Council Minutes

MINUTES/COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Monday, April 28, 2003 - 7:00 p.m._________

the city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, April 28, 2002 in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Christensen, Kreun - 5; absent: Council Members Gershman, Kerian - 2.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ITEMS

2.1 Matter of bids for Project No. 4948.3, Residuals Forcemain, Phase 3.
Howard Swanson, city attorney, reported this had been on the council agenda several weeks ago and action taken was they determined an error to be a minor irregularity, waived it, and passed motion that approved the contract to the apparent lowest bidder subject to final approval by the ND State Health Department and the city attorney's office; the bids were forwarded to the State Health Department and they raised question after reviewing and found two items which had not been identified at the meeting: 1) they identified that the bid submitted by United Crane had not been signed (submittal sheet was not signed by their corporate officers) but they did have in their internal documents the acknowledgement of addendum and the executed bid bond and the executed affidavit of non-collusion but missing signature on bid form. The Health Department also identified that the second lowest bidder, Wagner Construction, who was present and debating the issue and they had identified the addendum on the outside of the envelope, but failed to identify the receipt of addendum on the inside of the envelope. He stated they have the top two bids of United Crane and Wagner Construction before them for possible consideration. He stated they wouldn't be able to accept either of those bids without waiving an informality one-way or the other. He provided council with memorandum dated April 25, 2003 of his analysis and stated that there are no cases in ND which have considered a unsigned bid document, no Attorney General's opinions which considered an unsigned bid; he looked to other jurisdictions and found that depending upon the jurisdiction there were three different methods in which courts have addressed the problem - some courts will say it is an outright nullity and have no ability to consider it and they appear to be in the minority - the other court decision was that it's even an error and don't have to consider it at all or take any action and what was most persuasive were those decisions that would indicate that the governing body could consider it and determine if there's proper evidence that the bidder intended to submit a bid and the failure to sign the bid didn't give any other bidders an unfair disadvantage; that you could then determine it's minor irregularity and waive it. He stated that the City of Moorhead, MN within the last month had the same predicament occur there, and their city attorney under MN law which does have some guidance reached the same conclusion. He stated they cannot act on this under your procedure tonight and back before you next week. He stated that both of the two apparent lowest bidders have extended the timeline on their bid for an additional 30 days.

Council Member Glassheim asked if setting precedent if accepted them and declared minor irregularity and didn't give anybody any advantage, could that be used by somebody in the future doing the same thing in any advantage. Mr. Swanson stated that was one of the things he looked for in determining how to balance the issues, didn't find any case law that identified any particular advantage of one bidder would have over the other. There was one court that speculated that if you didn't have the use of bid bonds, that a bidder without the bid bond could retract their bid if it was too low. He stated he wasn't sure how one would obtain a great advantage when have the combination of the bid and the bid bond.

Russ Melland, attorney for United Crane, stated that United Crane did intend to be bound by its bid, the language in the non-inclusive affidavit includes language which would indicate that the bid hereby submitted and affidavit was signed and included in the bid package along with the bond and other documents and hopes the council finds it prudent to determine these to be irregularities and proceeds.

Mr. Swanson stated in a very strict reading of the statutes, he found it interesting there's nothing in State law that absolutely requires the bid to be signed, in portions of State law requires an application for bidding documents to signed but not bid itself; however, our plans and specs. that called for the instructions on bidding laid out the requirement.

Council Member Hamerlik asked engineering asked if there was something on timeline on this and if a problem or need for something special - re. completion of the project. Mark Walker, asst. city engineer, stated the project needs to be completed by this fall.

2.2 Application for moving permit to move single family home and garage from 1415 Lewis Blvd. to 1829 N. 4th Street (public hearing scheduled for May 5).________ Alpha - Ms. Collings stated it is a combination of two properties on the new building site, previous address was 405, and will be one or the other depending on how face the street.

2.3 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5488, District No. 418, 47th Ave.S. sanitary sewer (1100 and 1200 blocks)._______________________________________
Council Member Christensen asked if do this project, will it have tapping fees on areas on map with hash marks. Cindy Voigt, asst. city engineer, stated map shows future special assessment district, different than tapping fee, as the Special Assessment District will allow them when those properties become annexed, bring that back to the city council for a special assessment district and get that on the tax rolls; that if do a tapping district, need to collect as the building permits come in; that this will be quicker method. She noted that future special assessment district is included in State Statutes. Council Member Christensen asked how are they going to levy the money in the hash marks on the map. Ms. Voigt stated that one of the City funds will pick up the future assessments; the city auditor stated Sanitary Sewer Fund will pick this up for this project ($93,000 est.) and portion south of 47th Ave.S. and west of S. Washington will be special assessed. Mr. Christensen asked why wouldn't we do more future special assessments rather than tapping fees. Ms. Voigt stated in past few years they've pushed to do future special assessment districts where they can, and haven't had a new tapping fee district since she has been here, and this is first future since she has been here and going to try to continue to do that whenever they can and are trying to clean up the old tapping policy so they can bring the old ones forward and get those completed and back to council. 2.4 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5501, District No. 417, sanitary sewer on 55th Ave.S. (Cherry St. to Belmont Road)._________________________
Council Member Christensen stated staff report says that inclusion of Julien's Subdiv. 2 creates a large irregularity, why would they include any of Julien's Subdiv. in this special assessment district as all of those homes already have water. Ms. Voigt stated when they go across a subdivision with a trunk line in order to be fair to the benefiting neighbors, even though they have sewer the whole subdivision on each side gets assessed and cost for the trunk infrastructure is spread evenly. Mr. Christensen stated they have water and are not extending anything to them and why assess them, and if no benefit for those properties and no reason to do it. Ms. Voigt stated in the water distribution system there's clearly a benefit to everybody that's hooked to the larger pipe because they have increased pressure in the area; sewer more ambiguous but there is still a benefit because they could hook into that if they wanted to and most of them already have sewer but if get disconnected utilities on the trunk that no one will pay for and have to have a way of assigning benefits to both sides of that pipe. Mr. Grasser, city engineer, stated there are two issues, that the discussion so far has talked about why are they in the district because they already have service - have to look at the special assessment process in two sections - one is the creation of the district and have policy guidelines that tell them how they set up the district and what is happening here is one of the policies that if they go by a subdivision rather than sticking that assessment against the adjacent lot is what the policy used to be probably 10 years ago and have expanded it and said that the whole subdivision should pay for that because it didn't go in when the original subdivision was built - now the question on what the benefit is - that is a question that would be posed back to the Special Assessment Commission who would take into account because the other properties have the service, whether they assign them any benefits or not. Mr. Christensen stated it doesn't make any sense to extend it into Julien's Subdiv. No. 2 or to that portion of Julien's which abuts this and rather than put the problem on the Special Assessment Commission it would be easier to draw a line excluding Julien's Subdiv. No. 2 and the issue would never be presented. He stated he is going to suggest that they do that at the next meeting because otherwise have a lot of people here objecting to this as they do not get any benefit and project is non-protestable, so when council sets the district they can't argue about it; that we can eliminate those problems by drawing line on the west side of Julien's Subdiv. No. 2.

Council Member Kreun stated when those people were brought into the city in Julien's Subdiv. 2, were they assessed equally over the whole area to compensate for that, and paying the same amount if we take them out now as their neighbors. Mr. Grasser stated he wasn't sure and believes the sewer was installed with the use of EPA funds of 50% of the cost. Mr. Kreun stated if was not necessarily the cost because if funded with different funding mechanisms, but were they brought into the district and given the same benefit by the Special Assessment Commission as their neighbors - as long as everybody is treated fairly and not being assessed more than their fair share can do that, and asked if give info next week. The city auditor stated they will do some research..

Mr. Grasser stated when they develop policies, there will be lots, even in Cornerstone Estates, which is the Prairie Subdivision that won't drain into this line and that's why that whole issue tends to go to the Special Assessment Commission to try to derive who has. Mr. Kreun stated if they've all got equal benefit and that is all he is asking. Mr. Grasser stated on the map they have a cross-hatched area of future assessment, and they were unsure about what parcels were included in the recent agreement with LeClerc's and found out that the property in question is outside of the agreement area and when they make the final motion, should take out the reference of the future assessment district and that would be a standard assessment district.

Council Member Glassheim asked where the sewer line is in Julien's and where does it drain to. Mr. Grasser stated the southerly extent of it comes down Chestnut Street to the assessment line and showed extent of the sanitary sewer on the map. Mr. Glassheim stated there is a trunk that's outside this district which serves Julien's No. 2 - Mr. Grasser stated the line down Chestnut considered to be a lateral because has services directly to the lots; and technically on a trunk line there isn't anybody who has a direct connection to that line, but is the main line which laterals come out and laterals provide direct services to the homes and makes assessing a trunk difficult.
He stated this whole line down Belmont Road went in on one project and Belmont is the trunk of that system - that in Belmont Road's case there are direct connections into that line; that zoning issues have changed over the 30 years that these areas were originally platted and not everything fits the current state of how things are developed. Mr. Glassheim stated that the question is raised that if Julien's 2nd should belong to the Belmont trunk or to this trunk that is being constructed, but if they have a trunk then they should be part of that district. Mr. Grasser stated the assessment district guidelines and can't use the same rule in every single situation and that is why brought to the council's attention that they created this large irregularity on the north side and staff didn't feel they had the latitude to change our past practices and set up to their best judgment to what past practice has been and bring it to council's attention that if want to make an interpretation on that policy, that's your prerogative.

Council Member Christensen asked if notice has been sent to the affected homeowners in Julien's
Subdiv. No. 2 before this evening as to the creation of the district. Ms. Voigt stated that the
notice to the property owners isn't sent until after the council makes decision on whether do this.
Mr. Christensen questioned why we're not sending notice re. creating of district that affects
people in the district so they have an opportunity to appear and thinks it's incumbent upon staff
post-haste to get a letter out to everybody that is going to be affected. Ms. Voigt stated that the
major property owners have been notified and if going to recommend not including Julien's on
\Monday; Mr. Christensen stated if other council members didn't agree but to be prudent for those
affected to be given opportunity to come before the council. Mr. Grasser stated that the reason
that the process is set up the way it is, if inform people have to be able to give them some
information, and need to 1) identify the area that is going to be potentially impacted, 2) that goes
back to the Special Assessment Commission who will determine some preliminary level of
benefits, and notification that goes to the property owners says they are in the assessment district,
gives range of what assessments might be and from that people can make a rational judgment
whether the benefit seems to be appropriate to what the payments are - if we send out notices
without any of the other info. tend to create more confusion than information, and within a matter
of a couple weeks under this process, and gives time to come back and address the city council
before the bids are opened and awarded, so plenty of time to come back and do that, and would
be very cautious about changing the process. Mr. Christensen stated if you choose not to give
people notice and if some watching, will show up on Monday but thinks we should review that
because if people affected in non-protestable project and hope is to convince Special Assessment
Commission which meets during the day. Mr. Grasser stated the Assessment Commission will
give a preliminary assessment of benefits which then translates into dollars, if there is a ground
swell of concern has seen the Special Assessment Commission meet to listen to those concerns,
and that the city council if the situation isn't rectified to the city council's satisfaction, there is the
option not to award the bid although not protestable by the property owners, the council can stop
the process at any time.

2.5 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5502, District No. 275, watermain on Cherry St. (southend drainway to 55th Ave.S.) and on 55th Ave.S. (Cherry St. to Belmont Road).__________________________________________________________ 2.6 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5504, District No. 590, paving Cherry Street from southend drainway to 55th Ave.S.)_____________________ 2.7 Consideration of bids for Project No. 5457, replace drives at Lift Station 32. 2.8 Consideration of bids for construction of Project No. 5378, overlay and reconstruction of US 81 from Gateway to I-29._____________________
Council Member Brooks asked why the box culvert was not included in the original estimate. Ms. Voigt stated they received the cost split letter that said the City owed $200,000, caught a couple math errors and revised it down to $107,014.42; that they did original cost split when it was $69,000 and that somebody in the engineering office at the DOT didn't include the box culvert cost - bids came in at $310,000 and we are only paying 10% of that and even though had a $30,000 math error, it really is a benefit to us to go forward and pay the $30,000 extra. 2.9 Consideration of bids for Projects Nos. 4812, 4814.2, 4815.2, 4816.3 and 5495, Phase 3, sanitary sewer and water modifications.___________________________________ 2.10 Consideration of bids for Project No. 5430, 2003 Greenway Maintenance. 2.11 Sorlie Bridge lighting.
Wayne Lembke, project engineer, provided an update from the last time this topic was discussed at CIP last week, that he talked to Jeffrey Blake from the engineering consulting group, that worked on the electrical costs for lighting Sorlie Bridge, estimated operation costs for the City of Grand Forks' share would be $900/per year and estimated maintenance costs would be $1,000/per year. Mr. Kreun asked if they want to enter into an agreement so the costs are split with East Grand Forks and add that next week to the council action that we go into an agreement with East Grand Forks, half and half for the O & M costs because our TCSP grant will pay for majority of the lighting. 2.12 Fire Department FEMA Fire Act Grant application.
Council Member Christensen stated application shows planned use of funds, that fireflash unit they may purchase if get the grant, says it is supported with a semi-trailer, and do we have a trailer. Chief O'Neill stated we do not have a tractor, that unit would be delivered to us and placed on site, which is undetermined, hopefully out west on training grounds and if any department that wanted to use it would pay for transportation. Council Member Christensen stated the IMS/ICS trainer can be transported with a heavy-duty pickup or SUV; Chief O'Neill stated they have a tow vehicle and use that; and plans would be to store it outside. 2.13 Sanitation Department equipment bid.
Council Member Brooks asked if warranty was part of the bid specs. for the payloader;
Mr. Feland stated there was a basic warranty and the enhanced warranty provided coverage for everything on the equipment other than glass and misc. things over the 5-year period. Council Member Brooks stated his understanding of options, similar to alternates where they can be accepted or not; Mr. Feland stated yes; and option A with a guaranteed buy-back and Krieder Equipment had a guaranteed buy-back of $93,000 and wasn't taken into consideration. Mr. Feland stated the guaranteed buy-back and could have been clearer on this and how presented this, but on the guaranteed buy-back tried to determine looking at the options of dollar amounts that he was sure was going to happen with the 5 years, and on the buy-back not sure if in 5 years is going to take the buy-back and if they didn't that would change the low bidder, and if had to do it over again wouldn't include it as an option because it becomes more confusing than it needs to be. Council Member Brooks stated some time ago bought a piece of equipment and had a buy-back and went through the same thing and became problem. Mr. Feland stated on future bids won't have a buy-back.

2.14 Grand Forks Renaissance Zone Project GF-6.
2.15 Discussion re. strategic planning.
Council Member Brooks stated when they started this process the mayor and staff thoughtthis was an important process, have had three meetings - that the issues that are facing the city - landfill, flood remapping, potential of 42nd Street development around the Alerus, water treatment plant, wastewater treatment plant, housing issues, future of the Base, basin-wide management, budget issues, credibility issues with the council and the region, sales tax proposal, economic development function or dysfunction, southend bridge, greenway upkeep, all issues are huge facing us anywhere from two months to five or six years, and suggested either put it to rest or start looking at these issues and doing some priorities and plans of how to bring the city through these issues.

Council Member Glassheim stated he has been at a number of attempts by councils to talk about where going and each time it comes up, that he attends and always feels like he has wasted his time because we do giant picture thing and write out things and have structures and put things on boards but never talk to each other about the kind of things Mr. Brooks was saying - that maybe mission statement are good to have because maybe judge things against them but never get them and use them in a way that is productive. He stated that Mr. Brooks has given a list of things to start with and probably more and continue to have these meetings where they discuss and make concrete plans for 2 - 3 years.

Council Member Christensen stated he saw a memo that staff was going to start their budgeting process in June, that they have a lot of issues on the table right now that they have to address as a council and would like to see them spend some time together as council where they address those issues they want to address in next 12 - 36 months, doesn't find that doing a lot of things around here where we have a big overall picture.

Council Member Kreun stated the staff has always had a lot of long range planning and becomes council's job to look at those items and prioritize them; and put more stock in administrative staff to give them more guidance, more economical if use staff to greater degree and suggesting they go back and redo mission statement and utilize staff in best way they can to get to the CIP, long range planning.

Council Member Hamerlik stated

they somehow had come to the conclusion that they were going to go outside and get some help and were to meet, they did that and had very formidable leaders and if any failure, on our part, had as few as three when started one of the meetings, increased to 4 or 5 most of the time - not sure they shouldn't try another session and at that session determine where they are going and how get there - doesn't want to quit.

Council Member Brooks stated he believes in the full strategic planning process but have to go with what suits the group, that he put list together and some items long range, and thinks strategic planning is for 3 years. He stated he was encouraged by what he hears and to take a modified approach to this - start with a list, refine it, and move forward.

Mayor Brown stated he thinks strategic planning very important and has two teams to deal with, department heads/staff and the council, the way this was designed was that council met independently to come up with strategic planning and had staff meet independently to come up with strategic planning - then bring the two teams together after established a teamwork and trust approach so that they can work together and encouraged that the council wants to continue these strategic planning sessions and do have many ideas because then work hopefully as a consensus and continue to move city forward. He stated to Mr. Duquette that strategic planning is again a priority. 3. INFORMATION ITEMS

3.1 Night Bus Report. 3.2 2003 Curbside Recycling Program update.
Council Member Christensen asked if there is an alternative plan being developed so that when they get to December 1, have data and if it doesn't meet the goals, move into plan B but important that they have Plan B prepared so they have something to visit about when get engaged in strategic planning. Mr. Feland stated they are looking at that and planning an additional back-up plan; that council directed them for a drop-site program and expects once get curbside program up and going will come back to the recycling task force with some further discussion on drop-sites and what people would want in a program because his goal is, if end up by the end of the year, have to bid or set up an alternative service; and hopefully in September will have determined if stay with curbside or an alternative strategy. Council Member Christensen stated that budget done by October 1, and as prepare budget need to have Plan A or B in the budget.

Council Member Kreun stated they did put recycling bins at the Public Works Facility and available for tree branches, used oil and extra dumpster for people that have large items - handy facility to have and to let people know they are out there.

Council Member Glassheim stated he hoped they didn't put too much energy into alternate plans, because only been doing this for short time and need to give it time to work. He stated if the council is going to push through on this, request an advisory vote from the public whenever the next election is because he thinks the public will support it, and in terms of budgeting, hopes we budget as if continue but not cut it off just because have to get a budget approved and make a decision ahead of time - he stated on some of these basic service things if we can't afford them in this city, then he will start voting against every economic development expenditure there is - if we have money to spend for hypothetical futures but don't have money to spend for the citizens who are already here, then stop supporting some of the extraordinary stuff, including purchases of land, etc. because if we can't make something work for senior busing but can make something work in the million dollar range for high flying things, getting little annoyed and turn himself into a no vote for anything that has to do with spending big amounts of money on hypothetical futures.

Council Member Christensen stated he believes it is important as a measure of a community as to how it treats the less fortunate, and joins with Mr. Glassheim in some of his thoughts that if we can vote for these big issues so quickly (hotels, water parks) and lose sight of basic quality of life that we all enjoy, then he too will perhaps begin to be more of a liberal than a conservative because in discussion they are about to have, that they start talking about the core fundamental they believe are quality of life issues not be touched and move on.

Mr. Feland stated as they put the budget together in the May to June timeframe, would recommend to the mayor that he put in the dollar amount for curbside program because can always reduce the amount they spend or budget, and through August will give them 5 months under the new co-mingled curbside system. He also noted that in participation of recycling and whether people using the service, Mr. Newman from sanitation department cautioned that the 30% on that date on an average but perhaps some people use it once a month and percentage might be higher than 30% but see the results over the next few months.

3.3 Wastewater Treatment Facility construction report.
Council Member Christensen asked that this be placed on a committee of the whole meeting so they can have a brief report by Mr. Feland so that the members of the public will get the report also and asked if the mayor would direct his adm. coordinator to have this put on for a report at the next committee of the whole meeting would appreciate it; Mayor stated he would do that. 3.4 Grand Forks Renaissance Zone report. 3.5 Cash Balance report for March.
There were no comments.

4. CITIZENS REQUESTS
There were no requests.

5. ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR COMMENTS
There were no comments. .

6. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Glassheim stated when he returned to city the street in front of his house was torn up, and questioned recycling pickup, where bring recycling; Mr. Feland will call him.

2) Council Member Brooks thanked Clear Channel for Support the Troops Rally on Sunday, was very well done, and welcome home to the military personnel returning to our base. He would like to refer to Safety/Service Standby Committee the issue of bid procedures for review and would like input from the staff.

3) Council Member Hamerlik stated they have mentioned land a lot tonight and have said considered about one year and would like to correct that and as former chair of the Core Commission, they have been looking at land for well over two years and not anything new; after considerable concern by the Events Center Commission Wednesday morning they will continue their strategic planning from 7:00 to 10:00.

4) Council Member Christensen asked Mr. Bunce when they could expect the final report on the wage study. Charlie Bunce, HR director, stated they have all the data in and by Thursday will put it together even to the point of having the 2004 preliminary plan ready to go, that it looks like they are only $140.00 off for 2004 as far as the market study is concerned; they have the numbers together and would like to meet with Mayor Brown and Mr. Duquette to go through these numbers but have information for the council next week.

He thanked staff for putting report together on the Elwood lots, still waiting to get a response to his request re. subdividing behind the Norby and Augustine houses next to the dike and that Mr. Bartholomew is working on that.

5) Council Member Kreun stated their Entry Level Housing meeting is on Thursday, and will move meeting ahead to 4:00 p.m. He thanked Clear Channel for the Support the Troops, many came home today and continuing to come home - and can't say enough thanks to those individuals.

He stated that Bob Klave's father passed away and would be nice gesture if could send something to the family for Bob and his wife. Mayor Brown stated that would be done.

6) Mr. Swanson stated he had reported last week that the annexation agreement with regard to the LeClerc Addition had not been returned to his office but that on Friday, April 24, it was provided to his office signed by Mr./Mrs. LeClerc and will be presented to the mayor for his consideration.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Christensen that we adjourn. Carried 5 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,



John M. Schmisek
City Auditor