Council Minutes

MINUTES/COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Monday, February 10, 2003 - 7:00 p.m.______

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, February 10, 2003 in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim (teleconference), Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 7; absent: none.

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

Mayor Brown commented on various events during the past week and upcoming events:
1) that the council on Military Relations met for the first time, John Marshall, chair, and thanked him for his hard work and dedication to the city; that this round of base closings will be a tough one, that Mr. Marshall has assembled some of our finest community leaders to help save our base, understand that saving the base is one of the most important issues our community will face in the next few years, that his office and the city and whole community will work extensively with this committee to make sure we put our best foot forward.
2) that the local National Guard unit, the 131st Quartermaster Water Purification detachment has been placed on alert and could be mobilized at any time. He stated he wanted to send his own alert out to the community to be prepared to join in a community wide effort to send them off when the mobilization happens. He thanked Delton Steele and his Chamber of Commerce Military Affairs Committee for spearheading this effort, need everyone to demonstrate that our community is proud of these men and women and stand in support of them and their families until they return home safely.
3) that last week he had the opportunity to meet with John Carson, the Region 8 director of the Department of Housing & Urban Development, who was in ND for housing conference and visited Grand Forks, that he visited with Mr. Carson re. the City's relationship with HUD and affordable housing opportunities and was pleased with our meeting. Keith Lund, director of the Office of Urban Development and Terry Hanson, director of the Grand Forks Housing Authority took Mr. Carson on a tour of one of our many CDBG assisted projects and demonstrated the progress we have made since our flood; understands that Mr. Carson was impressed with our recovery and stated that it is obvious to him that Grand Forks is poised for increased growth and economic prosperity. He thanked Mr. Lund and Mr. Hanson for their assistance in coordinating this visit and was excellent opportunity for the city to network with this important agency.
4) that the State Legislature representatives are working hard for us in Bismarck, thanked them and everyone else who is making sure that the city is represented in the process; also the Chamber for hosting the legislative forums and all city and staff who have made and will continue to make the long drive to Bismarck to insure our specific concerns and issues are properly voiced.

PRESENT AWARD

Mayor Brown announced that in January 2003 the Grand Forks Fire Department
set forth to recognize individuals or organizations who by their efforts have assisted in the protection or safety of the general public and their property. The award christened the "Community Fire Shield" shall be presented to whomever displays such actions and does so under the belief that we all shall benefit from citizens protecting citizens. He stated on the morning of November 3, 2002 Devonna Lecy saw what she thought was a candle burning in the window of the home across the street, when she realized the flame was getting larger, she went to investigate and discovered that there was a fire in the front room of the home, she woke the sleeping family and called 911, according to the Fire Marshall Tom Geatz if the fire had not been discovered and the family alerted, a much larger potentially fatal fire could have occurred, and in recognition of these extraordinary acts Chief O'Neill and Fire Marshall Geatz presented the first Community Fire Shield award to Ms. Lecy for her selfless actions and beliefs that citizens protect citizens.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ITEMS

3.1 Guideline changes for property tax exemptions for qualifying remodeling projects.
Council Member Gershman questioned under item B.7 whether we want to limit the exemption to $1 million, thinking of rehab buildings downtown in the Renaissance Zone, that when First National Bank was remodeled spent $3.5 million and asked committee if $1 million is enough or go higher. Mr. Carsen stated the limitation would not limit the downtown property, that there is no limit for a B-4 zoned property, that there is a different exemption on the former First National Bank building (tax increment financing exemption with no limit), that this would be a limit on property outside of the downtown area (it was noted it would apply to the Sears building). Christensen stated when he went through the minutes of our discussion concerning the change of policy, that they wanted to make sure the citizens were aware that the application exists and wanted to have procedure in place that information was given to them when they received a building permit and also when assessing does its first inspection and/or appraisal, and asked how they will get the information at the time the building permit is issued. Mr. Carsen stated he talked with Ms. Collings, Inspections, where permits are issued and they can do that with packet and guideline would be included in the packet; there is some problem in initiating that now with computer system in place, they are working on system that would identify properties that are 25 years old, wouldn't give the guideline to every single permit but narrow to properties that might qualify. It was noted this would be a resolution and Christensen stated he would rather have one-page statement that goes with the building permit, telling people if their building is 25 years or older, may be entitled to this exemption.

Christensen stated they had couple applications where people didn't know and if go with the paper showing that if your building is more than 25 years old, you maybe eligible and then shouldn't get that argument again and that is what want to accomplish. Hamerlik stated concern that assessing won't give notice to everybody but to those they think may qualify, making judgment call, that everybody should get info, but always a question whether they received it or not, should have a sign-off on it so don't get back into argument they never received it. Mr. Carsen stated that some problem with that is that contractor takes out the permit and that information may or may not get back to the property owner who is responsible for paying the taxes and for making the application, that he talked with Ms. Collings re. that and she can handle it with sign-off or check off list.

3.2 Application for abatement for 2001 and 2002 taxes by Joy Gullekson, 3857 South 11th Street.___________________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

3.3 Application for abatement for 2001 taxes by Diane Stanislowski, 5077 West Elm Street.
There were no comments.

3.4 Application for exemption of improvements to commercial buildings at
a) 1118 22nd Avenue South
b) 1114 22nd Avenue South
c) 1110 22nd Avenue South______________________________________
Christensen stated that all of the projects pay taxes and all buildings owned by the Housing Authority pay taxes, however there is a provision in the State Statutes that suggests they wouldn't have to pay taxes, and asked why there is a deviation in policy - if they want the exemption when in fact exempt from taxes anyway. Kreun stated they do pay the taxes and is voluntary type tax; these are going to be rental units and helps that particular project cash flow in order to get it off the ground for a short period of time so can start to make the full tax payment. Christensen stated we can't exempt them from payment of a tax, when they are already exempt and it's superfluous, doesn't matter so they can make a decision as how much of the tax they are going to pay. Kreun stated it doesn't have to be done but thought it would go through the normal process so that it would be done upfront and everybody knows about it, and this was procedure to follow.

3.5 Amendment No. 24 to Greater Forks Engineering Group for in-kind engineering
services, City Projects 4810 and 4816.3____________________________________
There were no comments.

3.6 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5321, District No. 413, Lift Station
89 Rehabilitation.________________________________________________________
Cindy Voigt, asst. city engineer, noted that this is a much scaled back but necessary portion - and this is what to do to keep the lift station operating, no improvements to capacity, non-protestable - est. cost would be $200 for typical 10,000 sq.ft. lot; and reviewed boundaries of the district on map shown on the screen - Columbia Road on the west, 32nd Avenue South on the south, and 11th Avenue South and 17th Avenue South, with pieces north of 17th and 11th reserved for future projects. She also noted that the est. cost of $200 is over period of 20 years or could be over 10 years.

Gershman stated this was very controversial $17 million project and citizens alarmed and the assessment on a 10,000 sq.ft. Lot was approx. $4500 or $5400, that engineering took that information and this is the fix that needs to be done, temporary fix, and this is policy decision on how they are going to handle these major projects in the city, and needs to be clear to the citizens that this is the $17 million project that is not going to happen and is now a $508,000 project, and is a temporary fix.

Brooks stated it is rehabilitation project and if improves function of the station or maintenance rehab. Ms. Voigt stated this is an improvement, that they need to replace the controls, starters, pumps need to be torn apart and looked at, verified that they have ten more years of service and if don't, need to bid those out and replace them - the best improvement is that they do a temporary power source for that station and would be biggest improvement that station would get. Brooks stated when they say temporary fix, that indicates that have to do something in the future. Ms. Voigt stated this is one of the areas in town, several others, that need some type of major permanent improvement, and this has been put on hold until they can figure out how to pay for some of these major projects without assessing people. It was noted that the $200 est. assessment for the project is the total per lot.

3.7 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5408, District No. 589, paving South
20th Street from 44th to 47th Avenues South.__________________________________
It was noted that the bid opening is March 24 rather than March 10 as stated in the staff report. Christensen asked who the landowner is, as could be conflict. Gershman suggested that perhaps should be policy that in addition to the description of the land, include the landowners names in case wish to make phone calls to them or they wish to call us and have reference. Ms. Voigt stated the School District, Park District and Guy Useldinger own part of property within the district, and will e-mail to council members owners on rest of the property.

3.8 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5444, District No. 415, sanitary sewer
to serve 2700 and 2800 blocks of 36th Avenue South._____________________________
Brooks questioned if this was non-protestable project; and when non-protestable if we still send notice to residents - engineering does do that.

3.9 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5431, District No. 139, street lighting
in Southern Estates 1st and 3rd Additions.______________________________________
There were no comments.

3.10 Contract with C-Card, Inc. for fare collection system.
Brooks asked if system is to improve gathering of statistics, to improve revenues. Todd Feland, public works director, state it was both, that they now have manual system where place money on a plate and dropped in, this is like till or register that registers the money and automatically records the ridership information. Brooks noted the cost is $143,000 and financial statements for 2001 show our operating local revenue is just under $280,000, and cost is half of what is brought in total operating revenue. Mr. Feland stated our Public Transit Office, along with Fargo and Moorhead, got together on a joint bid and received two other proposals; this was lowest and best bid. Mr. Feland stated he will get Fargo info. and doesn't think that far off on ridership.

It was noted that this is 80-20% federal split, and the local share is $28,000. Brooks stated when looking at revenues include the federal but when talking about expenses, break it down to the local, but have to look at the whole thing. Gershman stated on page 6 of the agreement 9.3 Software Support Maintenance, if they will be doing the software at $75.00/hour, doing that electronically or have people fly in here, and if they offered us a maintenance package on a quarterly basis rather than the hourly basis open-ended; Mr. Feland stated it is done electronically, and didn't know on the other questions but will e-mail that info. Kerian asked if our IS department was involved in this - Mr. Feland stated they were and rep. did review the package and how interface with us.

Kerian stated they were trying to understand what our ridership was and part of that was transfers, if this answers those questions that were brought up re. number of transfers. Feland stated we track the transfers for recording sake in case we charge nominal fee to transfer in the future and would know what potential revenue source would be .

Christensen stated not having seen software, they are going to lose their transfers unless have someone punch when they roll into the next bus because no money will exchange hands, and transfer information is going to become lost, seems to matter for ridership count. Mr. Feland stated they are going to want to know and have some sort of symbol that you come from another bus and don't need to pay, some sort of recognition when trans-ferring from another bus.

3.11 Capital Improvements Program policy statements.
Christensen stated that the last CIP meeting where they discussed changes to the policy, didn't know that it was completed and would be coming forward to the council, that when he went through the policy, notices that some items and information dated, and some no longer relevant, don't have Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Transportation Plan, Grand Forks Year Plan is 2002 and not 2015, nor River Forks Plan and don't have facility plan for the wastewater treatment system, and wondering if ready to go with this on Monday - could spend some time tonight or Monday going through it, but perhaps have one more CIP group meeting because still have issues to discuss about tapping fees and interest. Mayor Brown stated they can return this to CIP. Hamerlik stated if they were going to make some of those changes to look at items relating to those presiding at meetings. Christensen stated he had some of the same issues re. presiding issues and whether mayor votes or not, and should deal with those issues before bringing it back. Mr. Swanson stated sometime ago this body adopted a resolution that no motions can be acted upon by committee of the whole, however, they have granted the authority for the termination of agendas to the administrative coordinator and in that discretion the administrative coordinator will determine what is on the agenda. Mayor Brown stated that Mr. Duquette noted that.

3.12 Request from CPS, LTD on behalf of Homestead Grove Partnership for final approval of an ordinance to amend the zoning map to exclude from the A-1 (Limited Development) District and to include within the Homestead Grove PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, all of the West Half of SW Quarter of Section 22, T151N, R50W of 5th P.M. (located east of S. Washington Street between 40th Avenue South and 47th Avenue South).__________________________________
Christensen asked Mr. Potter to contact the owners of the property, it has come to his attention that it may not be alive, and if not, could get it off the agenda rather than postponing it. Mr. Potter stated he does have a call to Mark Richmond and doing telephone tag.

3.13 Request from CPS, LTD on behalf of LPF Properties for final approval of plat of
Homestead Grove First Addition (loc. north of 47th Avenue South between Sunbeam
5th Resubdiv. and South 11th Street).________________________________________
There were no comments.

3.14 Petition from LPF Properties for approval of an ordinance to annex a portion of
Homestead Grove First Addition (that part of the West Half of SW Quarter of Section
22, T151N, R50W of the 5th P.M.)___________________________________________
There were no comments.

3.15 Request from Warren and Collette LeClerc for final approval (fast track) of a Replat
of Lot 2, Block 1, Young Subdivision, lying in SE Quarter of Section 33, T151N,
R50W of the 5th P.M., including variance to Section 18-0907(5)(A) of subdivision
regulations in regards to minimum lot sizes in the A-2 (Agricultural Reserve) District
(located at 7274 South Washington Street).____________________________________
Kreun reported this was passed at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting but with request from staff to deny the request to utilize the highway, former U.S. 81 which is now a county road, as part of the land that would be considered to create the acreage which is a 2.5 minimum, and without that is 1.78 acres and says designated but that particular property was never owned or able to be designated and questioned how we would be able to utilize that area if it was never owned by the property owner and how you could use that property as part of the designation of making it 2.2 acres, and in the opinion of the city attorney the platted R/W adjacent to the property in question cannot be included in the lot size calculations for purposes of meeting the 2.5 acre lot minimum size requirement, and asked why we would want to do that or can we do it.

Mr. Swanson, city attorney, stated his opinion is well based in fact and is very logical and very simple, this particular property doesn't include the area necessary to meet the 2.5 acres, to use R/W whether it be road right of way or other right of way that is actually dedicated to the public and not owned by the property owner seems to be outside the scope of 2.5 acres; the only thing he can identify that was a little perplexing for him was that the ordinance uses the phrase, lot size, and we don't specifically define in our Code, lot size, do define lot and he used Webster's College Dictionary definition of size and gave straightforward ruling, but understands although he was not at the meeting, that the Planning and Zoning Commission chose to act in a different manner; that in his opinion he also suggested that if they found the definition of lot size to be ambiguous or somehow needing of definition, that they should introduce an ordinance defining lot size as to excluding or including right of way if they choose not to follow his opinion, it is there for the council to consider and can take whatever action they deem appropriate; and from his understanding would be a precedent.

Kreun stated that would set the precedent and that would continue through that whole corridor on that particular road and any other road that would be adjacent to the property and section line, and opens up a huge concern if we utilize that definition, and recommends that we not do that.

Warren and Collette LeClerc, 7274 South Washington Street, close to Merrifield Road and within the two-mile zoning jurisdiction of the City, stated that portion of the property was not formerly dedicated but the wording of the Code by Planning and Zoning it really didn't understand or was confusing to them and felt should grandfather them in because have already paid the survey fees, etc. and have a lot of money invested in this already and if wanted to change the wording of the Code, can do that, but they should be grandfathered in. Mrs. LeClerc stated that the present land development code deals more with density, lot size was never the primary concern for your Land Development Code and when you have platted and brought in 20 acre section of land and divided it into 4 5-acre plats or divided that into 2.5, never had 5 acres and always included the right of ways prior to this and felt they came into this with the request knowing what the Land Development Code was and had the help of Ray LeClerc who understands the Code as it set originally and the only thing he felt they needed to comply with was requesting a variance of 11% in order to meet the acreage requirement; and through their request they understand that there is the feeling that ambiguity in the law and they feel they came in with the request meeting the Code as it now stands and the County that is the entity that will have to sign the plat and approve the right of way as being dedicated and the same instance came through when all of Kannowski's Addn. was brought in, that wasn't a dedicated right of way either although they don't have their land divided up but the County signed their plat. Mr. Swanson stated he doesn't find any ambiguity in the ordinance, very straightforward but his opinion suggested was that if the Planning and Zoning Commission decided not to follow his opinion they would have to determine there is ambiguity and is incorrect to suggest that the ordinance is ambiguous. Mrs. LeClerc stated they understand that when the request was put into Planning and Zoning someone else felt there was ambiguity in the law and that's how this all came about.

Kreun stated in the case of the Kannowski Addition, that property was owned by one property owner and then was dedicated, and in this case LeClerc's have never owned that property at all and doesn't know how they can give it up as a dedication. Mrs. LeClerc stated that in the Kannowski Addn. they didn't own the property that was dedicated for the State highway either but the County did sign the plat when it went through the process. Mrs. LeClerc stated they have owned this land for many years; and purchased one of the lots in Young's Subdivision which amounted to 3.5 and are in Lot 2. Christensen asked if it was their intent to divide - Mr. LeClerc stated they built an RV Park on the property and are also refinancing property and bank only wants to refinance the residential part of the property, and want to divide it for refinancing purposes, wanted it separate from business area. He stated they approached the owners of the land around them a number of years ago to add certain amount of sq. footage so if wanted to make their RV park larger they could, but adj. property owners only interested in selling large portions of land and not just sq. footage. Mrs. LeClerc stated property was originally farmstead and at that time didn't matter what size property was; and they have been advised was right of way was always included in figuring out your lot size or in coming up with the acreage, the primary concern in the past with the Land Development Code was density, not lot size, and if the County doesn't want to include that as dedicated right of way, the County doesn't have to sign the plat; and with the 11% variance they meet the requirements for having the 2.5 acres if count the County R/W.

Mr. Swanson stated that the original subdivision (Young's Subdivision) was approved in 1962, and at that time the City would have had very little extra-territorial planning jurisdiction, and the broadest territorial planning jurisdiction didn't occur until 1976, and in late 1970's, the City did adopt requirements that established minimum size of rural lots, in the 1987 revision of the Planning Code that was maintained at 5 acre lots and only recently has it been reduced to 2.5-acre lots, but this particular parcel because it was platted in 1962 would have been grandfathered in under the 5-acre requirement.

Mr. LeClerc stated this went before the Planning and Zoning Commission and they were unanimous in grandfathering it in. Kreun stated if the council would choose, we would want to take all of that dedication along Highway 81 from the city limits out to our jurisdiction at one time so don't have this reoccurring over and over on both sides of the road, but doesn't recommend it. Christensen stated he believes this is a section line and when start talking about section lines and including ownership to the center of the section line is part of your 2.5 acres, could have a lot smaller lots fronting 81 and sympathize with LeClerc's but more a question of policy that you want to adopt and might have extensions along 81 and believes Mr. Swanson's opinion is quite clear as to what is included within 2.5 acres, and if in fact were to find some reason to approve this, it is going to be hard for them or future councils to say did previously and issue for this body is if you include or not right of way easements as part of the 2.5 acres before deciding whether or not you're going to approve the LeClerc's, because that is the precedent they will be establishing. Mr. LeClerc stated Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, after grandfathering them in, to redefine or rewrite the Code so this wouldn't happen again.

3.16 Request from CPS, LTD on behalf of Crary Development, Inc. for preliminary
approval of the plat of Cornerstone Estates Addn. (loc. in 700 block of 55th Ave.S.)
There were no comments.

3.17 Request from CPS, LTD on behalf of Crary Development, Inc. for preliminary
approval of an ordinance amending the zoning map to exclude from the A-2 (Agri-
cultural Reserve) District and to include within the Crary PUD (Planned Unit
Development), Concept Development Plan (loc in the 5600 block of Belmont Road.
There were no comments.

3.18 Request from Tim Crary on behalf of Crary Development, Inc. for an ordinance to
annex Cornerstone Estates Addition (loc. in 700 block of 55th Avenue South)._____
Hamerlik asked what objections were by Commission members voting against this recommendation; Mr. Potter stated it is a philosophical issue, they believe that the City should annex no more land than the land of the individual who is asking for the annexation; that in the case of Dr. Hall it was an issue related to the fact that he sits on the School Board and utilizing our standard 140 ft. annexation policy, we will be picking up a small piece of School Board property.

Christensen asked how this is going to impact the LeClerc agreement; Mr. Potter stated that assuming the LeClerc agreement is signed before you do your public hearing on this, you would be in a position to exclude it in accordance with that agreement. He stated the LeClerc agreement basically puts a date certain on annexation for them, and that agreement has not yet been signed, and if the agreement is signed, in his judgment, between now and when this item comes before you for actual action, then you would be able to exclude the LeClerc property from it. He stated when you have the annexation ordinance before you, would simply amend the annexation ordinance to exclude their part of the property. Christensen stated if they were to do that, the agreement only talked about annexation, what about tapping fees and/or delayed special assessments for this part of the road that will go in; Mr. Potter stated that was a good question and doesn't have answer for it. Christensen stated they should address that before gerrymandering this because if put that road in, then someone is going to have to pay for the assessments attributed to the road in the form of tapping fees. Mr. Potter stated he agreed and that's why at this point they had the 140 ft. in there to cover the city, and since the agreement on annexation has not yet been signed there is going to have to be another round of discussions and negotiations on the issues he raised. Christensen stated they should get those things resolved before voting on this as have a potential problem if vote on this the way it is laid out, but don't want to delay Mr. Crary's annexation; Mr. Potter stated that what will happen procedurally is that next week at the council meeting, you would instruct the finance department if want to go ahead with the annexation ordinance, instruct them to set a public hearing in accordance with law and time to get into those negotiations again.

3.19 Request to amend the Grand Forks Land Development Code to exclude therefrom
the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks 2022 Transportation Plan Update (2001 Bikeway
Element, 1999 Pedestrian Element, 2002 Transit Element, 2001 Street and Highway
Element, and 2000 Grand Forks-East Grand Forks ITS Strategy Plan Element)
together with all maps, information, recommendations and data contained therein.
Mr. Potter stated that at one point Mr. Christensen had raised a question with regard to what was being excluded from Planning and Zoning consideration in re. to buses, and in the ordinance, item (C) 3. you will note that it reads "2002 Transit Element, together with all maps, information and data contained therein; with the exception that that the following not be declared a part of the comprehensive plan: A. Fare Structure, B. Vehicle Types", and he would suggest if wanted to take out bus routes, would want to add an item (C) that would say Bus Routes. Christensen stated that is what he plans to do as an amendment to this on Monday.

INFORMATION ITEMS

4.1 Presentation - Update on condition of properties on Gateway Drive corridor (Infor-
mation only)_____________________________________________________________
Bev Collings, Inspections, presented powerpoint presentation of the improvements and progress made, and some of the problem areas on Gateway Drive. She stated the report is concentrated on area outside the city limits, one property that is inside the city limits, may not reflect the exact condition of the property today but fairly close. She stated the progress over the last several years has been significant and property owners have cleaned up many properties; that if they didn't clean up the property, she can encourage them to do it, write letters, etc. but without their cooperation, doesn't get very far. She stated they have to keep in mind that the cleanup is continuing, some areas been there for decades and that these people are operating businesses - many have conditional use permits to operate their businesses and as long as in the restrictions the City has set up by the conditional use permit. She presented map showing outline of the properties and reviewed Gateway Drive corridor.

Gershman stated that J & B Discount property as the building is vacant, and the Health Department is looking for storage for mosquito chemicals, etc. and they are having a problem finding a place and this might be an alternative for them to look at. Ms. Collings stated the building is for lease. Gershman suggested that to Mr. Shields.

Hamerlik asked if the City didn't take over part of the Westgate property for our diversion and if this was the buyout site; Mr. Swanson stated that the City did acquire some of the property there but also some additional property that Westgate Marine still owns, not sure where this is located, and is aware that the City did have issues with regard to materials being removed from properties the City did acquire, some still to be removed, the property owner was placed on notice that if it wasn't moved by a certain date that the City would simply dispose of it. Hamerlik stated that even if the City bought it, they would want their materials off of it or we would require them to take if off anyway.

Mrs. Collings stated in conclusion that when dealing with a project sometimes difficult to see the progress, that she can't stress how much the property owners have worked out there - have more problems but they have been there for decades and also handle problems as they come up.

Gershman stated this is a very important stretch of property for the city and would recommend that the mayor and council consider drafting a letter of thanks to those property owners that have been cooperating with us and encourage them to continue to do that, that type of public recognition is important to help them understand how important it is to the citizens of Grand Forks. Mayor Brown stated Mr. Haga made a note.

Kerian noted that on those properties that are not following the steps and cooperating, that you're dealing with them in municipal court, and is a fair way to deal with them if they can't take those actions.

Christensen asked if the Code provides, if the Court finds that the property owner to be in violation, that you can levy a fine of x dollars as continuing fine each day until it is remedied. Mr. Swanson stated the Code has a fine for that particular infraction of up to $500/day as a continuing violation. Christensen stated that after a certain period of time they have not remedied the infraction, if there is anything in the Code that would give the judge to say in the event it isn't done within certain time, that the City can go in and remove it; Mr. Swanson stated that what we have done in those circumstances, have started separate action in District Court and received that authority and then received an order that the cost of that demolition or cleanup is assessed against the property. Christensen stated that they know that they have the support of the council if need it, going forward to continue the good work.

4.2 Bid date change for Project No. 5127, 32nd Ave.S. and Columbia Road reconstruction.
No comments.

4.3 Portfolio Management Summary.
No comments.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Brooks stated the Mayor announced that the Military Relations Committee has been formed and asked for listing of committee members.

2) Council Member Kreun congratulated people who organized the precision skating event last weekend, lasted almost four days with about 1800 participants, filled our restaurants and hotels, airlines beyond capacity to bring in participants and family members; that we do have a lot of these other than basic conventions in Grand Forks and look forward to a lot more and even bigger ones.

3) Council Member Christensen asked how we were coming along with selection process for the director of Urban Development. Charlie Bunce stated the deadline for the applications and submission is the 21st of February, we have approx. 30 applicants and has done a first review. Christensen stated that when finance/development committee met didn't think it was appropriate that you continue with a joint powers agreement until we have this person hired so he/she could see the lay of the land, rather than handing them a joint powers agreement; there is some conversation in the minutes of the Housing Authority that is ongoing, but what is important is that we don't want to do that because the person we are hiring can come here and survey it and tell us if we need something like this and ask that you not do that but not to say that they won't continue to do it. Mr. Duquette stated they are in a draft stage and points noted, and would have new director on board to have him get his fingers in this as well.

4) Council Member Gershman stated that at the Civil Service Commission meeting on January 9, there was a motion made and discussion and would like clarification - that it is the Commission's current policy to post vacant city positions internally city-wide and if no qualified internal candidates to consider the external candidates, that Mr. Bunce stated that as it is now if there is only one internal candidate meeting the basic qualifications, there would be no pool to consider - and Mr. Kvasager stated he still likes to see career ladders within the system as opposed to going outside the system for better opportunity for advancement; next line is all approved motion carried; and he is curious if looking for applicants and just restrict it to city employees that are in the system, seems to be discriminatory and would like clarification of that - would like the greatest pool so that always get the best candidate possible. Mr. Bunce stated that the city auditor could speak to that one, as he happened to present the applicant process to the Commission for this particular position, that he would like to see the greatest pool possible to do this, Com-mission agreed, and approved opening it up. The city auditor stated that was his request.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Kreun to
adjourn. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,


John M. Schmisek
City Auditor