Council Minutes

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Monday, February 25, 2002 - 7:00 p.m.


The city council met as the Committee of the whole on Monday, February 25, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with President Gershman presiding. Present at roll call were: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Kreun, Martinson - 11; absent: Council Members Burke, Lunak, Bakken - 3.

President Gershman announced that when addressing the committee to please come forward to use the microphone for the record, and advised that the meeting is being televised live and taped for later broadcast.

President Gershman stated many people enjoyed Dave Barry's article in the paper, we're having a little fun with that and he's having a little fun with us and another article next week. He thanked everybody who was involved in the State Hockey Tournament in Grand Forks, record breaking - Saturday night game 9300 - and congratulations to our local teams who did very well and congratulations to Grafton/Park River for their victory. He stated the Ag Expo at the Alerus Center drew thousands of people this weekend, another success; and we have a flood flight open house at the Herald Community Room, 4:00 p.m. on Thursday and will be informational for citizens interested.

2.1 Release of funds budgeted in 2002 for UND Enrollment Grant.
Council Member Hamerlik stated that there are some things that pertain to this that if they develop in such a way it maybe necessary on Monday to ask for a deferring of that item. Council Member Bjerke stated there is a fair amount of money that could be trimmed from the city budget and UND's budget much larger than ours and believes some money could come out of their own sources to pay for this, and doesn't think its the role of the City to take $100,000 of taxpayers money to recruit students, and if UND needs any assistance in finding money he would offer his services in that way. Council Member Martinson stated this has been in place for 3 years, and asked how much money is in the UND Alumni Foundation account and also in the Foundation account and would like that information. He stated we can find these hundreds of thousands of dollars for these kinds of projects, but concern that we cannot find enough money to put on a Christmas party for 500 employees that work for the City of Grand Forks.

Dr. Robert Boyd, Vice President for Student and Outreach Services, thanked council for considering their request and appreciate it very much, that its been a partnership that the UND finds very valuable, tried to fulfill theexpectations that you have of us in incorporating these dollars in the past and believe they have fulfilled those expectations and have been a good partner; that last fall they had an increase of almost 7%, 11,764 students; and this is done with a tremendous amount of hard work and is done because of partnerships like the one they have with the City and with other entities. This spring they had a record enrollment 11,224 students, this has happened because everyone has worked hard because of the wonderful resources available and while the City was providing with resources so was the University, and as early as 2 weeks ago the University just added another position to their student academic services portion of their office, which is the advisement part because of the retention that is so necessary, so the commitment continues to be on the part of the University and that is consistent and on-going dollars that they have contributed; and are here to say thank you for the partnership and are hoping that the City will be able to provide them with these dollars and partnership will continue one they will find valuable.

Council Member Brooks stated this was a tremendous investment and numbers there to show us that. Council Member Glassheim stated this is some of the best investment money we've made from financial standpoint, and with new people in town and amounts spent in town, and for $100,000 investment good idea in addition to the partnership.

Alice Hoffert, Associate Vice President for Enrollment Management, stated they take their pledge to the City very seriously, that she had been involved with these funds since its inception, had a commitment to expend these funds only on a one-time basis, and any expenditures they've made have used these funds to pilot certaina ctivities, efforts aimed at recruitment and retention, depending on the outcomes of those pilots have secured other sources of funding, generally the Alumni Assn. and Foundation and have been very generous to our efforts as well as using insitutional funds, and continue that commitment to the City and will honor and fund only those projects on a one-time only basis and if find they have value and merits then the institution will fund those from other sources and do not ask the City to provide them on-going operating kinds of funds in their recruitment and retention efforts, fund that let them try some things to see if they can increase the number of studewnts but the quality of students and are proud not only of new students but of their academic potential; and funding provided gives them the opportunity to try some things, look at different ways of recruiting and to assess that and whether a project they should continue to fund; fund projects that work, use City funds on a one-time only basis after which time they secure other sources of funding.

2.2 Property tax exemption pursuant to NDCC Chapter 40-57.1 (expanding business) by MnDAK Concrete, Inc., 5000 DeMers Avenue._________________________________
Council Member Kreun stated they are doing is to determine feasibility of an exemption, and if do to establish a date for the public hearing, not determining the exemption at this time; and stated that Concrete, Inc. has been in Grand Forks for many years and been a good corporate citizen, donated to our economic development corporation and to other facets in the community, and never asked for any other type of assistance, been growing in the community and this business starts their employees between $9 and $10/hour and give a full benefit package and those are kinds of corporate citizens that we want, and those are kinds of criteria that he looks for to see if they are continuing to do that and if have the ability to go forward, and have to take those factors into consideration.

Council Member Christensen questioned if they should set a tentative public hearing on this to move this forward so that applicant can make plans accordingly as they want to get going this spring. Mr. Swanson, city attorney, stated that this body has adopted a resolution that prohibits you from making motions or taking votes, would have to recess and go into session as a council meeting and rules require unanimous consent. Jim Melland, Economic Dev. Corp., thinks there is a 30-day period between setting date and when public hearing is held, two notices published; that it is time sensitive but if official action is taken next Monday and that would work for the company. Council Member Christensen stated he thinks this is the type of development that the tax exemption is designed for and as part of the economic development, first is to grow your own and this is primar reason what want to get done in this community is to help those who are still here expand and grow. He stated as a technicality in the ordinance that have an ex officio person from the School Board help with the negotiations and run this by Dr. Sanford or president of the School Board and comply with the statute. Mr. Melland stated he would do that.
Council Member Hamerlik stated in the past that he doesn't recall 100% exemption for 5 years, was a graduated scale. The city auditor stated that in the past is a 100% 80%-60-40-20 declining scale over 5 years. Council Member Glassheim stated the reason for that is that want to get some money into city coffers that everyone else is paying and in many case our deferring taxes is not the deciding factor as to whether something will be built, and whether want to give up $57,000/year for 5 years is something to weigh, and with the pressing needs for income, wonder if go 100%-80-60-40-20 or go 60% for 5 years so that money would start coming in from the building to help the rest of the town, but still substantial assistance to the company- have to weigh for every expansion and deferring 2/3rds of a mill for every expansion, need the income to help the whole city grow.

2.3 Contingency CDBG funds.
Council Member Bjerke stated this also relates to item 2.11, stated there is $96,000 for Hwy. Users miney in this project and $76,000 in CDBG, and if more local money in this, sand if took the CDBG money we would be replacing the Hwy. Users money - that we could take the $73,188 and use it on the road projoect and free up Hwy. Users money which could be used on another road project. He stated in the survey report there is dissatisfaction with the condition of our streets, and if took this money and replaced Hwy. Users we could get two roads fixed and have a chance to respond to the citizens survey report, that this project would benefit entire city because we can get two roads fixed rather than one and good use for this money.

Council Member Christensen asked which stretch of city highway would he suggest for the $73.000 that will benefit all the citizens because the $73,000 will do several blocks of overlay in a community, and that he had suggested that the money be used to fund city-wide storefront rehab program in other parts of the city and perhaps have some citizens apply for some money to upgrade some of their storefronts.

Council Member Kreun stated if the $73,000 in CDBG funding and wouldn't it be put towards this project and wouldn't be able to do more of the streets but reduce the cost of Hwy. Users funds. use the $73,000 for this project and off-set the Hwy. Users funds and that money could also be used for additional highway repairs. Mr. Kreun stated they should also look at the second tier funding of the projects that were there, they have made application, met criteria and in place and did say that we were going to if monies left over to go to the next step and process that we would do that, and this would be changing our process on how using that money, but believes that anyone of the three suggestions meets qualified use of that money.

Council Member Kerian stated that in the second tier, one is affordable housing programs was something that citizens felt we needed to address, that she likes the idea of trying to look at how we can do some rehab throughout the city, when we look at some of the areas downtown, good benefit from that and other parts of town - South Washington in which there could be some improvements to invite people into those areas - there are couple of good options to consider - streets are important but have funds in Hwy. Users yet that we have not used and could use this year.

Council Member Bjerke asked if it is the role of the government to fix a road or to fix up the front of somebody's privately owned business - can use monies for roadwork and opportunity we have to do something different.

Council Member Klave stated all three have potential, that he likes the idea of citywide storefront rehabilitation program but when use CDBG funds there are some limitations that go with it and downtown qualifies because of the low to mod income and when expand to the rest of the community, how would that work or have to revise this so more of the businesses would be allowed to use it or end up in limited districts again. Terry Hanson, Urband Development, there are three national objectives for CDBG funds - has to benefit low and moderate income people, prevention or elimination of slum and blight or urgent need - urgent need seldom used but Grand Forks was able to use that after flood for supplemental grant, and in the past have used the prevention or elimination of slum or blight and that is the category of national eligiblity that the storefront proogram falls under; the downtown area of the city, both residential and commercial, is in a designated slum and blight area and done by study that the City has done in the past; in order to take these funds elsewhere within the community and do storefront programs, would have to designate a small area, small as the storefront, as a spot blighted area - done on an individual basis of each application.

Council Member Brooks stated we are looking for four possibilities for these dollars - and fourth possibility would be to leave the money in a contingency for a time being - that the storefront rehab will take some work to see what we can do there, sees South Washington, Gateway Drive area, have addressed downtown, to see where the dollars could go, but affordable housing program would take some work to see what we would have to do with those dollars and would lean towards putting those dollars in a contingency fund until they can explore those two possibilities and bring a plan forward.

Mr. Hanson stated putting these funds or allowing these funds to go into the second tier, playground enhancements is a project is the first of the second tier and that's a $30,000 allocation to the purchase of playground equipment - affordable housing program and what the committee and council approved was that those funds would actually be distributed between two affordable housing programs that were approved in a CDBG funding process; this would increase those dollar amounts, and those programs are set up and were funded, these would be additional funds. He stated that with regard to the storefront program, would be a storefront program just as the one we have carried on, same type of project and only establish the spot of blighted area on a spot blight basis rather than on an area basis and those applications would come before this body for approval - could do a city-wide on a spot blighted basis. The areas he was considering was South Washington, North Washington, east Gateway and west Gateway, the primary arterial streets of the city that haven't received any rehab money in the past that are aging and could use some of these funds.

There was a question if do storefront rehab, to leverage dollars on a 2 or 3 to 1 match; Mr. Hanson stated that the current program requires a dollar for dollar match - could expand that.

Council Member Stevens stated that what Mr. Bjerke suggested was to take the CDBG funds and use for milling of University Avenue, and that would be freeing up Highway Users funds and if Highway Users funds dedicated to only the repair of streets, or can it be used for storefronts, etc. Mr. Hanson stated if you brought the Hwy. Users funds out of that fund and into the general fund, could allocate anyway you want - and asked where would you use Hwy. Users funds and where use CDBG funds - they are directed by the regulations that CDBG funds can only be used for certain national objectives sand within each one there are certain eligible projects that can be funded - the overlay of the streets in the University area is one of those projects, but can also fund the affordable housing projects with CDBG funds - and in the past the City has not used any of its own funds for those projects - can fund the storefront rehab with these funds and in the past the City has not used any of its own funds for those projects - so CDBG funds used for a lot of projects that typically are not funded with the City dollars but with federal dollars that come through CDBG program.

The city auditor stated that Hwy. User funds come from gas tax and there are restrictions on those that they can only be used for highway and street maintenance and repair; we are allowed to transfer money into our general fund because we have a street department that does street maintenance and repair; wouldn't be able to take those funds and use them for storefronts.

Council Member Martinson stated that in the low to moderate income program, the down payment assisstance program, these funds could be used for that. Mr. Hanson stated that is the second tier affordable housing program, when distributed between the two affordable housing programs, one is rehab. of affordable housing or low to moderate income housing and the program is carried on by the Community Action Agency, half would go to that agency and other half would go to Urban Development for down payment and closing cost assistance program. Mr. Martinson stated they talk about getting more homeownership in our city, getting young people housed and on the tax rolls, that a $2500 max for downtpayment assistance and closing costs, could help 29 young families with that $73,000, and that is something to consider very seriously.

Council Member Klave asked on storefront scenario, do we have to establish the blighted areas or can we let the applications come in and make the determination that is a blighted area. Mr. Hanson stated we would have an application process first and then determine; and would recommend that an area of eligible applicants be designated for this amount of funding that we wouldn't run a lot of business through a process where funding very limited.

Council Member Christensen stated there are several items before us that we should consider - one maybe a contingency for a time until determine which programs - and suggested that we have $4 or $5 million dollars that will be coming back in from the flood loans and recycling of this money and why not consider thinking about a storefront program for N. and S. Washington Streets and Gateway area and have $1 million of our CDBG money that's coming in from the flood and have a program ready to go in 2003 with a one for one match or two for one match, but if talking about doing the most good for the citizens, that is something he would like to see begin working on, maybe a task force - and with that money coming through and recycling of the money at current interest rates, could do a lot of good for the community as far as dressing up these areas, not saying anything wrong with anybody's property but suggesting that we could help people dress it up; and would like to work on that if inclined to appoint a task force at some point to begin thinking about that because a lot of us don't understand what we can do wioth the CDBG fund that is coming in now from the people who are paying their loans, starting in June of next year. President Gershman stated he would defer to the mayor on appointing that committee, and asked Mr. Duquette to take that up with the mayor to see what he thinks of that.

2.4 Greenway Restoration Plan.
Council Member Bjerke asked if we have met the local match. Melanie Parvey-Biby, greenway coordinator, stated they have met a percentage of the local match, depends on how much we want to spend on restoration activities, but only asking for tonight is to obligate those funds and met as an in-kind match. Council Member Bjerke stated that maintenance costs are required for the first few years when area becoming established, and asked if more than normal maintenance of an area and what that is. Ms. Biby stated there are costs associated with implementing the restoration, just depends on what type of restoration activities we did - if did grass planting or tree planting but maintence required with each of those activites for the first few years - but probably not more than what spending in that area now. She stated in some of the areas they've looked at would reduce it over the long term - that they took 14 acres and looked at it and if did prairie restoration over an average of ten years, would have spent about $40,000 less than what spend in a 10-year period of mowing that area - there are costs associated with implementing the restoration of the first few years - need to cut, spray, etc. but after it is established restoration sites majority of costs would be going in and cleaning up debris, trash or flood debris. Council Member Kerian stated the wildlife, birds, flowers can come back but one concern is that many remember the DeMers Avenue/Columbia Road patches that finally got mowed and would there be any problems with maintenance as they go into this, and would need to happen for people to support this. Ms. Biby stated it would be essential to make any of the restoration sites desirable to the community and have discussed how they can work with the neighborhood as well as with groups that want the restored areas for the natural aspects of birding, etc. and one thing at Columbia overpass is that they mowed the area around it so that it didn't look weedy - another important thing is signage - to let people know why the area is like it is and not leaving in a natural state to let the weeds grow - there is a time period that it is going to take some time to get areas established but once established and taking care of those.

2.5 Greenway Maintenance Concept Plan.
Gerry Nies, 1815 University Avenue, representing a diverse group of people, two specifically are the Horticultural Society and the Grand Cities Birding Society - these two groups have not worked together in the past but see here something that both of them can really build on and make work and be something for the city. He stated he uses the greenway - cross country skied and birded on the greenway, and a place for peace and quiet and sees opportunity to do something that is really special, eco-tourism and people do travel to see birds, etc. and Grand Forks in unbelievable site for birding - prairie birds, waterfowl, and can use this as a point to start from and also have a site that they can go and see many of those birds or vegetation that is in some of the areas we have to take advantage of - there is the natural vegetation they can redevelop and education and that is one of things they will work on.

Council Member Glassheim asked what process is from here and how moving forward. Ms. Biby stated they will take general information from public meetings and public input, will take that and are trying to establish a greenway budget and maintenance plan, most people are willing to see some of these areas they have maintained in a high level of maintenance go to their natural state, and is something will consider in the restoration planning, need to work out the details and will continue to update council as more information becomes available - that this is informational only and need to take back if council is okay with what the public is telling us and move forward and try to establish numbers as well as an overall plan for the project. Mr. Grasser stated that part of through process is try to create a task force of 2 or 3 council members to work with staff to try to formulate this and bring it back to the city council, have public input parts now and try to develop budget and bring general plan back to the council but would like some input and assuming the mayor may ask for volunteers next week to assist them.

Council Member Bjerke asked where they will find out the cost to maintain the dike, floodwalls, pumps, etc. and separate dollar figure or tie it in with this. Mr. Grasser stated that they needed to cover maintenance aspect of grass cutting, etc., the other ongoing maintenance going to be for the flood protection project - don't have that yet because they don't have all the criteria that the Corps is going to require and to continue to be certified, the Corps is going to require certain level of maintenance and activity annually on the flood protection project - including dikes, pump stations, diversion channels, etc. and going to take longer to put that together and that is on their list and going to come back and address through a budget process.

Council Member Bjerke asked if there would be a cost of cleanup for floods, damage cleanup, etc. and if there is a cost for picking up trash, garbage cans emptied, lights replaced (for April through October) and if those costs would be included in the report also because if put those items out there, have to be maintained; Mr. Grasser stated that is going to be an educated guess and part of the decision making process. Mr. Bjerke stated who will maintain the community green park and if that is the City's responsibility and included in the cost report. Mr. Grasser stated that Urban Develoopment have been maintaining that stretch to the river now and may continue to do that and utilize some of the workforce they have in the summer months - will address but not sure if in the same category and have section of river where another entity take care of it and Park District is going to be responsible for certain areas and will discuss in their overall concept.

Council Member Kerian stated on the supporting materials from Linda Kingery from the Red River Basin Riparian Project of 1999 and may be handled - concern previously expressed by the U.S.A.C.E. about the effect of trees on reducing flow and will be necessary to ask the Corps to evaluate this option in their hydraulogical model, and if that is addressed. Ms. Biby stated it hasn't been addressed to this point and need to determine how large an area they would be planting trees and review that with the Corps and the restoration activities that will have on-going discussion with them to see if that meets their standards.

Council Member Kreun stated that the Horticulture Society, Grand Cities Bird Society, UND, public schools and other areas are interested in maintaining some of these and how would they do that. Ms. Biby stated they had some discussions but group held a joint meeting after public meeting and that was an idea that came up and interested in adopting an area and taking that over and interested in going in and doing the plantings, etc. , not sure if they have funds set aside or can work with the grant - that they haven't worked out all the details and be responsible for certain area - one area they have expressed interest in is the Korninea site and area they maintain is about 44 acres - and would work with groups on that.

Council Member Kreun stated that some of the areas are being maintained to a high level of mowing and maintenance in downtown area, and every bit of this is not going to be an additional cost to the City, some being accomplished with dollars we have - everything is not going to be an additional cost, will blend that in with the Park District, Urban Development and other areas that want to utilize these spaces and large partnering project.

Council Member Christensen stated that the 163.5 acres is $67,500 based upon numbers and probably spending all of that amount, and doesn't think its good to start the project with the idea that we're going to go from level I maintenance to level IV and more important to stay at level I which is the $70,000 we're already spending and areas maintained by engineering is level I - not good to embark on this project to have a greenway that we're only going to mow it one time a month because that will deter members of the community from want to use the greenway because killed by the mosquitos but focus on level I maintenance on all our plans because we can scale back but if start out at level IV starting out with a project that is doomed to fail because not keep up way it should be. He stated that its commendable to have different service groups want to be involved, but the enthusiasm of those individuals may change as ebb and flow of people who are in the group and as priorities change - that we have a greenway to build and maintain for everybody and great to have enhancer from people who want to have their projects - but don't start with level IV beccause never get back to level I. Council Member Bjerke stated if we start at level I doesn't think we're going to scale back, and though this was a greenway and back to nature and thinks it will turn into an incredibly large amount of money maintaining. Council Member Christensen stated there are going to be many miles of trails and trails have to be maintained and if don't cut the brush along the trails, people are deterred from riding their bikes, walking - need choices but level I may be too costly but should be given the choices - maintaining that now and should coordinate the different groups that are maintaining various parts of our park - why is engineering in charge of maintaining, perhaps urban develpment or either one or another division of the street department - and thse are issues we should decide.

Council Glassheim stated that enthusiasm of volunteer groups can be important, can make the difference between going and not going - Ms. Biby stated it's important for the public to understand that the trails are fairly high in the project and do run along the levee system and the floodwall and these aren't areas that they are considering restoration activities and do see that there is a wide strip mowed along both sides of the trails and wouldn't be problem areas and would be maintained for the users. Council Member Kreun stated that repairing projects means that some of the areas will be brought back to a nature state and will be a buffer zone closer you are to the levee will be more manicured and farther away from the river will be more riparian type project and they are asking to go forward to determine what these areas will be and input from the citizens, esp. along those areas and from rest of the people in the community to determine which ones would be a good place for a riparian project or place for neatly mowed area to help keep mosquitos down and water away. He stated if there is a group put together by the mayor they can deal with each one of these issues and bring back on a regular basis. Council Member Christensen stated that in the Sun-Beam Addition the park they are referring to, is being mowed 12 times a year according to the report and this report suggests it go to a level IV which would be mowing it once a month. Mr. Kreun stated these are some of the ideas that will be brough to that group.

2.6 Mayor committee appointments.
Council Member Stevens stated it seems as if with every committee, they reappoint and doesn't see any new blood coming into these committees and has an objection to wholesale reappointment - perhaps have difficulty getting people to serve on these committees. Council Member Brooks stated there are a number of people on committees from the south end and when looking at these to give some consideration to that and important to have people from the different areas. Peggy O'Leary, Historic Preservation Commission, stated some are dictated by occupation and cannot define that by neighborhood, and committee has thought more females and more youth and would like to see those things occur - there are 8 openings and 6 people being reappointed by the mayor with approval, and of those people two have served only two years - especially when have learning curves like this committee has especially following the flood, and have 2 to 4 more years of flood issues to deal with re. mitigation, etc. She stated she received a Corps of Engineers annual report today which defines 7 new areas of mitigation that have to be dealt with in the next two years and hard to do with new people, consistency is important on this committee - that they have some new people and will have more new people with the other two appointments and have some strong experience among these people - she stated there has to be a strong interest in this, they meet twice a month and meet from from 1 l/2 to 3 1/2 hours and in the past have met on a weekly basis and also meet upon necessity and have good attendance; and would support mayor's contention that these people be reappoointed and committee would like to see that too.

Council Member Bjerke stated he feels this commission has cost the Cityh a lot of money, doesn't agree with putting more money into houses than what they are worth and doesn't agree with that kinf of spending some of the buildings were eyesores - granitoid street project and people who live on those streets would like to have nice smooth road and disagrees in philosophy, appreciates history but can't save everything. He also stated as far as appointment to the Civil Service Commision and person for reappointment, Mr. Kvasager - and after what County Commission charged for taxes to live in this county, which is 30 to 40% higher than the other 3 major counties in the state, needs to vote his full time attention to get county spending in line rather than being civil service commissioner. and perhaps need to find some new people on some of these committees and find people who have respect for the taxpayers money.

2.7 Adoption of technical corrections ordinance.
Council Member Hamerlik stated that the ordinance prepared by Mr. Swanson had technical corrections but Section VIII was submitted by the Transition Committee and asked if that seciton was to be completed with this ordinance or when they get to the process where it's included in the next agenda item which is the recommendation of the Transition Task Force - that this has more to do with the Transition Task Force; that the next item 2.8 the matter of report of attendance is also included. Council Member Glassheim stated that the Transition Task Force requested it be drafted in ordinance form and Mr. Swanson has done that and would be before us as part of an ordinance change next week and can vote to separate it or defeat it, etc. and that there are items on the recommendations which are also in draft legislative language.
Council Member Christensen stated he didn't see any rush in adopting any of these amendments to the ordinance, have until the first meeting after the election, but more concerned is if know what portions of the ordinance you want amended and not have all the amendments proposed, publish and hold hearing and then vote rather than do piecemeal and not sure spend any time on this except talk about the proposed amendments, transition and later on amend all the different portions of the Code that require amending before the next council takes seats. Council Member Hamerlik stated that Section VIII of the ordinance is in two sections and whether discuss under one item or the other. Mr. Swanson stated the only other ordinance that he is aware of that needs to be changed that was tabled last week (growth fund).

President Gershman asked that they review the ordinance by section.
Section 2-0301 Conduct of council meetings
Council Member Hamerlik questioned in section 8 censuring council members that did not attend and suggested that attendance be take and recorded quarterly and publish such results; that attendance is taken and anybody that wants to look at record for any individual can do it, and not necessarily chastise somebody and doesn't second guess anybody whose absent and now have telephone - and if somebody not attending, should be brought up and talked with them individually and if people leave early - thinks this is news for fodder for media - most people who run are going to be diligent in their responsibilities - and most of the council people are that way and not necessary in the ordinance. He stated that there might be another ordinance that needs changing - pension committee - made up of members of the council.

Council Member Christensen stated they received a memo from Mr. Swanson 12/10/01 where he suggested they amend 2-0301(24) which is motions for reconsideration, and 2-0301 which would be mayor's veto power, mayor's veto power or council's power to override a veto (34) on page 64 in the Code, 2/3rds of all its members - suggesting want to go with 5 and perhaps want to amend 2-0304(34) to have 5 council persons to override the mayor's veto. and would move that they include (34) and amend that so you need 5 members of the 7 persons to override the mayor's veto.





2.8 Recommendations from Council Transition Task Force.


2.9 Request from the Managing Partners of Deacons Development, LLP for approval of a resolution to vacate all of the Replat of Lots 17, 18, 19 and 20, Block B of the Replat of Lot 7, Block 1, Kannowski's First Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota. Said replat of Lots 17, 18, 19 and 20, Block B of the Replat of Lot 7, Block 1, Kannowski's First Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, being vacated was filed in the State of North Dakota, County of Grand Forks Office of Recorder on October 15, 2001 as Document No. 586912. Said property shall hereinafter be described according to the Replat of Lot 7, Block 1, Kannowski's First Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, as filed in the State of North Dakota, County of Grand Forks, Office of Recorder on April 14, 2000 as Document No. 571050. The property is located in the 5800 block of Pinehurst Drive.__________________________

2.10 Create special assessment district for City Project No. 5328, District No. 384, Linden
Court paving from 10th Avenue to 15th Avenue South.__________________________


2.11 Cost Participation, Construction and Maintenance Agreement for City Project No. 5245, University Avenue overlay.___________________________________________
No comments.

2.12 Bids for City Project No. 5322, District No. 583, alley paving between University Avenue and 2nd Avenue North from North 12th Street to North Washington Street.
Brad Huebner stated he was surprised at the bids, and if low bid is not accepted, rebid the project. Mr. Swanson stated without the bid bond included in the bid bond, State Statute amended to remove and and to reject and rebid - cannot accept low bid.

2.13 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5333, District No. 138, street lighting on
Nordonna Circle._______________________________________________________
No comments.

2.14 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5331, District No. 136, street lighting on Mighty Acres Drive.___________________________________________________
No comments.

2.15 Engineering services agreement with NDDOT and CPS, Ltd. for Project No. 5127,
intersection improvements at 32nd Avenue and Columbia Road.________________
No comments.

2.16 Presentation of biosolids alternatives and compost study results.
Todd Feland, director of public works, stated they are going to finish the wastewater treatment plant this spring or summer and because of that create some biosolids, tbat they were having an environmental impact study done for the landfill, looking at recycling and also at biosolid issues. He stated there are major decisions that need to be made relating to the biosolids created by the wastewater treatment plant.

PRESIDENT GERSHMAN RELINQUISHED CHAIR, VICE PRESIDENT MARTINSON PRESIDING.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2/25/02 - Pa2e 14

Mr. Feland stated that Mike Shea will give some comments reo alternatives that they are looking at, and Jim West, KBM, wiD present information on the pilot compost study that was contracted for in 1997 and completed in the year 2000; that he visited with Mayor Brown reo appointing an on-going working group of up to 3 council members and Mayor has asked tbat interested council members submit names to his office, and would report back to the conncil on a monthly basis on progress on this issue.

VICE PRESIDENT MARTINSON RELINQUISHED CHAIR, PRESIDENT GERSHMAN PRESIDING

Mike Shea, environmental coordinator, stated that in 1996 a lot of original decisions were made on the wastewater treatment plant and the biosolids handling, that in 1996 when they decided to go with the mechanical wastewater treatment plant, they knew they would be dealing with the biosolids issue and that biosolids treatment and handling is probably the most difficult aspect of the process and wanted to take an in depth look at what they were going to .do to treat the biosolids the new plant was going to generate, the plant wiD generate approx. 4 to 500 wet tons ofbiosolids per day, about 100,000 gal. at 8% solids, the biosolids need to be treated according to EP A regulations; in 1996 the 503 regs doubling the disposal and treatment of wastewater treatment biosolids came into effect and they looked at these and included in the staff report is a flow chart and reviewed this for the committee (this outlines the options that are available for disposal and treatment of the biosolids - Final use or disposal practice: land application, surface disposal OandfJIl for biosolids), incineration and co-disposal with municipal solid waste) Be stated they looked at these optious and what other municipalities in our region are doing with biosolids, problems they have, and generated criteria list to evaluate different processes that would be beneficial to Grand Forks' use; these criteria: 1) process that would generate a class A exceptional qualitY end product that would increase your final disposal options; 2) a process that was environmentally sound with minimal energy input and not generate any harmful by-products in the process; 3) the process must be flexible and capable of handling all the different waste streams generated within our region; 4) process must be simple, resilient and not prone to chronic upsets; 5) cost effective. Be stated in the staff report they included a number ofthe processes they looked at along with capital costs: anaerobic digestion with land application (significant capital costs); incineration (not cost effective and upon burning down creates an ash that you have to dispose of into a landf'IlI); landtilling as an alternative (need to meet a paint fJlter test, and is what doing at water treatment plant, dry them to point when put into paint mter no free liquid comes out ofthem); surface disposal (same as landfill but dedicated only to disposal of biosolids and would need treatment before being put in there and covered on a daily basis); and composting (this fit the criteria, cost effective and gave ns by far the best end product, and tbat's why decided to spend a good deal of money studying composting and purpose was to take the waste streams that we were generating and see ifwe could produce a beneficial product.