-floor coach. He reported this is a smaller bus but only concern he had is that the city council did pass a policy that we would seek to get low-floor coaches for the fixed routes, and if want a policy debate thinks we should bring that back in front of the city council to discuss the validity of that. Mr. Christensen stated that was 5 or 6 years ago and is concerned about what the application says so that we’re not committed to buying these buses when we want something smaller, something along the line of the senior citizen bus but not as big as we have now, and what we can do to make sure that happens. Mr. Feland stated if that is a sense of the city council, that we can make a very general statement in the grant application that we were going to get two buses and 2 multiple low vans so not defining that it’s 28 ft and low floor transit coach; and we would still have to look at the long range transportation plan and bring Mr. Haugen in for discussion because it will come up with the trolley again where it wasn’t specifically a low-floor transit coach. It was noted this money won’t be available until 2003.

It was moved by Council Member Christensen and seconded by Council Member Kerian that we approve application to include 2 buses and 2 multiple-low vans.

Council Member Klave stated that 5 or 6 years ago part of what was discussed was that that they wanted to get smaller buses and part of the discussion was the low-floor buses for wheelchair access because of discussion whether or not we were going to have dial-a-ride, and if dial-a-ride was gone then would have the buses to accommodate that; it appears that dial-a-ride is not going away, and perhaps need to readdress that, and motion is appropriate - what wanted to accomplish 5 or 7 years ago is still there - smaller buses but new factors coming into play.

Council Member Burke asked if this matter has been reviewed by MPO staff and have an understanding with them so we’re not going to have this back before us; Mr. Feland reported MPO has reviewed and in committee action to make the appropriate amendments to the 2003 TIP which is the Transportation Improvement Plan that will go through the MPO, that Mr. Foster has had discussions with MPO staff.

Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 12 votes affirmative; Council Members Bjerke and Lunak voted against the motion.

APPROVE EXTENSION OF EAST GRAND FORKS
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE CONTRACT

A staff report from the public transportation department relating to request for approval of extension of the East Grand Forks transportation service contract, with recommendation for approval of the extension for the East Grand Forks transportation service contract.

Council Member Burke reported that we are being asked to approve a contract, and that we can amend the contract and would be what the two parties agree to. Mr. Feland reported that they would bring this back to the city council at the second committee of the whole meeting and want to have some time to discuss it with the City of East Grand Forks before changing anything. He stated his goal is to approve this contract and at some point in the future if want to amend this contract, do at that time. The term of this contract is for one year, from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002. Council Member Burke moved to table this matter; Council Member Stevens seconded the motion. Upon voice vote, the motion failed.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Christensen to approve the recommendation as stated. Carried 12 votes affirmative, Council Members Bjerke and Stevens voted against the motion.

APPROVE REQUEST FOR FUNDING FOR MARKETPLACE
OF IDEAS/MARKETPLACE FOR KIDS
The staff report from the office of urban development relating to request for city funding from Marketplace of Ideas/Marketplace for Kids, with recommendation to approve funding for Marketplace of Ideas/Marketplace for Kids event in the amount of $30,000, to be paid out of Fund 2163.

Council Member Burke stated that the original plan was to have this come before the Events Grant Committee however that committee meeting was cancelled; council received the request one week before the event, difficult to ask for that amount of money and not from any line item, and event is going on regardless, and moved that we grant $10,000 for this event and that the money be taken from the $100,000 line item for events grants. Council Member Brooks seconded the motion.

Council Member Gershman stated this is an exceptional opportunity for the city of Grand Forks and would like to thank Senator Conrad for bringing it here, taking it from Bismarck to bring it to our facility, and part of his motive is to celebrate the success we’ve had in Grand Forks on our recovery and to celebrate the success of the Alerus; that the reason the special events meeting was not held was because we would have made the decision to give money from that fund prior to seeing all of the other applications, and there was a decision at that point to try to find another route. This is economic development in all senses of the word, not only for the city but for the state and the region, even into Minnesota which we depend on too; that it is important to support this and would like to see this motion defeated, and amended the motion to support the $30,000 from the fund identified for Marketplace with funding from Economic Development Fund. Council Member Christensen seconded the amendment.

There was some discussion as to the balance in the 2163 fund; Mr. Hanson stated he believed it was actually in excess of $2 million. Mayor Brown stated by the event being held here it allows our community leaders the chance to attend and shows our commitment to state-wide economic development and feels very positive about this.

Upon call for the question on the amendment and upon voice vote, the motion carried 12 votes affirmative, Council Members Bjerke and Burke voting against the motion.

Upon call for the question on the motion as amended and upon roll call vote, the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Stevens, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 12; voting “nay”: Council Members Bjerke, Burke - 2. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

APPROVE MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 2001 AND
DECEMBER 3, 2001

Typewritten copies of the minutes of the city council meetings held on November 19, 2001 and December 3, 2001 were presented and read. It was moved by Council Member Bjerke and seconded by Council Member Martinson that the minutes be approved as read. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

COUNCIL MEMBER BAKKEN EXCUSED

APPROVE BILL LISTING

Vendor Payment Listing No. 02-01 dated January 7, 2002 and totaling $3,231,135.75 were presented and read along with Estimate Summaries for Flood in the amount of $5,611.50 and Regular Estimate Summary in the amount of $3,917,492.34. It was moved by Council Member Lunak and seconded by Council Member Martinson that these bills be allowed and that the city auditor be authorized to issue warrants in payment of the same. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Kreun, Martinson - 13; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried and the bills ordered paid.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS