Council Minutes

MINUTES/COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Monday, February 11, 2002 – 7:00 p.m.----______

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, February 11, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun – 11; absent: Council Members Bakken, Martinson – 2.

Mayor Brown 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.

Mayor Brown made the following announcements and thank yous : to the city council for the budget planning meeting last week, set a positive policy direction and looks forward to working with staff to make goals happen; to the Chamber of Commerce for a wonderful dinner at an annual meeting last week at the Alerus; that the fire department's fire detection program is going well, about 1,000 have been given away and encouraged people to take advantage of the program, and to call ph. 746-4636 for more information; that we have many high school athletes about to start regional and state tournaments, wished them all good luck and knows they will represent us well; and congratulations to local Olympian Don Barcome, Jr. on their 10-5 win over Sweden in Men's Curling today.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DISCUSSION ITEMS

COUNCIL MEMBER KLAVE REPORTED PRESENT

2.1 2002 Special Events Program.
Council Member Brooks asked what guidelines they were using in selecting groups for allocation, many groups that have been here for many years received lower percentage than what they asked. Council Member Hamerlik stated some of the guidelines set earlier were participation, numbers of individuals they draw to the city, some groups in years past did not get money from Special Events but did get help from the City, some are new such as Chamber of Commerce Major Event Task Force, that is a building program and there is hope that down the road in several years that we will have the World Curling tournament, this is a project that Chamber of Commerce after much deliberation came out with one or two events that they thought would set Grand Forks apart; there were judgment calls all the way, that they met three times and that he thought what the committee did was fair and would recommend that they approve the recommendations.

Council Member Kerian commented on the Greater Grand Forks Symphony 4th of July event, and not suggesting, but the idea of a symphony playing "Stars & Stripes" etc. certainly would add to enjoyment on the 4th of July and if there was anyway that could be worked out with the Sertoma Club would be wonderful.

Mayor Brown stated they should also encourage the event people to seek corporate sponsorship; that have many corporations in town that would be anxious to support some of these events for the community.

Council Member Bjerke stated some of these events have been going on for decades and we are funding them - that if the government is going to hand money out, people are going to

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - February 11, 2002 - Page 2

take it - if want to go to events, you should pay what it costs to get into the event and government shouldn't be funding hobbies - that would be "pork".

Council Member Burke stated at the budget retreat Council Member Christensen alerted us to the fact that if things don't change substantially, we are probably looking at an operating deficit next year that could top $1 million; that if things go as Mr. Schmisek hopes this year and next year, might be in the half million to $700,000 range; that we need to look at what spending money on; that if we have money that's budgeted but isn't essential to the operation of the city, look at pulling back some of that and having that carried into next year and this is one of those items that we could look at - this and the Arts money, some of the UND promotional money, Beautification grants - those items looking at close to $400,000 and not do any harm of any substance to the community and be more fiscally prudent about how we use our money and prepare for the future; and hope they would consider that and will make a motion to that effect next week, to reduce by half all of the appropriations or suggestions in the task force's recommendation, and make similar motions about the Arts grants, the Beautifications grants and the UND promotional money.

Council Member Gershman stated at last week's budget meeting the city council requested of the mayor and staff to come in with a balanced budget, no mill increase, which the mayor embraced and said we will do that - they also asked that be done without cutting any services - and would recommend to the council that they not support Mr. Burke's motion next week because we have the money this year, that we voted for this and would prefer to wait for the mayor and staff to come back with their budget the end of June or July to tell us if they were successful in balancing our budget and reducing costs so that we have no mill increase and if at that point, they are unable to do it, then he would be willing to take a look at all of these things, including more things, but not about to do it now and break the faith with the public.

Council Member Glassheim stated he doesn't think this is "pork" but that governments have for centuries supported activities which make a place more livable, that we've had this kind of expenditure for events for 15 to 20 years, the purpose of the money is to make this a destination city. We're supporting local community groups, all of whom pay taxes and supporting events that hundreds/thousands of people attend and enjoy, and that each of these groups is raising more than half to put on the event, helping to build a quality of life that will continue to have this be a destination city.

Council Member Christensen stated that at the budget retreat he suggested that we look for other areas of revenue and also to the mayor and staff, and suggested enterprise funds but never made any reference to cutting the budget we've passed or the process we've put in place when the committee spent several meetings to make allocation of funds.

2.2 Request from Arch Simonson on behalf of CNCI Properties, Inc. for final approval (fast track) of the Replat of Lot 1, Block B, Skelly Oil Company Subdivision to the city of Grand Forks, ND, including a variance to a minor subdivision plat defined by the Land Development Code and as it relates to the dedication of utility easements (located east of North 48th Street between Gateway Drive and Rose Avenue)__________
There were no comments.


COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - February 11, 2002 - Page 3

2.3 Request from Bill O’Keefe for final approval (fast track) of the Replat of Lot 4, Block 1, Adams Dobmeier 3rd Resubdivision to the city of Grand Forks, ND, including a variance to a minor subdivision plat as defined by the Land Development Code and as it relates to the dedication of utility easements (located at 5550 1st Avenue North).____
There were no comments.

2.4 Petition from Art Greenberg, Jr. for approval of a resolution to vacate numerous streets, avenues, intersections and adjoining 10 foot wide utility easement as platted and dedicated on the plat of Columbia Park 26th Addition to the city of Grand Forks, ND. Said streets, avenues and intersections are more specifically described as follows:
1. All that portion of South 23rd Street being bounded on the north by the east-west extension of the south right of way line of 36th Avenue South and being bounded on the south by the east-west extension of the north right of way line of 38th Avenue South;
2. All that portion of South 23rd, 24th, and 25th Streets being bounded on the north by the east-west extensions of the south right of way line of 38th Avenue South and being bounded on the south by the line of 38th Avenue South and being bounded on the south by the east-west extension of the north right of way line of 40th Avenue South;
3. All that portion of 38th Avenue South being bounded on the southeast by the northeast-southwest extension of the northwest right of way line of South 20th Street and being bounded on the west by the north-south extension of the east right of way line of South 26th Street;
4. All of the four intersections of South 23rd (two intersections), 24th and 25th Streets with 38th Avenue South.
All as shown on the attached map which is by reference made a part hereof. All vacated area is located between 36th and 40th Avenues South and between South 20th and 26th Streets.__________________________________________________________
Council Member Gershman asked a procedural question relating to items 2.5 and 2.4, whether 2.5 should be considered before 2.4. Dennis Potter, city planner, stated the matter before you tonight is to acknowledge the vacation request and set a public hearing. Mr. Swanson, city attorney, stated that you are vacating right of way on the existing plat, assuming that you vacate it, you are then replatting item 2.5, the same property, this is in the proper order and vacating what's already of record assuming that passes, then moving forward and altering your plat.

2.5 Request from Steve Adams on behalf of Art Greenberg, Jr. for preliminary approval of a Replat of all of Blocks 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7, Columbia Park 26th Addition to the city of Grand Forks, ND, including all vacated streets and avenues therein (located between 36th and 40th Avenues South and between South 20th and 26th Streets).
There were no comments.

2.6 Request from George G. McEnroe for preliminary approval (first reading) of the ordinance amending the Street and Highway Plan (located in Plat of MAC’s NGF Addition Falconer Township, Grand Forks, ND, being a part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 18, Twp. 152 North Range 50 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian. (Said addition is located west of North 42nd Street and north of 54th Avenue North).________------
There were no comments.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - February 11, 2002 - Page 4

2.7 Resolution – increase weed and long grass cutting assessment rates.
Council Member Bjerke questioned the proposed price and how that compares to what a private sector would charge to mow the different size areas listed. Don Shields, Health Department, stated the last time they requested bids from the private sector their rates were significantly low and since 1996 have been using the city resources; that the rates compare with other entities throughout the state - Fargo charges $65 min. plus an hourly rate, Bismarck charges $50 min. and looking at raising it, Minot charges $100 for min. sized lot plus an hourly rate and think that our proposal which is $75.00 for the smallest lot is in line with those. Council Member Stevens asked if we are trying to get business because we're lower than the contractor, and should be slightly above so that we don't have to do it. Mr. Shields stated we were below and that's reason why proposing that rate increase here - and are hoping that this will encourage people to cut the grass and we'd be out of the grass cutting business.

2.8 Applications for abatement for 1998 and 1999 taxes by Peter C. and Eunice R. Kuhn on 2656 South 26th Street, Lot C (of Replat), Block 4, B.F.M. Addition._____________
Council Member Kerian questioned the dates on the application for abatement and asked what the timeframe was. Mel Carsen, city assessor, stated the application was filed in 2000 but has not been processed until now - there is a requirement to file the applications up to two years after the tax is levied - year following the year in which it becomes delinquent and 1998 application would have been filed by November 1, 2000 and they met that deadline.

2.9 Street Department truck bid.
There were no comments.

2.10 Request for carry-over money to be used to install security system.
The city auditor reported that the carryover in the budget is $33,376 minus $425.00 leaving $32,951. Darla McLaren, municipal judge's office, explained what had happened - that the director of PSAP was working with Electro Watchman to get a new type of system installed for the 911 Center and because of the change in personnel in PSAP something lapsed, that now have received a price quote on that and this would fall in line with the system that they currently use (Electro Watchman).

2.11 Create special assessment district for City Project No. 5333, District No. 138, Street
Lighting on Nordonna Circle. _____________________________________________
Council Member Christensen questioned the amount of engineering that requires a 27% markup on these small projects, what they would be doing to add $4,000 to a $10,000 project and asked if they could get a report as to the 27%. The city auditor reported that the 27% is not only for engineering - 8% engineering fee, 8% administration fee, 5 or 6% interest during construction and a contingency fee. Mr. Christensen stated that some of the money that is collected goes back to fund some of the departments and asked how much of the 8% we get from various special assessment projects we have in the city that goes back to fund our departments. The city auditor stated they could give him a report on that. Mr. Christensen also questioned the 8% on the administrative fee and what is the actual amount that is required to administer these projects once they go in because no bonds being sold here, knows it's a policy but an opportunity to examine the policy to see when we charge it and when we don't and at what level. The city auditor reported that there will be bonds sold on this project because this is part of the pool of the total special assessment bonds that
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - February 11, 2002 - Page 5

they will sell at the end of the year. Mr. Christensen stated that was good point for the administration, and now have to get to the engineering.

2.12 Create special assessment district for City Project No. 5331, District No. 136, Street
Lighting on Mighty Acres Drive.___________________________________________
No comments.

2.13 Excess earth material from Project 5116, English Coulee Diversion Project.
No comments.

2.14 Bids for City Projects Nos. 4648 and 4948.2, Water Transmission Pipelines and Residuals Forcemain, Phase II (34th street to WTP)._________________________
There were no comments.

2.15 Amendment No. 20 to Greater Forks Engineering Group for in-kind engineering, City Projects Nos. 4810, 4815, 4815.1, 4816.1, 4816.2 and 4817, Interior Drainage._______
Council Member Lunak stated that we are hiring more engineers and questioned when we would get away from the consultants and having our own engineers doing the work. Mr. Walker stated they are looking at hiring a couple engineers and are in the process of developing a list for interviews at this point. He stated they have hired consultants for more complicated work such as lift station design, but would look at in the future as they get more staff. Council Member Lunak asked if they could start that because he thought that they were hiring engineers to start doing some of this work and getting away from the consultant fees.

Council Member Burke asked if this was a new project or a continuation of an existing project. Mr. Walker reported that they selected GFEG as the consultant to work on relocation of utilities that are in conflict with the flood protection project, they did not know the full extent of the project when they entered into the original contract and as scope of work developed they would then notify the consultants of the more defined scope of work and by amendment.

Mr. Burke stated they talked about GFEG several months ago and the discussion was that they probably wouldn't be involved in too much more work and that was a good thing for the City since the major engineering companies in the city are part of this consortium and not much in the way of competition. This was not a bid project. Mr. Burke asked if this would continue through the length of the dike project. Mr. Walker stated they would intend on using GFEG for all work necessary to do engineering of utility relocation work with the flood control project, and that was the intent of this contract. Mr. Burke then asked if there was a benefit to the City to cut off the work at some point and rebid and maybe get some competition on those bids. Mr. Walker stated that the services were not bid, the City selected what they thought was the most qualified firm to do the work, and then based upon qualifications, made the selection to do the work and then negotiated with the engineering firm re. the price to do the work.

Mr. Burke stated we have qualified engineers in the community and if don't bid as con-sortium, then we have some competition among them and would we be better off financially for the City knowing that we have qualified engineers to do that work and change the way we handle the contracts going forward. Mr. Grasser stated that the benefit to the City and
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - February 11, 2002 - Page 6

to the department is that GFEG has three different firms with three different areas of expertise and benefit for the City is that it is a lot easier for them to administer when the Corps of Engineer projects come in and utility relocates come in, there might be small pieces of watermain to relocate or small sanitary sewer to relocate, or a lift station, etc. and benefit is that it doesn't really matter what those individual areas of expertise might be, we give them to this group and they in turn subdivide it to their most qualified firms or individuals within that Group - in this particular project there are probably two or three different kinds of engineering activities going on with a new lift station and relocating different utilities and can handle that with one amendment and without going through all the additional selection and contractual work and that is the benefit to the City. He stated from a cost standpoint he can't give the definite numbers but the rate schedules of the different firms, other two firms in town are going to be very comparable to what the City is paying here, there is a slight increase that we pay to GFEG because of some of their overhead, insurance, etc. but the hourly rate and rate schedule are very comparable.

2.16 Amendment to ordinance establishing members of Regional Airport Authority Board of Commissioners, Section 20-0206(1).________________________________________
Council Member Brooks gave some background info. on the matter - that a copy of the current ordinance is before council with some changes - that when the Airport Authority was established between the County and the City there were to be a total of 7 members - 3 appointed by the mayor, 2 by the County Commission and 1 member from the city council and 1 from the County Commission, that ordinance was passed by the City but did not pass the County. He stated there is one council member and a member of the County Commission who are liaison members, attend meetings but do not vote. He stated the ordinance needs to be cleaned up and his concern is the dollars - the Airport Authority has 4.67 mills within the City's total mills that are dedicated to the Airport and from that standpoint we need a voting member on that Board to oversee those tax dollars - his recommendation would be that that happens or we take the 4.67 mills out of the city mill levy and that would be separate.

Council Member Gershman stated his understanding was that the State Legislature sets the amount of mills that an airport authority can charge the citizens and not something that is arbitrary by the airport authority - that one of the most single important economic development engines we have in the city is the airport - without air service it is a serious problem - they've done fairly well in utilizing that money but very expensive and a challenge to run the airport at 4.67 mills. He stated that he doesn't think having a voting member with the mayor appointing 3 and if felt that was a need, that could happen without putting it in the ordinance.

Council Member Hamerlik asked whose authority it is to determine the number of members, and if ours, why hasn't that been followed through with the 7 and not 5. Mr. Swanson reported that the Airport Authority is a jointly created body between the City of Grand Forks and Grand Forks County Commission, and any membership changes or any other changes in the organizational structure require concurrent action - the ordinance increasing the membership was adopted by the city council, however, the county commis-sion rejected the proposal to increase the airport authority board membership, without the Grand Forks county commission concurring by adopting a similar resolution, you cannot effectively alter that partnership - although he thinks he has the authority as the code reviser to unilaterally make that change in the text of the code because Ordinance No. 3311
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - February 11, 2002 - Page 7

noted on the body of the ordinance that it required concurrent action, he chose not to do that and rather that became an item of discussion approx. a year ago and then became item of discussion in the transition committee.

Council Member Christensen stated that the airport was operated by the City of Grand Forks, they created an authority so that it could increase the mills and would have some money available to operate the authority, that because we have a separate body operating the airport authority and the fact that 4 or 5 mills are raised, doesn't think it requires a council person to serve on the Airport Authority board. He stated that the Authority could assess the mills itself under the statute (Mr. Johnson is nodding affirmatively) and if it's an issue for us then we should relinquish the right to assess it, let the Airport Authority levy their own assessment and do so because they need those funds to maintain the quality of service we have in the community and that because 7 elected officials will sit up here, that doesn't translate into having knowledge or expertise or right to have input or oversight over how the airport is managed; and if discuss it further would move to relinquish the right to collect the mills, allow the authority to do it themselves and let them be in charge of their own destiny.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that if we start leaning in that direction, not forget that employees under our pension plan, etc. so that they don't lose out because of an ordinance change. Mr. Johnson stated that the Airport Authority severed its relationship with the city employee retirement plan, that they have their own defined contribution plan at this point.

Council Member Christensen stated that he didn't think we should have a council person on the Airport Authority board unless there is someone who has special expertise that could develop what statute says they are to have and qualifications for members in the ordinance is the same as in the State Statutes and should ask staff to look into whether we can actually allow the Airport Authority to assume the responsibility for levying from 0 to 4.7 or 4.8 mills and allow them to assume responsibility and be where it should have been when the authority was established. Mayor Brown stated a written response would be sent by Mr. Swanson.

2.17 Ordinance amendment membership of the Grand Forks Growth Fund Committee.
Council Member Burke asked if there was an error in the body of the ordinance (2)(a) where "..members shall serve staggered two year terms.." and asked if that should be four year terms - if stagger two year terms, one won't coincide with elections. Mr. Swanson reported that the recommendation from the transition committee was to go from the one-year term that presently exists to go to two-year terms to reflect the fact that there are elections every two years for city council members, they may or may not be equally staggered. He stated there were two things with regard to this ordinance that he wanted to point out if it were passed - the first change eliminates references to the urban development committee, finance committee insofar as those standing committees have been eliminated; the second change reflects a reduction in the overall membership on the Growth Fund Committee from a total of 7 to 5 and that reduction is shared equally by reps. of the city council as well as those members nominated by the Grand Forks Region Economic Development Corporation. He stated that the effective date of the ordinance was left open as to whether you want to create that ordinance to be effective sooner or if want to make that effective after the June election.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - February 11, 2002 - Page 8

Council Member Christensen stated it occurs that as part of the changes that you may want to look at ordinances that should be changed as we go from 14 to 7 members, that when the mayor appoints members to committees (council person) and if that person is no longer on the council for whatever reason, is that person automatically tenders his/her resignation to the mayor so that we don't have those people sitting on committees, that they become continuing members of the committee but no longer are "a council person" and that is something should be thinking about; that when we look at the whole structure of economic development and how the Growth Fund is intertwined in the city, perhaps is a good time to create a task force to look into how the economic development organization that exists in this city, we have EDC, the Growth Fund and Urban Development Office - 3 entities that are involved in Growth Fund at some level and this is the beginning of the coordination of that - and asked if want to do it now or do it as part of the implementation of this committee and look into the Growth Fund being reduced to this size as part of an overall economic development strategy in this community.

Council Member Brooks stated they brought this item forward now, have a few more to bring forward out of the committee, and his thought was to get it passed and put a date of implementation at the time of election, just so it's in place at that time.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Glassheim reported he had received a complaint and asked if Inspections could check near Grand Forks Taxi on 11th Avenue N. where a number of trailers sticking out and neighbor's concern, junked cars, etc.

2) Council Member Glassheim stated they have a copy of a letter from the North Dakota Legislative Council in regard to property taxes and special assessments - an attempt to get clarification. He summarized his understanding of the information:
In regard to special assessments of State property that law is in effect now and there is nothing we can do about it now and whether there are businesses on State land or non-businesses there is nothing we can do about it now, but a committee is now looking at that as Mr. Schmisek was down and pointed that out to them and an interim committee is now looking at drafting a way to handle that so that non-state uses on state-property may well be taxed for the dike assessment if the law is changed.
In regard to leases on state property either non-profits or for-profits are supposed to pay property taxes if they lease from the State and it is up to us to assess them but if don't own but just leasing, even if non-profit are supposed to pay property taxes.
In regard to owning property non-profits which own something and use it for their purpose for which they were incorporated do not pay property taxes; for-profits do pay property taxes and non-profits which own and use land but not for the purposes for which they were incorporated are supposed to pay property taxes - some of that may get into legal question and into court for determination of facts.
And those are the categories as he understands them in this memo.

Mr. Swanson stated his comment with respect to the exemption on special assessments for a
flood control project on State owned property, the Statute does have the authority delegated to the legislative council's budget section; to consider waiving that exemption at any time for any purpose that they deem fit, so even within the existing legislation if there were a circumstance that the City felt that a business owner located on State-owned property
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - February 11, 2002 - Page 9

should be subject to the special assessment for flood control project; it would be incumbent upon the City to make that request to the budget section seeking that waiver. Without modification to that statute which was put in somewhat quickly during the last legislative session, our only avenue is to go to the budget section.

Council Member Christensen stated it may behoove this body to make a request of the budget committee for clarification of that portion of the statute and ask that any organization that wants to lease or use State-owned land where they are engaged in an activity for profit and using the income derived from the activity for something other than their charitable purpose; that we make an application of that body for a waiver and tell Mr. Carsen there will be special assessments charged for the flood protection for those who choose to do projects on State-owned land for income generating for-profit activities so
we don't have this misinformation or problems going forward so nobody is exempt from paying special assessments for the flood protection. He stated this is a suggestion that he thinks the executives should look into and if we should do that, then ask the council for a resolution asking for that exemption. Mayor Brown stated they could have that for the next committee of the whole.

Council Member Kreun asked if they could do that exemption as a blanket or if do it on an individual basis as each project comes up. Council Member Christensen stated he would defer to the council, that he believes that we should ask on a blanket basis and if turned down on a blanket basis, then deal with certain areas of the community where they know there's going to be potential for-profit activity on State-owned land, i.e., Bronson Tract.

3) Council Member Burke asked when we might hear a request from University with regard to the pending development in the area of this hotel and if there was a request being made that we contribute to the infrastructure and what they might be asking for; under-stands there has been some discussion of that and asked that they be made aware of those discussions. Mayor Brown stated there is a request being made that we contribute to infrastructure (from zero to $994,000), that as things are worked out, the council will be made aware of them; that right now there is still negotiation and no stand being taken yet.

4) Council Member Bjerke stated during discussion he hears two reasons to vote for something - it's in the budget or in the CIP, and should be voted on the merit of the project; and not because in the budget or CIP. He also stated he cannot tell you how much he's looking forward to the meeting on the 19th to discuss the bus fare and Planning and Zoning.

5) Council Member Brooks stated there was a news report he heard today about a meeting with the Corps and City leaders for this week; Mr. Grasser reported there is a meeting this week with the Corps relative to flood protection project, not sure what the agenda is going to be, but it is with staff about a number of issues - on-going staff meeting.

6) Council Member Brooks stated they had discussed at the Gateway Association meeting the status of the cleanup along Highway 2, and asked Inspections to give him something in writing to the council about where they are at re. cleanup.

7) Council Member Lunak stated he had asked several weeks ago about putting the retention pay on the agenda, and asked that it be put on the next agenda.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - February 11, 2002 - Page 10

8) Council Member Klave stated that because of the wind today and lack of snow the dirt has built up along curbs on the outskirts of the city, concerned as get rains and whether need to clean that up; street department will do that. Council Member Christensen asked that attention also be given to cleanup along 32nd Avenue South and 42nd Avenue South.

9) Council Member Kerian stated on item 2.14 staff report states that the project is designed to include the construction of both projects to reduce restoration costs and impacts of construction to the community - that there are some people that want us to do that as much as we can because of difficulty when things are torn up and re-torn up.

10) Council Member Kreun thanked Special Events Program Committee and the Transition Committee for the work they have done, and also appreciates Council Member Glassheim's information on taxes.

11) The city auditor reported he had distributed memo to the council, that his office had a contact from businessperson re. reimbursement fee for sales tax - when sales tax was implemented it was felt that those collecting the fee should be reimbursed; that he asked State Tax Department for additional information and when receive that will provide that to the council.

12) Mr. Swanson stated his office has undertaken very preliminary stages on discussion with franchise holder on request for new franchise, and is soliciting ideas, comments, complaints on services from city council and public and input can be directed to his office or public information center. Council Member Burke asked whether current agreement or information could be put on web site for input, etc.; Mr. Swanson stated they perhaps could do a summary and highlighting - they are in the early stages of gathering input - is a three year process.

13) Council Member Bjerke asked if there would be discussion at the next committee of the whole meeting re. research of taxes on UND lands and whether have ruling on businesses in Rural Tech. Center and whether taxable. Mayor Brown stated they would have info.

14) Mayor Brown congratulated Mr. Gershman on the Chamber of Commerce dinner and city council and department heads will attend that next year.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Kreun that we adjourn. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,



John M. Schmisek
City Auditor