City of Grand Forks - Print Friendly Form

Council Minutes

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Monday, September 9, 2002 - 7:00 p.m.

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, September 9, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Vice President Hamerlik presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Glassheim, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun, Hamerlik - 6; absent: Council Member Gershman - 1.

Vice President Hamerlik 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. He also noted that there will be no recommendations on any of the agenda items.

Vice President Hamerlik reported that the Mayor and Mr. Gershman are unable to attend tonight, they are on city business and also noted the following announcements:
1) Thanked everyone who came out for the Community Bike Day at Engelstad Arena, which was held yesterday, great participation.
2) He noted there were several ceremonies on Wednesday, September 11: a wreath laying ceremony in the Town Square that begins at 8:40 a.m., an honoring service at the Grand Forks Central Fire Station on DeMers at 9:00 a.m., and a sculpture dedication ceremony at 1:00 p.m. in front of the police department; and in addition other ceremonies throughout the community in various churches and the Air Base.
3) He noted that the Grand Forks Fire Department will be holding its open house and safety fair this Saturday, September 14, at the Central Fire Station on DeMers. The fire department is 120 years old and the Local 1099 is 50 years old and plenty of cake to be served.
4) He congratulated the Fire Department, Local 1099 has won a North Central Division Award for Community Service, the division includes 7-8 states in this region, the award was for the spaghetti feed they organized just after September 11 event and proceeds went to New York, the spaghetti feed was extremely successful and a job well done.
5) He stated that since the city attorney is not here, Mr. Glassheim will be the parliamentarian; and for those watching on t.v. the audio and video that improvements have been made.

Vice President Hamerlik called on Don Shields re. mosquito spraying. Mr. Shields stated that with the rains that they've had this afternoon and evening, the mosquito crews are postponing the spraying of the citywide ground spray until tomorrow - time from about 6:30 p.m. to midnight.

1.3 Presentation by United Way.
Pat Burger, United Way, reported that she placed at the council members desks a collection memo of about 3 pages which shows all of the funds that were distributed through the CDBG and the Special Needs funds. She presented a summary of how the program went and is still going on this year. She stated they have been distributing CDBG funds for over 3 years but in 2002 restored the Human Needs funds and that is specifically why she wanted to let them know how those funds made a difference, and thanked them for putting those in the budget last year. She stated the program in brief, that United Way has an allocation program and an allocation committee and the committee put together all of the funding decisions for United Way agencies also for the CDBG funds and the Special Human Needs funds. She stated the committee met with those agencies to review their proposals but it wasn't until the end of the process that she met with Terry Hanson of Urban
MINUTES/COMM.WHOLE/09-09-02 - Page 2

Development and decided from which pot of money those funds came from. There was $100,000 from Special Needs, $112,500 from CDBG and decided that CDBG would probably be more restrictive and asked everyone to fill out those special forms and have on all projects a direct benefit reports and that includes the number of people that were served in all the programs, their income levels as well as ethinicticity and this is what is required of the federal government and decided to make it required of everyone. She noted that these dollars were used for low and low and moderate income . She stated that out of the 20 agencies that were funded, only half were United Way agencies; all those that were non-profit, 501C3, were allowed to apply for these funds.

She stated she reviewed certain criteria with the allocation committee, determine whether program addresses a severe and immediate community problem and how many people impact, are the projects for the low income people, feasible and achievable, and whether the agency can in fact do what they say they are going to do, and to see if looked at other funding sources (grants, etc.), don't want to be duplicated efforts and want to know there is going to be community support for this project. She stated that 45% of the funds or $96,500 went for programs that provide basic health, safety, shelter, basic needs; 30% went to programs that benefit youth, and 25% of the funds went for programs that provide assistance to seniors and mentally/physically disabled. She noted that United Way's total funding of $629,000 that went out, they still had gaps of about $150,000, and even trying to do best you can, there are more needs out there.

She reviewed several of the programs that were funded and clients they served. She also noted that there are 17 pay day loan places in the city of Grand Forks, this was voted in with the ND State and are legitimate businesses and can be operating and practicing; and these places of businesses are providing funds to the people who least afford to pay them back; and have found with the number of the agencies reporting that this has had a dramatic effect on the clientele.

She stated that she wanted to let them know that the dollars that were going out in CDBG and Special Needs are really making a difference in the community. She also stated that many dollars are used to help bring in federal dollars and reviewed several of the programs noted on her listing. She stated that United Way did not take any administrative fee from the Special Needs funds and do take some administrative dollars from the CDBG, although only 10%. Council Member Kerian questioned where the information was available; Ms. Burger stated it is in her office and is public information and she would supply them with info. and results on reports are also in her office.

3.1 Resolution to annex part of Block 1, Lot 2 and Block 2, Lot 2, LeClerc's Addition
including portion of NW Quarter of SE Quarter of Section 27, T151N, R50W of the
5th P.M. and adjacent rights of way (located in 5600 block of Charlie Ray Drive
between Chestnut Street extended and Cottonwood Street.______________________
Council Member Christensen stated that the entire tract is in excess of 20 acres; Mr. Potter stated there are two elements to the annexation, one is a voluntary annexation proposed by Mr. LeClerc and the resolution of annexation, and it was noted that property within quarter of a mile of city services.

Council Member Christensen stated that in addition to the area the LeClerc's have requested voluntarily for annexation, there are two other portions 2 and 3 that are not
MINUTES/COMM.WHOLE/09-09-02 - Page 3

being requested for annexation and asked if all would meet the goals for annexation ratings; Mr. Potter stated they would be close but has not looked specifically. Mr. Christensen stated the policy was put in place in 1996 and was to govern council with when have a parcel of land that is adjacent to the city as far as annexation, and if the City were to annex all of that ground, the LeClerc's could protest that out; and if we go with the voluntary annexation we allow a few lots in but the rest of the lots which are just as capable and ready to be developed as these, wouldn't be annexed and if we did that, when these lots came in under voluntary annexation, they will pay special assessments for the dike. Mr. Schmisek stated they would. Mr. Christensen noted that the property not included in the voluntary annexation would not pay special assessments until the LeClerc's decide to bring them in, that lots brought in at a later date would pay for assessments with depreciation.

Mr. Christensen asked how we would make sure that the City was paid for the water lines they are going to extend to Mr. Crary's addition which is across the street, so that there wouldn't be any gap so the LeClerc's would pay what everyone else would pay if we chose not to annex it - that we have a tapping policy and never completed the tapping policy as far as how the tapping policy should affect proposed annexation; and we have a tapping policy where it is gradual that if you don't bring it in for 5 years because of depreciation and asked what they would suggest as to a tapping policy if we were go with this voluntary annexation but make sure that they paid their fair share of the dike special assessments and the sewer and water that is going to extended in that area so it is not decreased and what would be the staff's recommendation so we treat the people fairly that are going to be buying lots from Mr. Crary and Mr. Adams.

Mr. Grasser stated he couldn't give specific information today, that they have worked with Mr. Crary on part of the property and determined that the best way to serve this area is to bring a sewer in by Cherry Street from the west and north and down 55th and into Mr. Crary's subdivision, annexation would accomplish a cost sharing of the sanitary sewer get it to this point. Mr. Grasser stated he has a little more trouble with LeClerc's property (included in the resolution of annexation) because can't be specific, the difficulty they have is that this portion is a distance away, probably up to 500 ft. away from the main trunk line and that area would get assessments when the laterals come in because wouldn't provide the laterals according to current city policy until they are annexed and then would special assessment them against those properties; and if question is the main trunk on 55th, that is more difficult - the city council will be able to determine when they bring that project in what sort of limits they want to set for the tapping fee and what limits for special assessments. Any areas that would be in the city limits at the time they create the district could be special assessments, and his understanding on this unless Mr. Swanson has changed it, is that an area outside the city limits, have to assign the tapping fees to that or future assessment district because couldn't assess at the time. Mr. Christensen stated this is a big issue that is facing us as we look to the southend and the development of this community. He also stated that if we annex LeClerc's request, the only thing we have to assist us in making sure that they pay their share of the major trunk line that is going to come to the north would be with a tapping fee policy but would be reduced in the amount in light of our current policy. Mr. Grasser stated it was a straight line for the first 5 years and then declining for about the 15 or 20. Mr. Christensen stated that is an issue that should be addressed before we bring in that main line; Mr. Grasser agreed and need to affirm some new tapping fee standards.

MINUTES/COMM.WHOLE/09-09-02 - Page 4

Mr. Christensen asked if the City has granted a voluntary annexation conditioned upon bringing the rest of the property in within a certain period of time; Mr. Potter stated that was a time certain annexation. Mr. Christensen asked if they have given any thought to a recommendation where the City would grant this voluntary request subject to the balance of it coming in within a certain period of time. Mr. Potter stated at the Planning Commission there was a discussion with Mr. LeClerc about a time certain annexation for this area and Mr. LeClerc stated he was not interested in doing that. Mr. Christensen stated they have a community that's paying for a dike and use community funds that's going to extend that trunk line and this annexation will have some benefit, but as a matter of policy and fairness for the rest of those paying, if we shouldn't do something like that and if the engineering department and the planning and zoning department couldn't come back and give us assistance with policy as to how we handle this and handle the other ones across the Interstate. Mr. Potter stated they could do that. Mr. Grasser also stated they can do that, the issue comes in is in timing, the date certain as to when the work is going to occur and in the discussions with Mr. Crary as he would like this work to have been done yesterday. Mr. Christensen stated we have to get that tapping policy moving as it governs a lot of these people, including Ray.

Council Member Brooks stated that the recommended action is to approve the resolution to annex and in the staff report it says in the direction of the council to the planning department, the committee motion from Planning and Zoning was to reject the council's request. Mr. Potter stated this goes back to the last city council meeting when you had before you the voluntary annexation, also had a subdivision and a rezoning for this entire area and in discussion he heard that the council wanted to look at possible annexation of the larger area and time it all so that the annexation proposed, and possible annexation of the larger portion of property, subdivision, replatting and the rezoning would all reach the council at a single time, that Mr. LeClerc stated he was not interested in a voluntary annexation of the larger portion of his property and if the council wants to annex it, have to go to an involuntary annexation process and through a protest period, that this came before Planning and Zoning Commission, they reviewed it and there is a letter before you which was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission, they debated that and felt strongly that it was inappropriate to go ahead and annex this area, and at the committee of the whole looking at the question of if the council wants to go ahead with an attempt to do an involuntary annexation on this property, and override the Planning and Zoning Commission and direct the city staff to set a public hearing on October 21 and procedural step if want to go forward so that you have the entire package for this area, both voluntary annexation, the plat, the rezoning and the potential involuntary annexation before you at one time.

Mr. Potter stated before the council next Monday will have 4 items before you: the voluntary annexation in form of an ordinance and public hearing set for next Monday, will have the replat with a public hearing next Monday, and have the rezoning with public hearing next Monday, and will have involuntary annexation and if want to go forward with that, that requires a protest public hearing and have to do two things: override the Planning and Zoning Commission's rejection of the involuntary annexation resolution, and set a public hearing for October 21 and sets off formal protest hearing, notice requirements, etc. and if you do that, and last item he would recommend to you is that you continue the three public hearings that are set for September 16 and move them to October 21 and have all of those before you as a package. He stated that even if you do that, the dialogue they have
MINUTES/COMM.WHOLE/09-09-02 - Page 5

heard from the council members indicate they need to do some work on the question of how do they provide a way to fairly treat the areas which are outside the city when there is a benefit for a project going by that is inside the city will still do that anyway, so the question before you procedurally then would be do you still want to look at this whole thing as a package or a series of steps you have to take to do that.

Mr. Glassheim asked what is the relationship between the replatting and the rezoning and the voluntary annexation. Mr. Potter stated they should go together and if going to annex the area, platting and rezoning is really necessary to even get later on to the step of development in that property, whether or not you annex it now or set a time certain for it but at some point you need to rezone the area and need to replat it.

Ray LeClerc stated their request was to annex an area, replat it into small lots but the condition on the small lots in the shaded area is that they remain in groups, 6 lots per group so that it would be similar to the requirement in the A-2 District which requires that lots be a minimum of 2.5 acres; and what would give them ability to sell the smaller lots at this time, would be to have them annexed and would be a condition of separating the small lots from the larger group lots. He stated the reason they even included the back (west) part in the replat was that he is familiar with the requirements as far as platting and zoning but his wife and his children aren't and if something happened to him, they would have this all in place so that when the time comes for the larger area to develop, that the only thing they would have to do then is annex it so they could sell off the small lots. He stated the shaded area is totally against the policies of the City of Grand Forks and the Planning Commission, that there is something else going on with this behind the scenes because this is rural farmland, they have 10 acres, that they feel uneasy about starting a little project in front and would have 7 lots to sell and put sewer and water, etc. but no way the larger (shaded) area is ready for development, no storm sewer, area to the north is undeveloped; the annexation policies have always been for developed properties - there is lot of property that's not in the city limits that's going to be protected by the dike but doesn't see any move to annex all of that property if that is the motivation. He stated there is no way they could start selling lots, would like to be able to sell lots here but can't because no utilities and area to the north isn't ready; and they would end up losing the property because there would be special assessments put on it and couldn't pay them - they have paid specials and the dike assessment in full on 3 parcels. He stated that Mr. Crary wants to develop his land and run in trunk lines to serve that and they would be part of that assessment for what they have annexed, and if look at annexation policies wouldn't have this on the agenda because undeveloped.

3.2 Preliminary plat of Wheatland Acres Second Subdivision (located north of Merrifield
Road (aka County Highway No. 6, County 911 street name of 12th Avenue NE and city street extension of 76th Avenue S.) between S. 34th Street and S. Columbia Road.
Council Member Kreun stated this is first reading and preliminary for approval but some of the same questions would be addressed with this piece of property as well, because this will be inside the dike system but outside the city limits, and the policy that they were discussing earlier that they may want to develop should include this type of land as well because if you incorporate this it could very well be developed and never brought in and annexed into the city because it's far enough out and there would be complete dike protection without any payment, and want to take a good look at that with out policy.

MINUTES/COMM.WHOLE/09-09-02 - Page 6

3.3 Request for preliminary ordinance to rezone and exclude from A-2 (Agricultural
Reserve) and to include within B-3 (General Business) District Block 1, Lot 2, Sunny
Nodak Farms Addition (located east of N. 69th Street between U.S. Highway No. 2
(Gateway Drive) and 12th Avenue N.________________________________________
There were no comments.

3.4 Application for moving permit to move 8-plex apartments from 706 S. 4th Street to
1514 North 6th Street.___________________________________________________
Samuel Anderson, 1502 N. 6th Street, stated their neighborhood has some concerns because of increased traffic flow, possible increase of crime and drugs, blocking of mail boxes, increased noise levels, property values dropping, possible increase of homeowners insurance rates, end of family orientated neighborhood, small lot for apt. building with 8+ additional tenants, and clash of older homes around an apartment building; and will bring petition from the neighborhood.

Bev Collings, Code Enf. Officer, stated applicant has completed paperwork for 8-plex to be moved onto the site which is 100'x140' and site plan in the packet and have offered copy of the site plan to the neighbors, it meets requirements of the City Code and is in an R-4 zone (multi-family) and applicant will provide proper buffers (trees and landscaping), green space, parking spaces, dealing with structure approx. 30 years old in good shape, and some work done when it is moved to bring up to Code. The building is 1-bedroom apts, and doesn't see anything the City could object to, it will increase traffic volume in the neighborhood but not over what zoning allows; parking issue should handle that and they are providing 16 parking spaces.

It was noted that there are no other apt. buildings in this block, but surrounded by industrial (former City shop), group home, and have apts. in the neighborhood but at least block away. There was some discussion re. buffer zone - Ms. Collings stated on north side of the property (trees and landscaping) and on other side (trees and bushes, plus fence - already a fence there that exceeds requirements). Alley is standard alley. Ms. Collings also noted the designated route was pre-arranged before the application was made and was approved.

Council Member Glassheim stated he was told that there was something here years ago that involved agricultural chemicals, storage and some concern about safety, environmental problems and if that is something we would normally check on in a rental situation to make sure that it's on land that's not contaminated. Ms. Collings stated that is not one of the codes but more of a federal or state regs. and not aware of anything.

3.5 Consideration of bids for Project No. 4948.4, GFWTP site improvements Part A:
Residuals Pumping Station._____________________________________________
There were no comments.

3.6 Application for exemption of improvements to commercial buildings at 1720 S.
Washington Street.__________________________________________________
There were no comments.

3.7 Application for exemption of improvements to residential building at 2514 S. 10th
Street.________________________________________________________________
MINUTES/COMM.WHOLE/09-09-02 - Page 7

Mel Carsen, city assessor, stated that this is remodeling exemption and to qualify have to meet the qualifications of remodeled buildings and property meets that - but some question if want to extend the exemption to include the addition that's being built and the new garage - the law does allow you to exempt that also but the practice in the past (two other cases and in one case the council exempted the addition along with the remodeling, and in other case they exempt the addition at 50%, and no clear direction and because unique creature - large addition and brand new garage but there were two additions removed from this property plus garage that was removed. He stated the option would be to exempt only the remodeling to the existing structure and then could extend the exemption to any part of the additions up to 100% for 3-year period.

Mr. Carsen stated there was a question that needs to be addressed before giving blanket exemption. He stated tax saving numbers - $1553.00 on an annual basis if granted the exemption for the remodeling, addition and garage based on a current value; they have a building that currently assessed at $93,400 but much of that has been demolished and he is replacing the demolished area with a large addition and double garage. (The former case like this they gave 100% exemption to, where demolished the garage and small addition and added large addition and new garage, and city council at that point decided to exempt the entire addition and the new garage along with the remodeling. - The case where they granted a 50% exemption was clear-cut, they didn't demolish anything but added a family-room addition together with remodeling and city council decided to grant 50% exemption to the addition.) Kerian stated if wanted to grant a 50% - Mr. Carsen stated the $1553 is the tax savings for one year if granted on the remodeling, the addition and the garage, and how much is remodeling could not answer accurately, the remodeling would be a small portion and guessing 20-25% of that.

Mr. Carsen stated to qualify for the remodeling exemption you have to remodel the house that is at least 25 years old and have to remodel it to increase the value by 10% or $5,000, and once you qualify and intend to include incidental additions because they had a problem with small additions that were built along with remodeling project, but didn't call it incidental additions, can be any size addition - so the addition can be considered exempt along with the remodeling exemption if you first qualify for the remodeling exemption. He stated that the city council adopted the new provisions adding the additions into the resolution so that we can include additions.

3.8 Budget amendment - Dept. of Finance/Administrative Services.
The city auditor reported that the air-conditioning unit at the civic auditorium was damaged in a storm and have received the insurance proceeds and that the $29,900 is at least the majority of the cost (invoice shows additional $3500); they are replacing equipment to enhance its value if you wish to sell it but not air-conditioning it at this time. Mr. Duquette stated it makes sense to repair and doesn't want to start eliminating because not sure what going to happen to that building, that it's an insurance settlement and should repair it.

3.9 Consideration of bids for Project No. 5339, city bus garage repairs.
Council Member Brooks questioned difference between engineer's estimate and bids. Cindy Voigt, asst. city engineer, stated this is first project they have tried to do inside a structure - internal drain repair, did receive help from the low bidder on some of the costs

MINUTES/COMM.WHOLE/09-09-02 - Page 8

but also padded that because they didn't really know what the costs are. Costs came in favorable.

3.10 Consideration of bids for Project No. 5394, driveway and fencing at Viking
elevated tank.____________________________________________________
Ms. Voigt reported they had a bid opening at 2:00 p.m. today, low bidder was Aggregate Industries at $41,096.50, that property has through replatting process, plat waiting for signature at the School District Office, one of the conditions they wanted to resolve is that no access for the antenna, cutting across school playground and been on structures around the tank, want to fence and put driveway in and also security issue try to enforce in 2004. She noted study brought forward in 2003 and to do fencing ahead of time, probably want to do on all of our water structures, put road in, once finished go back to the School District and get signatures and also with the Park District. Monies from antennas ends up in the water utility fund. Ms. Voigt stated that the University tank will be repainted and will also need to acquire property from UND.

3.11 Appointments to Growth Fund Committee.
There were no comments.

3.12 Appointment to Planning & Zoning Commission.
There were no comments.

3.13 Appointments to MPO Executive Policy Board.
Council Member Glassheim noted that some council members are being appointed to significant numbers of significant committees and have heard that people are burned out or doing too many jobs and wearing too many hats, would not like to see his colleagues burn out and hope that will be considered in the future. Vice President Hamerlik stated that appropriate people make note of that.

3.14 Ethics Committee recommendations.
Vice President Hamerlik stated that a committee of several people were on this committee, Mayor Brown chaired the committee, along with Glassheim, Christensen, Kerian and himself; and asked for questions. Vice President Hamerlik stated there were several areas where the committee voted on and should be mentioned where vote was not unanimous but committee voted to move it forward.

Council Member Glassheim stated he appreciated work done, and that he has several items and will try amendments on Monday and presented those items: concerned that the mayor has been left out of this code of ethics and he should be covered by the code as well as city council members and other public officials. He stated there is a small matter where any city official who knowingly has a financial interest must declare and disclose that fact, but that they may not participate in the discussion of the matter or vote on the matter without the consent of a majority of city council public body - either should not participate or we shouldn't have this in the code - but allowing the majority to vote on it means that each time or case will let them vote this time, even though have a conflict, and would prefer a more consistent standard of saying, they may not vote on a matter where they have a financial interest. and not allow the majority to allow them to vote, and in a number of cases wanted a more subjective standards that wouldn't be changed depending upon the will of each particular council. He stated in the enforcement section it says that "An alleged violation of
MINUTES/COMM.WHOLE/09-09-02 - Page 9

the code of ethics may be considered by the city council and if a majority of the city council agrees to hear the facts.." and seems that should have a majority to have a finding against you but to require a majority to hear the facts is to mean that little will ever come to the attention, and should be 2 or 3 people agree to hear the facts rather than a majority which in this case would be 4, but means that a minority cannot bring for a hearing the question of whether there has been a violation of the code, and would prefer that a minority can bring it because there would be an investigation and looking in to it and still take majority to find either for or against the council person. There is in 3 a. still unclear about our relationship to state law, and need Mr. Swanson to speak to that and need that clarified as to where we stand in regard to state law which requires unanimous approval for direct or indirect contracts and this says it will be a majority of the council.

Council Member Christensen stated only issue he was concerned about was the enforcement, that he and the mayor thought this should be a statement of principles, general guidance set of principles that people guide themselves when they address and make decisions and wouldn't set ourselves up as a body to enforce, all this body could do is censure. We don't have process unless amend the Home Rule Charter for an impeachment provision, citizens could go with a petition for recall but doesn't think this body has the ability to remove a council person and something the citizens have retained and rightly so. He stated they lost in that vote, and hope to change this with their amendment.

Council Member Brooks stated we need code of ethics but in terms of enforcement that comes on election day and best way to do it; that because Mr. Swanson not here, the item regarding the mayor not being covered by this and asked if mayor covered by the staff code of ethics being that position really isn't stipulated whether it's a full or part-time. Vice President Hamerlik stated that the discussion whether this was a city council code of ethics or a city council and mayor code of ethics, and concluded that it was going to be just the city council.

Council Member Kreun stated he liked about this code was that it recognizes that city officials are drawn from the society within our community, and does give us the opportunity to continue and do the business that we are in business for. He stated that on page 3 under item d. if there is a procedure where it says there is a process to disclose the financial interest to be allowed to bid for goods and services for the city, and if do that prior to the bid or after the bid, what was intent.

Council Member Christensen stated he wasn't sure there was a city employees code of ethics, there are a few rules of conduct in the code that governs city employees, that when started had drafted it to include all city employees, then excluded those and department heads, and defined city officials and mayor included, then taken out, and should resolve it on Monday. He stated as to Mr. Kreun's comments, stated it isn't clearly addressed but if a city council person were to want to bid on something it would be prudent for that person to notify the council that he or she is going to submit a bid, not sure if the Home Rule Charter trumps state law and that's the issue for Mr. Swanson. He stated that the issue if a council person were to bid, it would be prudent in light of this code of ethics to make the disclosure and get permission from the council to do so because state law that we dealt with on Mr. Kreun was that we have to make a finding that there's no one else able to perform the work and in that situation the council person doing the bidding would actually be the person getting the contract, in Mr. Kreun's situation he was a subcontractor and were able to find
MINUTES/COMM.WHOLE/09-09-02 - Page 10

de facto that someone else got the bid and Mr. Kreun didn't use confidential information and just picked up extra work. He stated he wouldn't bid if he were a city person sitting on the council without the council consent, and at some point in time the issue is going to have to be addressed and maybe the city attorney should write a letter to the attorney general asking for a ruling as to whether a Home Rule Charter trumps state law on a conflict of interest in a code of ethics and he is going to be asked to render an opinion anyway and good to have that knowledge when rendering the opinion because you can rely on as a council person for no censure that doesn't mean you haven't violated law.

Council Member Brooks stated in his comments he had stated code of ethics while he meant conflict of interest and have the city attorney check into that.

Council Member Glassheim stated that there is no mention of gift policy and should be included, either the amount of gifts or whether gifts should be taken, frequency or intention of gifts and in terms of public's perception of things and need to be squeakier clean than most and need to have something. Vice President Hamerlik stated that was discussed with the committee. Council Member Kerian stated that the definition of pecuniary benefit means a benefit in the form of money, personal property, personal privilege, exemption or advantage not available to the general public and in that definition is used within the policy and felt that did include gifts in that definition.

3.15 Matter of approval of election officials and polling places for General Election on
November 5, 2002 and establish ours of election.____________________________
There were no comments.

4. INFORMATION ITEMS:

4.1 Dog park in the greenway.
Nancy Joyner, 702 Belmont Road, stated she would like to advocate the dog park, talked to people who think its a wonderful idea; Fargo did fencing and when we have the greenway that we should look at more natural boundaries and maybe work with the Park Board; there is a web site that has some really good ideas.

4.2 St. Anne's Guest Home disposition.
Vice President Hamerlik reported that tomorrow night at 7:00 p.m. the Historical Assn. will be meeting in the council chambers relating to alternatives to the disposition of the building.

5. ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR COMMENTS.
No comments.

6. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Glassheim requested status of house next to Kuchera's on S. 6th Street. Terry Hanson, Urban Development. reported he checked on that project and that the yard was backfilled and leveled and have now excavated for a foundation for the front porch and contractor moving forward with the completion of that project.
2) Council Member Christensen stated he had some conversations with Melanie Parvey-Biby re. dog park and doesn't know how far we are at as far as enhancements for our
MINUTES/COMM.WHOLE/09-09-02 - Page 11

greenway, and would behoove us to get an idea when we are going to start our greenway enhancements other than the trails, don't know how this money is coming and have $40 million for the next phase - maybe getting as many of these enhancements that are being suggested and get discussion and input plus community involvement, and perhaps have couple meetings - important that the citizens know that these are some of the things that are being considered; and if don't do the enhancements to the greenway that is money that goes back into the fund for paying specials; lot of these things become maintenance; and this coming forward in the future.

3) Council Member Christensen stated we have to prioritize some of the things we are going to establish some policy on - capital improvements, policy on tapping fees, whether hang or go away after so many years. We re going to have policy when we get requests that are within the 2-mile zoning jurisdiction but don't come into the city and when they do come into the city how deal with it; and suggesting looking at that as PUD because we can do things with our PUD regulations; some larger issues to consider when get budget passed.

4) Council Member Christensen stated we have to get an update to the study we received in August, 2000 re. our proposed rates, structuring of our rates because we're going to have more expenditures for our wastewater treatment plant; the city auditor reported that 45% of that budget is debt service, and will be 65% when we get done building the next phase, and this body should get the input and get public input on some of these issues.

5) Council Member Brooks thanked Melanie Parvey-Biby and Park District staff for bike tours and should get out and support this.

He also stated that Council Member Christensen's comments are excellent in terms of policies and only way we are going to be able to sit down and look tapping fees and all of the department heads have policy items they would like to see council start addressing, that they could develop a list and that the council could sit down without benefit of agendas in a retreat fashion and start looking at those items and that would be his suggestion, seems best way to approach this would be with a series of meetings aside from regular Monday night meetings.

6) Council Member Brooks stated he has a question for Mr. Swanson, that with the internet as it is now, and with an open meeting law there was a considerable amount of correspondence that does go on re. e-mails and has a concern and perhaps Mr. Swanson can give us some guidance, how much of that correspondence are we allowed to do.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Kerian to adjourn. Carried 6 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Schmisek
City Auditor