City of Grand Forks - Print Friendly Form

Council Minutes

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Monday, July 8, 2002 - 7:00 p.m.

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, July 8, 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, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 7; absent: none.

Mayor Brown announced that when addressing the committee to please come forward to use the micro-phone for the record, and advised that the meeting is being televised live and taped for later broadcast.

Mayor Brown made the following announcements:
1) thanked Sertoma for July 4 events and fireworks display and all celebration events, esp. kids parade.
2) County Fair is on Wednesday through Monday at Alerus Center and includes concerts, rides, bands to livestock, and is important event for the entire region.
3) Mosquitoes - thanked the Health Department, esp. Todd Hanson and mosquito crews for doing a great job despite the overwhelming odds and are spraying tonight and tomorrow, so pets and children be advised.
4) Thanks and good job for Shorty Holweger and public works crews to act so quickly last week to send one of our sandbag machines to Warroad, and will continue to keep the lines of communication open and continue to help them as long as they need it.

1.2.1 Welcome and recognize Mr. Toshio Yoshida, Master Gardner, Mr. Shino Sato, Assistant
Gardner, Awano Japan________________________________________________________
Mayor Brown on behalf of the City of Grand Forks and the city council welcomed Mr. Toshio Yoshida and his assistant Mr. Shino Sato to Grand Forks, that we are grateful for their being here and for continuing work on this project, the Japanese garden, thanked them for offering their expertise and being ambassadors for our sister city; and presented gifts to Mr. Yoshida and Mr. Sato. He also thanked the Sertoma and horticulturalists who have offered so much time, energy and money in supporting this project; and the Park District for hosting our honored guests and for being laborers and caretakers of our garden.

2. CITIZEN REQUEST
Dennis Kulas, 724 North 4th Street, stated he was here several weeks ago about getting a lot approved for sale so he could purchase it and build a garage, that last week Bev Collings, Inspections, told him an order to demolish his present garage at 724 North 4th Street had or is being issued, she stated a letter had been mailed and he has not received any letter nor has he refused any letter; that said adjoining lot was approved for sale and according to Urban Development it will be in about 4 to 5 weeks, the ad is supposed to go out this weekend or following weekend. He stated he would like to have the demolition order, which is or will be ordered to wait until he gets the lot next door and builds a garage so he can move the lawn mowers, motorcycle and other items into it. Council Member Hamerlik asked Mr. Kulas if he had any time prior to the demolition notice receive any notification about the condition of the shed behind his place and knew there was a problem. Mr. Kulas stated yes, and was hoping to have the garage up before winter and the other one torn down. Council Member Gershman asked when the City sells property if they can put any conditions (timelines) on it. Mr. Swanson stated the City has sold property with certain conditions, those conditions have to be enumerated before the ad is placed and before put out for public sale; the difficulty comes in the form of how do you incorporate those conditions or covenants into the sale, can be done, through restrictions on the deed, through mortgages or other techniques; and also noted that it is not a given that Mr. Kulas will be the successful purchaser of the property because it is a public sale. Mayor Brown referred this matter to Buildings & Inspections.

3.1 Biosolids management update and presentation by Black & Veatch, Inc.
Committee of the Whole - 07/08/02 - Page 2

Todd Feland, director of public works, introduced Scott Carr from Black & Veatch, that they had a meeting and copies of tasks had been distributed to the council and timeline, and in looking at different alternatives, the one issue that has come up and did include that in the contract was coordination with our environmental impact study related to the landfill; and one of his jobs will be to coordinate between Black & Veatch working on the wastewater study and Water and Earth Technology working on the landfill study before submitting a document, wants to make sure they have submitted all the information in that landfill EIS which may include some of the information in this study.

Scott Carr, project manager with Black & Veatch, Kansas City, MO, thanked council for selecting their team and that this is a challenging project looking forward to working with the City throughout the period of the study. They started their study today with plant tours with project team and City staff and had a meeting this afternoon, tomorrow they will be visiting and meeting with members of RDO and Simplot, looking at their facilities and industrial load on the plant, and as they get further into the study, one of their critical tasks will be to establish a broad range of alternatives to evaluate, and in that evaluation do full life cycle cost analysis and look at non-economic analyses so that City will have the information you need to help select the best plan that will meet the long term needs; that they are coordinating with EIS consultant and over the next six months they will be meeting with the City's biosolids committee on a regular monthly basis and during those meetings, several will have key workshops that are going to be key decision steps in the whole process, and following each workshop plan to appear before the council and update them on the progress they have made on the project to that time.

3.2 Hold public hearing for moving permit application to move the home from 1402 South 17th Street
to 721 Cherry Street.__________________________________________________________________
Susan Askjem, 716 Cherry Street, stated that the house to be moved in is 25'x40' and if add the eaves its actually 29' and the lot is only 37' which leaves approx. 4 ft. on each side if they put it in sideways and that's barely enough room to put stairs in, and also noted that all of the houses are almost 100 years old on that block and this one is much newer (house built in 1962). Council Member Gershman stated he was informed there is a shared driveway, and if that is going to affect this house - Bruce Melin, Bldg. Insp., stated not to his knowledge. Council Member Gershman asked if there were any conditions for beautification or make it more compatible to the neighborhood. Mr. Swanson stated that in reviewing an application for a moving permit, you're not allowed to place any greater restrictions or requirements on a house being moved in than you can on a house that would be stick-built, your focus is to be on 1) does it meet the Building Code requirements, does it meet the setback requirements, etc. and 2) and can it be safety and adequately moved onto the lot. Mr. Gershman stated those have been answered yes, and can they make a request that would have any teeth in it that they would put a window on it and maybe some landscaping so that it blends in because it's pretty tight over there and is a different looking house than what is there. Mr. Swanson stated there is no direct case law in ND on the issue of moving houses, you get into some questions when you truly have an historic neighborhood, designated historic neighborhoods, houses that are on the historic register, those can be treated differently when it's a City-owed property or City-owned house, not aware of what might be contemplated here or what the true issues the council sees in moving the house in, but they do not have the discretion that many of the neighbors would wish for you to have on allowing or disapproving a building permit.

Council Member Glassheim stated that "..removal and repairs and alterations have been completed, the said building will not cause undue or serious depreciation of other properties in the new neighborhood. then the council shall order the building inspector to issue a permit for such moving, subject to such terms and restrictions thereon that shall be fixed by the council.." and how does that fit with nothing more strict than a stick-built house. Mr. Swanson stated the Code has to be interpreted in light of various court opinions that have been rendered, whether in the State of ND or elsewhere, there is no case law in the State
Committee of the Whole - 07/08/02 - Page 3

of ND on moving houses or conditions on moving houses, there are other states that have addressed the issue, you do not have a separate building code that needs to be met, and probably not legal to impose a different building code upon a house being moved in as opposed to stick-built, so despite the fact that the council seems you have unlimited and unfettered discretion, that this council never has unlimited and unfettered discretion. you have to read it in light of court interpretation. Mr. Swanson stated perhaps council could even identify what concerns they have and he could provide a detailed report by your next meeting to address a particular concern but at this point, he's not aware of what issues the council seems to want to address on the house. Council Member Glassheim stated the language that's in there that's beyond meeting Code is serious depreciation of other properties in the neighborhood and that seems to indicate that other factors beside just building requirements could be taken into account. Mr. Swanson stated that some jurisdictions do have case law that would find that if the house is so deteriorated that it is not sub-stantially likely, even if it met Code, brought up to a reasonable value, not sure you have that testimony here with this particular case, that he has heard there is no window on one particular wall, can you require the placement of a window - that appears to fall into an aesthetic issue, even a newly built home stick-built home complying with all Codes, the City does not have unless necessary for ingress or egress the ability to require the placement of a door in a given location or a window.

Peg O'Leary, Historic Preservation Commission, stated that the Commission would agree with the area homeowners that the house is inappropriate to the neighborhood, that aesthetics are important in land value, not just the fact that this house can be brought up to Code and that the interior can be finished, but if look at pictures she distributed, will see the street scene and the lot is small enough that it hardly shows up on the street scape and will also see that all of the houses with the exception of one across the street from this lot, are story and a half or two-story hundred year old homes in quite good condition and does think their land value would be affected by having this house moved in next to them. She also noted that the City moved into that block, and can't tell that house wasn't built on that street and that's what in-fill housing needs to look like, doesn't know whether they can do anything about this particular move and would like to see them give this some long term thought because we have a lot of in-fill lots in this town and will have a lot in inappropriate housing if we don't think about this for future moves; that on the house that the City moved in the basement is a little higher and if talking about steps and having clearance on either side of the house to get in and out with Code risers and treads, the maybe something that Mr. Swanson has to take a look at and see whether the house can actually be situated on the lot and still provide for access with those things in mind.

Mr. Swanson stated if there are concerns about valuation issues, he would suggest the council may wish to have two items completed before you finally act on the request, 1) report from the assessor's office as to adjoining property values and anticipated property values once moved; and he can provide you with a more detailed report with respect to depreciation and land values or property values resulting from a moved in piece of property, and if there are other issues council would like them to review, can certainly do that, but would like guidance if there is an issue they want him to address.

Council Member Hamerlik asked Ms. O'Leary what her interest was in whether this house is being moved in or not, that it isn't an historic house and ones around it are not historic. Ms. O'Leary stated that isn't strictly true as the area hasn't been surveyed since 1996, and at that time several of these homes would contribute to a historic neighborhood if they had expanded the survey, but many of the homes in that neighborhood would contribute to a historic district; and one or two of them would be eligible; they are all very old and anything over 50 and in reasonably as built-condition is considered historic.

Council Member Christensen asked if the applicant owns the lot or is proposed owner of the lot. Francis Adams stated that at the last meeting that wasn't known, that there is a building permit stuck in the
Committee of the Whole - 07/08/02 - Page 4

ground in the front of that lot, that it was brought up with the width of the house and with overhang on the roof it is almost 30 ft. wide and the person who owns the rental unit in the adjacent house has stated that he will not allow anybody to move a house across his driveway because he replaced it last summer after the flood (driveway busted up because building contractors driving over it re. removal of houses) without being compensated if it gets broken; that they did some measuring and the ash tree that sits in the middle on the street R/W, looks like it would have to be cut to get the house in there.

Council Member Christensen stated that could be a condition that could be imposed on the building permit that the tree is not cut, damaged or altered and not cause undue or serious depreciation of other properties in the new neighborhood, that just because we don't like it or the neighbors don't like it, that doesn't give us unfettered discretion but can do it and suffer the consequences, that if the person doesn't own the lot, he may decide not to buy it and go into trying to get an injunction to force us to do it. A requirement would be that before issuing the moving permit have the applicant give us information that it will not cause undue or serious depreciation of other properties so that he has information that we can look to or rely upon and have Mr. Carsen review that information for us so we can determine if it's good or not because then we can exercise our discretion and won't be acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner.

There were questions as to whether this matter should be held as may not have information by Monday; Mr. Swanson stated that the council has continued this from their last meeting to next week, and his advise is to hold the public hearing and if don't have adequate information, continue it again, either to a date certain or to a definite date, but procedurally you set the hearing to be continued to next Monday.

Council Member Kreun stated he would also think we would want to reiterate the timeframe for the building permits, that there is a completion date or timeframe that certain portions of the project have to be completed and would want to reiterate that to the property owner or person who is going to move this as well so that these timeframes can be met. It was stated that a building permit is good for 6 months or as work continues. He stated that we want to take a good look at this because we are going to be building houses in in-fill lots and want to match these homes with existing neighborhoods and set the standard for future development.

Council Member Gershman stated we need to have someone designated to notify the owner of this property tomorrow that they will have to come in with information that it will not diminish the property values, Mr. Melin stated applicant was sent letter to appear tonight. Mayor Brown stated that the council wants to know who owns the lot. Council Member Christensen suggested we should wait to see if the gentlemen who is asking for permission is forthcoming with information and then Mr. Carsen can get that information and validate it. Mayor Brown stated he has not problem with Mr. Carsen getting that information if that will help expedite this matter, and asked Mr. Duquette to pass that on.

3.3 Appointment of alternate municipal judge.
There were no comments.

3.4 Initiate the process to increase the 911 fee for hard-line and cell phones from the current $0.50
(50 cents) to a total of $1.00 (One Dollar).______________________________________________
Allen Morken, director of 911 Center, stated he appeared before the council on March 25 re. this fee increase and at that time the council requested more information re. the costs and the numbers related to getting the cell phones into the office; the ND Assn. of Counties hired Russ Lindblom to coordinate this throughout the entire state of ND and when he first started they were looking at costs throughout the entire state being upwards of $11 million to get the cell calls into the different dispatch centers throughout the state, he has since negotiated and been able to reduce that to about $6 million (doesn't include the
Committee of the Whole - 07/08/02 - Page 5

equipment within the dispatch center), and as part of that the dispatch centers have to reimburse ND Assn. of Counties for this cost; part of the issue was that Grand Forks County is only 1 of 5 counties throughout the state that is still charging $0.50 for their 911 fees, that he was in contact with Mr. Lindblom and talked to him along with the 911 Assn. and the cost that came up per cell phone to get the calls into our dispatch center was 50 cents per cell phone, and at this point in time we would collect 50 cents and it would cost 50 cents to get the calls into our dispatch center and would leave no extra money for the infrastructure and equipment needed into the dispatch center; this was to start June 1 of this year and in talking to them their agreement that came out for all the PSAP's in ND was between June 1 and December 31 and would pay one-half of the amount that we collect back to ND Assn., which means that Grand Forks County does get a break because we are only collecting 50 cents and only have to reimburse 25 cents back to Assn.; however, in talking to them he informed them that he did plan to try to get this on the fall measure to raise it to $1.00, and what the agreement also says is that effective January 1, 2003, we will be paying 50 cents as other counties are paying now; and part of the reason he waited so long was to get the information, that they received info on June 26 from the Assn. He stated we have to remember that the monies that we get in for the fees only pays for a portion of what the dispatch center truly costs, along with that the Authority Board, UND, the City of Grand Forks and the County of Grand Forks also pay $941,000 as part of the dispatch center to help off-set the costs related to that, that the monies we take in from the $1.00 fee can be used for maintaining, paying, implementing and operating the 911 Center, that over the last 3 years the cost to UND, the City of Grand Forks and the County of Grand Forks has increased by about $73,000, and his hope is that if we can get this measure passed is to do two things: give us the money necessary to have the equipment within the dispatch center and also to off-set the increases that are passed back to the taxpayers, and to make this a user fee more than off the property tax.

Mr. Morken noted that the $941,000 is the amount that is looked at this year as to how much those 3 entities would pay in and divided n a percentage basis - the City pays 68.03%, UND pays 11.34% and County pays 16.4%. The city auditor stated those fees are from the general fund and City's portion would be $600,000+ or 8 mills to 911 system. Mr. Morken stated it would not be a complete user fee, but would reduce some of the pressure on the general fund - that now on hard-lines we take in about $180,000/year and on cell phones don't have a complete year and when some of the monies come in, were still trying to get some of the cell companies in line, but looking at approx. $130,000 re. that at 50 cents, but next year the $130,000 will go to the ND Assn. to pay that, but if had the $1.00 the $180,000 will become $360,000 and can add $130,000 onto that from the $1.00 increase - the 50 cent increase would be both on the hard-line and the cell phones.

Council Member Brooks stated we need to direct those questions to Mr. Schmisek, and would like to see that information before the next meeting and get impact on the general fund. The city auditor stated they can meet with Mr. Morken, what would go to off-set operational costs that we're presently paying out of the general fund - we charge the general fund of the city for the police and fire and transfer money from the general fund to that special revenue fund to help off-set the costs.

Council Member Christensen stated he had a copy of the Special Revenue Fund 2105 and the proposed revenues for the 50-cent fee for hard lines in 2002 is $152,000 at 50 cents per line. Mr. Morken stated that does not include the $32,000 that the County's part and if add the $152,000 plus the $32,000 will make approx. $180,000. Council Member Christensen asked what benefit would be for taxpayer with increase. Mr. Morken stated at the present time in our 911 dispatch center we do not have the capability when on your cell phone for you to dial 911 and to get your specific location (longitude and latitude) - that more and more people are going away from hard-line phones entirely to cell phones. Council Member Christensen asked what is it going to cost for the equipment you propose to buy so locate someone by cell phone call and when could this fee sunset if it were on the ballot. Mr. Morken this is set up for a 6-year period of time and
Committee of the Whole - 07/08/02 - Page 6

after 6-years would have to renew it, the agreement with the Assn. of Counties to pay for getting the fees into the dispatch center is set up for 5-years and after 5 years through technology, they find out that it can be done much cheaper, then that contract can be renegotiated. He stated he does not want this to be an added fee that people have to pay extra, in part of this law is the part that says you can also, once you pay your costs related to this, then you can use it for implementing, maintaining and operating the dispatch center - and if this does show an added amount and at that point it can be reduced off the property tax and each year the council or governing body looks at the budget in the 911 dispatch center, those decisions can be made at that time or if after the 6-years they feel it's no longer necessary to collect the $1.00 fee, those decisions can be made at that time. Council Member Gershman asked if at the end of the 6 years it would have to come back to the vote of the public - Mr. Morken stated that at the end of the 6 years, the government entity can continue it for another 6 years.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that tonight we're discussing whether or not this council wishes to request the County Commission to endorse or support but our action will not have any authority whatsoever, it is the County Commissioners that will make that determination as he understands it and request that it be placed on the ballot. Mr. Morken stated that was correct, however the Commissioners have spoken loudly that they would follow whatever the city council - Council Member Hamerlik stated they are going to go ahead anyway and only requesting this group which would bring some support to constituents of the county and city of Grand Forks, but if they are going ahead with it already, this is a moot point other than an endorsement or request but details would help us as voters. Mr. Morken stated that he is planning to talk to the County Board tomorrow but before he met with the County Board, did want to meet with the city council.

Council Member Kerian asked if the cell phone technology is that the hand held she can purchase will allow her to take advantage of that and what is the timing on that. Mr. Morken stated that by the year 2005 everything has to be in place, people have to have the cell phones, but this is going to be in phased in steps, by mid 2003 that there will be more and more cell phones out there that the companies will have available that do have the technology that put out the longitude/latitude, and with the cell phone sales that some companies are going to use this as a sales gimmick, that as the 911 Center's have the capability of receiving the longitude/latitude we're the company that has the technology to provide you the safety.

Council Member Gershman stated that we are going to be collecting money for cell phones that don't have the technology in them, that almost every cell phone in the city would not have longitude/latitude in it but we're going to start the tax and by 2005 supposedly throw everything away again with this technology that happens and becomes frustrating for all of us, and not see the results until 2005 but people will have been paying that $1.00 for 3 or 4 years. Mr. Morken everything has to be implemented by the end of 2005 and by mid-2003 we're going to start seeing the cell phones come out and once the technology comes out it's going to mushroom and at the dispatch center have to be prepared, once the cell phones are able to receive that information have to be prepared as people will have the cell phones with that technology, will dial 911 and if we don't have that technology at the dispatch center that's when run into problems.

Council Member Christensen stated in looking at their budget we have a $270,000 cash carry over and have the money in the bank to buy some equipment, and if build another $30,000 or $80,000 in cash carryover in the next two years, you would have, with the 50 cents that they are collecting on the cell phones now, will have over $400,000 in cash to buy the technology, that the price has gone from $11 to $6 million in less than 12 months, but has a hard time believing that $400,000 probably is enough money to buy what you need two years from now when there will be a need, concerned that we're extracting money from the citizens prematurely and if something we truly needed in 2005, we could do it and if had to tack it to a bond issue, we could sell the bonds, buy the equipment and in the meantime the people wouldn't have
Committee of the Whole - 07/08/02 - Page 7

been spending extra fees for 3 or 4 years, and has a problem with timing of the issue. Mr. Morken stated in meeting with Mr. Schmisek on the budget this year, indications are already that some of that cash carryover that was in place will be used this next year to help stabilize what the costs are to the cities and expect as they go into the future and some of the technology relating to the new radios, AVL equipment (automatic vehicle locator equipment), that may be out there expect that instead of the cash carryover to grow to continue to be reduced.

Council Member Christensen stated they didn't have the cell phone fee until this year, 2002, and that's 50 cents, but every house that has a land line probably has at least one cell phone, thinks the revenue they're going to get in 2002 and 2003 are going to surprise you, and has a hard time buying into this right now.

Council Member Glassheim stated that the hard line costs are not related to the cell phone technology, are they? Mr. Morken stated that all the money can be used for some technology relating to the operation of the dispatch center, that the 50 cents after January 1, 2003 if we continue with collecting only 50 cents, every penny of that will go to the Assn. of Counties to get the 911 calls into our dispatch center and we will have none of that, all that we will be able to use to pay for the technology, including the cell technology, will be the money that we get in on the hard line phones. Glassheim stated that the hard line is being assessed to pay for the cell technology or will be - if it is left at 50 cents. He stated that 50 cents of the hard line will pay for the new cellular technology - unless the 50 cents is increased because the 50 cents that we get on the cell phone will be have to be used to get the cell phone calls into our dispatch center. Mr. Morken stated that whether the cell phone calls are raised to $1.00 or not, 50 cents of each cell phone will go to the ND Assn. of Counties. Glassheim stated that the increase on the hard lines has nothing to do with the cell phone technology but has to do with operating costs and the assessment to the counties; Mr. Morken stated that was correct. Glassheim asked if Mr. Christensen was correct that at this time and for another year or two, the cell phones won't actually be able to be picked up by the new technology because they don't have it. Mr. Morken stated that if they would start collecting the fees in January, about half ways through the year 2003, we will start receiving some of these calls because some of the people will have that technology, and everybody has to be converted by December 31, 2005 - this will be a gradual process. Glassheim stated whether we like it or not and whether we raise the tax or not, we're going to be paying to the ND Assn. of Counties as of January 1, 2003 - Mr. Morken stated approx. $130,000/year. Glassheim stated that right now these costs are being subsidized by the general tax paying public out of general fund monies, rather than being a user fee - we are going to pay it and the question is whether users fees will pay for it or the general fund will pay it.

Council Member Kreun this is a conversion because we're going to be using more technology and have more cell phones and our hard lines are going to be reduced and in the end will not be collecting a great deal more money during this period of time, it will probably go back to the normal amount because everybody is going to have the same amount of phone lines, and all this is bringing it to the voters, and is an exercise in explaining what the vote means to the voters as we have no control but give our blessing or not.

Doug West, 422 South 5th Street, stated that before providing 911 Center with more money that we first take a look at how the 911 Center is being operated and conducted, and related several incidents with the 911 Center. Chief Packet stated he would meet with this gentleman and get information from him.

Mayor Brown stated he had a request to suspend the agenda and move item 3.13 forward. It was so moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Brooks, Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Committee of the Whole - 07/08/02 - Page 8

3.13 Ordinance amending the text of the Land Development Code, Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks
City Code of 1987, as amended, Section XX-XXXX, relating to banner display area(s) in the city
of Grand Forks, North Dakota.-------------______________________________________________________
Sheila Gerszewski, rep. of Chamber of Commerce, stated they have been working through a committee to have some banners to show the pride of the community, to put up some welcome banners with University logo, Gateway Association as people coming into our community, that they are looking at some high quality banners, have had some funds approved through the City Beautification Program to purchase part of the banners, that the City and taxpayers would not be responsible to maintain the banners, that each organization would put banners up, maintain and replace when needed. She noted that there is not an ordinance in place where they can hang these banners, would like to give some preliminary information, that they are getting bids, that banners would be on the light poles. Ordinance would include type of banners that would be up year around, quality, whose responsible for maintenance and want to stay away from advertising but welcome to the community.

Dennis Potter, city planner, reported that the fee is $100.00, one time fee, that the ordinance is structured so a case-by-case request only by non-profit organizations, reviewed by Planning and Zoning Commission Sign Subcommittee, they would forward a recommendation to the city council for specific designated areas. Council Member Kreun stated the reason not limited to just non-profit was that the Gateway Assn. is business for profit, the ordinance is written so that it cannot be a business advertisement. Mr. Potter stated they felt it would be important for the city council to have the final say in designating the areas where the banners would be located, but if council chooses to delegate that to Planning and Zoning Commission or whomever, they could do that. It was also noted that the city council is the appeal board and usually don't have the appellate group conducting anything to do with a petition or request for rehearing and should be reconsidered; Mr. Potter noted those comments.

Council Member Christensen expressed concerns re. definition of permittee, requirement for insurance and cost, and length of time permit allows the banners to be up because banners get weathered, etc. and permit should have a duration. Ms. Gerszewski stated signs will be custom designed to show the name of the association, etc., are 2.5'x5' banners, looking at signs with 3 to 5 year warranty, and at any point where not maintained, the City has the right to take them down. Council Member Kreun stated they could make this an annual permit rather than a permanent permit so can be reviewed and decision can be made during renewal process.

3.5 Bids for Phase II Greenway Cleanup Project No. 5239.
There were no comments.

3.6 Job descriptions - Mayor's Office.
Council Member Kerian stated she would like to see an organizational chart that includes these positions and also the administrative coordinator's description to see how this fits together. Mr. Hovland stated they could get that information out tomorrow to all council members, the city attorney and the city auditor.

Daryl Hovland, Human Resources, reported these are positions that were approved by the city council as part of the part-time to go classified - the executive assistant, the communications supervisor and the communication specialist; that the assistant to the mayor is an approved job description currently on file; that they worked with Mayor Brown and Mr. Duquette who was the assistant to the mayor; that they offered different organizational structures to the mayor and he selected the one where the assistant to the mayor is in direct line to the mayor; the administrative coordinator is on another line that has the department heads; this is the administrative part for the mayor's office. Mayor Brown stated that was
Committee of the Whole - 07/08/02 - Page 9

divided into the operational side and the political liaison portion which is a very important portion of the mayor's office is the political relations and interactions. Council Member Hamerlik questioned why the administrative coordination was not the supervisor/director for the communications supervisor. Mayor Brown stated that he thought the Public Info. Office would primarily be the voice of the mayor's office and does do news releases from department heads and that would come across from the mayor's office, that they do work well together, communicate frequently. Mayor Brown stated that the adm. coordinator is going to have input through the mayor to that position.

Council Member Christensen asked if there was money in the 2002 budget for the position of assistant to the mayor which is not filled; the city auditor stated there is. Mr. Hovland stated that the position of executive assistant is temporarily filled by a temporary part-time employee and once this job description is approved, it will go to the Civil Service Commission for classification, advertised and will be a competitive process for these positions. It was noted that there have been job descriptions for assistant to the mayor and administrative assistant (and through structure of the mayor's office redefined these positions to make sure there is no overlap in any of these positions), some of the duties of the assistant to the mayor is on administrative side. Council Member Christensen asked for copies of the old job descriptions also. Council Member Brooks asked that they make note if positions are permanent or temporary and if filled by permanent or temporary employee, and pay grade level and how long positions have been in the system. Mayor Brown stated this is a team that is responsible and responsive to citizens and this is the team he has assembled to make that happen and will have information requested to council members.

Council Member Glassheim stated he is having trouble distinguishing between the assistant to the mayor and some of the activities assigned in the job description and what he thought was a function of the administrative coordinator, not seeing the difference between the two. Mayor Brown stated the assistant to the mayor responds to the mayor in the interpolitical relationships and the administrative coordination is a department head who manages the department heads and is not involved in as much in the political or interrelationships with other cities and governments so divided into operational administrative role and other in an interrelationship role, that there is going to be overlap in any functions. He stated they want a government that is responsive, receptive to citizens and responsible to citizens.

There was some discussion as to whether assistant to the mayor position should be a classified or a contracted position. Mr. Swanson stated they were not procedurally too late to make that a contracted position, and suggested a third option that they should be aware of - if going to be an assistant to the mayor that it is a political appointment and not even subject to a contract but serve at the will or leisure of the mayor. Mr. Duquette stated they will recraft that.

3.7 Budget amendment request - Office of Urban Development.
There were no comments.

3.8 Budget amendment request - Office of Urban Development.
There were no comments.

3.9 2003 Community Development Block Grant Program.
Council Member Gershman questioned amount of money (approx. $1.3 million) coming in program income for the next 4 or 5 years. Terry Hanson, Urban Development, stated he felt it would go up in 2004 and level off at about $1.5 million. It was noted this is program income from interest free loans made to apartment buildings and businesses that were made after the flood, and over the next 5 years, $8 to $10 million. Council Member Gershman suggested that this may be a perfect case to take a significant amount of money coming to the City and to refer this to our standby committee of finance/urban development to
Committee of the Whole - 07/08/02 - Page 10

start to develop a policy as to what they might want to develop over the next 5 years to use this money for and could do something significant; that his concern is that if we don't have a policy and plan in place, that use on smaller bricks and mortar and end of the period nothing there that would be of significance.

Council Member Brooks reported at one time there was an advisory committee who reviewed the applications, then later to the Urban Development Committee and then to council for approval of award - now looking at putting council reps. on to review - and would like them to think about going back to the process of a citizens advisory committee, then to committee of the whole and to think about that process. Mr. Hanson stated he interpreted Mr. Gershman's suggestion as something different than the citizens advisory committee - he supports the creation of having a citizens advisory committee to review applications - that Mr. Gershman's suggestion would be a determination or policy by the city council to direct what projects we're going to encourage to be applied for, and supports both ideas - can get the citizens advisory committee in place in time to follow our deadline, and could have some general direction for the year 2003 by the same time, and perhaps the citizens advisory committee could offer input to the finance committee on what a community idea would be where to direct those funds. He stated whether they can get that done in time to have the application process done, not sure, but for 2004 could have a set policy on where the City would want to dictate those funds, but would like to try for this year also.

Council Member Christensen stated it is $7.5 to $10 million that the City will be collecting in the next 5 years, starting in January 2003 and important that before allocating this money getting citizens involved, and asked how much of this money can we use for addressing urgent community needs; would like as much information about the regs as to how this money could be used by the City of Grand Forks to cover some of our capital improvement issues or how we could partner with other governmental entities to facilitate the construction of pools or water park, have opportunity to lever this money for the entire community.