Council Minutes

MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Monday, November 10, 2003 - 7:00 p.m.___________

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, November 10, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with President Gershman presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Hamerlik, Glassheim, President Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 6; absent: Brooks – 1(joined meeting in progress).

President Gershman reviewed events of the past week and upcoming events:
1) Congratulations to Chief John Packett on his induction into the 2003 Benson High School Class of 1966 Hall of Fame in Omaha, NE where he is from. The Hall of Fame was established in November 1978 and up to 8 graduates are honored each year.
2) Tomorrow is Veteran’s Day, City offices will be closed, city buses will run normal schedules. He stated that this is opportunity to thank veterans and current uniformed personnel for their services.
3) Tomorrow there will be a Veteran’s Day Race at 11:00 a.m. in Lincoln Drive Park.
4) Compliments to the city staff who put up the downtown lights. They look wonderful.
5) Congratulations to the Fighting Sioux Football team on their championship. Also, to the Sioux Hockey team on their sweep of the Minnesota Gophers this past weekend. He stated that media now reports the men’s hockey team is ranked number 1 in the nation, with 33 votes. Women’s Hockey split with Mankato this weekend. Wonderful event at the Alerus Center with Kiss and Aerosmith, with 13,000 people in attendance. Incredible that the City of Grand Forks had 25,000 people sitting in chairs on Saturday night enjoying great entertainment, a great achievement for a city of our size.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DISCUSSION ITEMS

2.1 Proposed ordinance amending Sections 8-0101, 8-0202, 8-0205, 8-0305, 8-0602, 8-0615, and 8-0616 of the Grand Forks City Code relating to traffic and motor vehicles.__ ______________ _____

Mr. Swanson stated that the committee had before it a draft ordinance amending the code related to traffic motor vehicles and all pick up changes in state legislation, except the last two with respect to windshields and windshield wipers in which we are attempting to clarify language there. His recommendation would be to give preliminary approval at Monday night’s Council meeting and final approval at the following Council meeting. He stated the most notable change is for DUI will now be .08, as consistent with state legislation.

2.2 Matter of 2003 Sidewalk Warrants.

There were no comments.

2.3 Consideration of bids for City Project No. 5316, UND Water Tower Reconditioning.

Council Member Kerian asked for a report of details on the two bids that were unopened. Cindy Voigt, Asst. City Engineer, stated that there were two bids that were not opened on this project. She stated that one bidder did not have a contractor’s license and the second had not checked the acknowledgement of addendum on the envelope.

Council Member Hamerlik inquired as to whether the contractor has a license and failed to include it or whether they were not licensed. Mr. Swanson stated that the form that was submitted was an application for a license, which clearly does not meet the requirement of being a licensed contractor for at least 10 days prior to the bid opening. There is no discretion of the Council on this first item. Mr. Swanson further stated that the bid which you can not determine is in respect to the failure to acknowledge addendum. He stated that in this case a new bid form had been sent out to bidders. Whether the bid is in the appropriate form can not be determined without opening the bid. The bidders had been clearly instructed to acklowledge the addendum on the outside of the envelope. He further stated that should the Council decide to open this bid and the bid was not on the proper bid form the Council would not be able to award the bid to that contractor, even if they were the apparent low bidder. He stated that the only way to know for sure is to open the bid.

Council Member Glassheim inquired whether the Council could approve opening accepting the bid contingent on the bid being in the appropriate form. Mr. Swanson stated that the Council will need to decide whether or not they want to open the bid to determine if the proper bid form was used, since the acknowledgement was not made on the outside of the envelope as instructed. He stated that should the Council decide to open the bid and find that the bid is not on the proper form, the Council would not be able to award the bid to that contractor.

Council Member Kreun referred to page 18 of the addendum, which states that the bidder must acknowledge the addendum on the outside of the envelope or may be rejected.

Council Member Christensen inquired what consequences the City would have should they decide to waive the irregularity and open the bid and find that it is not on the proper form. Mr. Swanson stated that Council could not award the bid unless the bid was on the proper form as there were differences in what was being bid between the original form and the addendum form. Council Member Christensen stated that if the Council did waive the irregularity and find that the bid is on the proper form there is a possibility that the City could be saved some money. Mr. Swanson stated that the test is whether the failure to acknowledge the addendum gives that bidder any advantage over any other bidder.

Council Member Kerian inquired what concerns were of engineering staff in recommending not to open the envelope. Ms. Voigt stated that the main concern is that in looking forward into the upcoming construction bid season, they look to not setting a precedent. She stated that they have a concern with some contractors choosing not to worry about checking it or not because Council will waive the irregularity and open the bid, and while that may not have an effect on the outcome of this bid, the answer may not be the same with all bids. Council Member Christensen inquired, given the comments of the city attorney, why this was a concern. Ms. Voigt stated that there are times that the addendum may offer more information or description of a part of the project, and that then those contractors not acknowledging the addendum and receiving the waiver can come back and have a reason to not comply or get out of the bid later. Council Member Hamerlik stated that perhaps if doesn’t make any difference, then perhaps not ask for the acknowledgement on the outside and just let go forward on the inside. President Gershman stated that he recalled that the Council has already set some precedent with in allowing the waiver of irregularities in the past. Ms. Voigt stated that the Council has approved these waivers in the past, however the Association of General Contractors has made a recommendation for not allowing a waiver and she could talk with them and see if that is still their preference.

Council Member Kerian stated that she could see where a waiver would lead to a delay, in that if the Council decides not to open the bid, it would just be awarded and move forward, versus if the waiver is granted and the bid is on appropriate form, then staff must evaluate before a final recommendation goes to Council.

2.4 Urban and Regional Program Project request to NDDoT.

Council Member Glassheim inquired as to the source of local funding for this project, as there are minuses in some of the funds. Council Member Christensen stated that will also be part of the discussion for Wednesday afternoon’s meeting. He stated that Schmisek has staff working on a review of the CIP for next 3-5 years and then moving on to up to 15 years out and there are questions on where the funding will be. Mr. Schmisek stated that right now the projects would be special assessed, as there are no other funding source available at this time. He reminded the committee that many of these projects are several years out and that there will be other discussions to determine if there are other funding avenues to be pursued.

Council Member Glassheim inquired whether what is to be acted on is immediate or if is 2 years out. Ms. Voigt stated that the City must submit a list to the State identifying all projects that would be needed for the City of Grand Forks. She stated that once our list is approved, it can not be added to, but we can choose to drop projects up until the time the documents are to be signed on a project. She stated that at the time of the contract documents being signed they would need the funding source defined. These construction maintenance documents come to Council for approval on a per project basis. On regional projects they start the engineering, as they like to believe we have our local share allocated.

Council Member Hamerlik inquired as to the Columbia Rd and 24th Avenue South and that it is down for 2006. He had understood that it was to be delayed one year when there was a lack of funding to go all the way there with the current project that is being done. Ms. Voigt stated that the initial construction start year of the current project was off by a year, they therefore delayed this project for 1 year to allow business owners one year without construction, 2005, then start up again in 2006 on that intersection. Council Member Hamerlik stated that is one of the worst intersections in the city, while not the worst for accidents.

Council Member Hamerlik also inquired about the 2008 Columbia, Gateway and REA Improvements and whether this is the intersection projects that places a light at 12th Ave N. Ms. Voigt stated that the plan is to wait on the main work on this area until the site further develops and the traffic level is where it needs to be for the desired improvements. She stated that there will be a small in-house project, about a $50,000 project, for the main intersection to alleviate some of the concerns with the intersection until the project is done in 2008.

2.5 Sanitary sewer service study for area east of Belmont Road (Shady Ridge area).

Council Member Christensen stated that he recalled that this area may be petitioning for annexation with 100 year flood protection. He has a concern that items affecting this area are coming to the Council for consideration piecemeal and would like to see an overall comprehensive plan for the area. He asked that staff put together a packet including items regarding this area that had been passed previously, such as the plan to take over the water service from rural water in 20 years, the proposed annexation process for homes along the river, and any information on the private flood protection system for this area and comments on that process by the City Attorney. Mr. Grasser displayed a map that detailed the area which is east of Belmont Road and N of 62 Avenue South. Mr. Grasser pointed out areas on the map such as main streets and described the areas for the Committee. Council Member Christensen inquired as to the section pointed out as being planned for annexation in 2015 and what City services will be provided at that point in time. Mr. Grasser stated that he would need to research the annexation agreement and then provide that information to Council.

Mr. Grasser stated that he could detail for the council what has been approved and proceeded to describe the service area that will be swapped with rural water in the future. He stated that the City agreed to provide a lift station last year to service the area. Staff looked at other alternatives to providing sanitary sewer to this area and also at reducing the cost for both the City and the homeowner. The proposal before the committee utilizes the existing lift station at South Washington Street and serves a portion of the area that is within the flood protection project and city boundaries with a gravity sewer system, for the remaining area that is outside city boundaries and that we are unsure of exact development at this time would be served by a pressure system which consists of homes with individual grinder pumps that would move the sewage to the gravity main that would then take it to the main line. Mr. Grasser stated that one of the main features of this is the system gives the City the maximum flexibility for serving the area whatever the development in the area becomes. He stated that it also would be capable of being expanded to include future annexations of property that are along the river. He stated that a gravity system would not be recommended in this area because there is the equivalent of a lake that runs along the backside of the area that you could not run through and would need a separate pump station on the east side of it. The pressure system could provide sanitary sewer for development into either city size lots that are 70’ – 100’ or could also work for development of larger 1 – 2 acre lots, while still providing a way for the City to serve an adjacent section that will be soon annexed to the City. Mr. Grasser stated that the pressure system would provide sanitary sewer to the area whether it develops with or without a levy and could save the City about $500,000 cost in an additional pump station.

Council Member Christensen referred to exhibit 2 and inquired whether area A which is protected by the flood protection project and area B, which is not protected, are same land owner. Mr. Grasser stated that they are not. Council Member Christensen stated that his main concern would be with Area B development and in particular if it develops with a private type of flood protection. His concern is also that potential buyers in that area be given enough information about the system they would have as it is new technology and we do not know how it will work over time and that if we install and then find that it doesn’t work, still have to then install the gravity system so did not save anything for the city or property owner. He stated that perhaps the City needs to work on policy in regards to this system before we proceed and a fallback plan in case this doesn’t work in that area.

Council Member Kerian requested some information on history of this technology. Tom Hanson, Webster Foster Weston, stated that this technology has been used in the United States since 1970, so is new technology for Grand Forks, but not new overall. He stated that they are very popular around lakes where gravity systems do not function. He stated that recommendation of this type of system is not just to save cost of a lift station, but also because at this time the lots are larger than normal in this area and this system saves in cost. He stated that there are several of these systems functioning today in North Dakota around Bismarck and Fargo and he can provide more information on other locations to the Council. Council Member Kerian inquired about the size of developments using this type of system. Mr. Hanson stated that they would be sizable, most over 50 homes. Council Member Kerian inquired as to what other areas of the City that this could be used in. Mr. Grasser stated that just this past year there was an area in the northend, behind McDonald’s where they found the cost to be prohibitive to provide sanitary sewer to the lots due to their large size. He stated that the cost saving comes in because the pipe is smaller and since it is pressure does not require the 30 foot depth, but rather a 7 foot depth since pressure moves the sewage. Mr. Grasser stated that in the Area B, there are unknowns about the development of the area, the 100 year flood protection is not approved, and therefore need to look for a system that would work even without it. He feels that the pressure system would be the right fit for this area in that it is an easy system to shut off with proper notifications to property owners. He stated that having areas that go unsewered is not a healthy situation for the City. He stated that another potential good fit for this would be Oscarville, which the City has struggled with for years on how to provide services at an affordable cost.

Council Member Kerian asked what specifically Engineering is requesting Council to approve. Mr. Grasser stated that they have in the recommendation that they be authorized to pursue a pressure system on the east side of the permanent levee, with the City being responsible for maintenance on the mainlines, and the property owner responsible for the individual lines and grinder pumps. He stated that is consistent with other service policies. He stated that the Council may decide to discuss the City taking over maintenance of the grinder pumps at some time, but the present recommendation places those grinder pumps in the homes and this would pose a problem. If the Council wishes to discuss this, then may need to look at policy on placement of the pumps. Mr. Grasser stated that Alternative 7 Option 3 is the recommended option for approval by Council. Mr. Grasser stated that should Council receive and file this matter as recommended, the staff could then provide the information that this was how we were proceeding in this area to developers that come in regarding this area so that they could design the development accordingly.

Council Member Kerian inquired whether any information had been requested from cities already using this type of system. Mr. Grasser stated that he had been in contact with an individual in Bismarck which has been using the system for 5 years and have not had problems. He stated that the typical life span is 15-20 years, but will eventually fail and incorporate check valves and safety precautions into the system to protect against catastrophic loss.

Council Member Kreun inquired if the Deacon’s Green development also was using this type of system. Mr. Grasser stated that they considered different systems, but have decided to go with a gravity system with a common lift station.

Council Member Kreun inquired if there are existing lots in the City that we are currently not providing sewer. Mr. Grasser stated that there are some acre and a half lots along the perimeter that have been allowed to put in septic systems and there are also some city density lots in the northend that the City will be extending a gravity line to cover. The proposed pressure system would be handling the new area coming in to the City in 2014. Council Member Kreun stated that given the repairs that we anticipate on a lift station every 15-20 years would be about the same time frame that we would look at doing repairs or replacements on the grinding pumps, and the costs would offset each other. Mr. Grasser stated that the grinding pumps would basically be throw away systems, and that maintenance of one large machine is always more efficient than maintenance of many smaller machines, but the key is that there is an up front cost saving and more flexibility with the pressure systems. He stated that overall the costs would be very close.

Council Member Christensen requested that more information be provided on areas using the system for longer than 5 years. Also wants people to be sure that they realize that without a generator they have no pumping capacity and could get backup. His concern is that it is a different setup than most of rest of the city, and therefore wants to make sure that we have policy in place to provide the information, inspection and certification procedure for the pumps to foresee potential problems.

Mr. Grasser stated that it is a trade-off in either quick and easy repairs on an individual basis, but not sure what other alternatives to pursue in this area. There are special concerns in this area with pressures on the wet side of the dike, as well as the possibility that development of those lots may be into 1 or 2 acre lots. He stated that the state allows for septic systems on as small as a one acre lot, but within the City he would caution to not allow on smaller that a 2 and a half acre lot due to the density of our soil in this area. There is a developer that has approached the city for that area and he is not looking at that type of development. Mr. Grasser stated that perhaps Council needs to have discussion on what type of development they are looking at in that area, and then tell a developer what we are going to allow in that area.

Council Member Glassheim inquired whether this issue should be referred back to Service/Safety Standby Committee for discussion since it could involve issues to be resolved for the future policy on responsibilities for areas that area serviced by this system. Council Member Kreun stated that this technology has been in use in the US for 20-30 years and does offer the ability to serve new additions to the City in 2014 and beyond. Council Member Kreun stated that if the committee has issues then possibly the referral to Service Subcommittee would be appropriate. Council Member Christensen stated that he has a concern with making policy in pieces and that Council needs to adopt a full policy on land use for property on the wet side of the levee, then convey that policy to developers. He also requested that the City Attorney look at any liability that the City would have should the City take on maintenance of the grinder pumps and then a failure occurs. Council Member Kreun stated that he did not believe that there was much difference between the current responsibility that we have and what would exist with the pressure system. Council Member Christensen stated that he also still had a concern over the fact that if a power outage occurs at a residence have no sewage capability if you have do not have a generator, much like problems some experience with a sump pump. Mr. Grasser stated that the difference with a sump pump is that the sump deals with ground water that comes in with no control by the property owner, whereas the grinder pump would have input that could be controlled and stopped by the property owner until power was restored or a generator was acquired.

2.6 Matter of City Council/Committee of the Whole meeting time.

President Gershman stated that he brought this item forward for comment and discussion.

Terry Bjerke, 5356 5th Avenue North, stated that he had a few comments on the proposed time change. He stated that in general events are scheduled later in the evening to better fit the schedule of the public, television places shows at a later time for the same reason to accommodate the potential viewer. He stated that some people work beyond 5:00 and some can not appear before the committee in their work uniform or may need time to clean up after work prior to appearing at the Council meeting. He feels that the earlier start time would make it more difficult for people to appear at, particularly any who must commute from out of town, more difficult to watch on television, as it is at the same time as national and local news, and could eliminate potential candidates for Council office from running due to their work schedule not allowing them to make the earlier meeting time. He encouraged the Committee to leave the time at 7:00 p.m. for the benefit of the most individuals.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that he had two opinions – first that whichever time is selected should be the same for both the Committee of the Whole meeting and the Council meeting, as otherwise it is too confusing for the public, and second that he had recently spoke to a group of citizens and had asked of those attending how many ever watch and if so what time they prefer, they had all preferred to remain at the 7:00 p.m. time, so it does not conflict with local and national news. At this time, he stated that he is in favor of keeping the time at 7:00 p.m.

President Gershman stated that he sees a few differences in that this is not an entertainment event, but rather a city business meeting, so should not be scheduled the same as an event. Also, he stated that there are a number of individuals that could be affected by agenda items that work evenings as well and that those wishing to view on television also have the option of watching one of the rebroadcasts that occur on other days of the week. He stated that all but one other major North Dakota city meet at an earlier time.

(Council Member Brooks arrives at the meeting. )

President Gershman stated that the thought was that it may be easier for people to attend if they come straight from work as an extension of their work day. Also, an earlier meeting time would allow for better coverage for the media as often times the meetings go later than some deadlines for reporting. The earlier time may work better for staff and more business friendly as it is an extension of the work day. Also, an earlier meeting time will allow for a better transportation when it is warmer during the winter. He informed the Council that the County Commissioners meet at 4:00 p.m., the Airport Authority at 10:00 a.m., Park District and 5:00 p.m., and the School Board at 7:00 p.m., and the ND Legislature meet all day, and never at night. He stated that he feels it could lead to more participation if the meeting time were changed and would be a good move for the City.

Council Member Kerian stated that she had no preference on the meeting time. She further stated that possibly if the staff time was a large part of this issue, may be it needs to be reevaluated whether or not all staff has to be here for the entire meeting.

Council Member Brooks stated that for himself he prefers the 5:00 p.m. meeting time, however, what he is hearing from people in his ward and other citizens is that the meeting time should stay at 7:00 p.m. and they are what is most important.

Council Member Glassheim stated that he agrees that 5:00 p.m. is meal time and national news time. He stated that in terms of people running for Council, the change to 5:00 p.m. may not lead to no one running for Council, but may lean to business owners or retirees as people who would be able to run for Council as they have the most flexible schedule. He stated that he has a concern that if you start at 5:00 p.m. and have a lengthy discussion meeting may lead to people not being as attentive near the end of the agenda due to missed meal time and being tired from not having a break between the work day. He felt that the 7:00 p.m. time was a good fit.

Council Member Christensen stated that the Council is about public business and we have made the public more informed by televising the meetings, and that the public does watch and that perhaps that if there is a feel that the public wants the time changed, then they should e-mail or contact the council members and voice the reasons they would prefer the time changed.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that one of the reasons he gave real thought to the earlier time was for consideration for staff, and while it is nice to have the staff available should a questions arise, perhaps it should be discussed whether or not all staff needs to be present for the entire meeting.

2.7 Matter of Grand Forks Public Library Board appointment.

Kerian stated that she was the nominee for this position.

2.8 Request for City funding from marketplace for Entrepreneurs/Marketplace for Kids.

Council Member Hamerlik inquired about the level of funding given in prior years. Greg Hoover, Director of Community Development, confirmed that in the past the allocation was $25,000-30,000. The committee inquired as to whether the City had received a copy of a financial report from prior year’s events. Mr. Schmisek stated that we had received copies of attendance reports and community impact reports, but not full revenue and expenditure reports, but he could request that if the Council would desire. Schmisek stated that at present the contribution is from fund 2163. The committee inquired if there was any job creation benefit to the event. Mr. Gershman stated that the event has been renamed Marketplace for Entrepreneurs/Marketplace for Kids and with this focus, would fall under job creation.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that one comment that he had heard from the public was that the atmosphere at the event should be less political since there were public dollars helping to fund it.

Council Member Kerian inquired whether this event was tied to the overall pool of contribution dollars in the budget. Mr. Schmisek stated that due to the timing of the event and the request for funding, it has been considered separately.

2.9 Budget Amendment request (Office of Urban Development)

There were no comments on this item.

2.10 Request for CPS, Ltd. On behalf of Eastern Dakota Housing Alliance for final approval (fast track) of the Replat of Lots H, J and K, Block 6, Congressional First Resubdivision. (Located Selkirk Circle)

There were no comments on this item.

2.11 Request from Kurt Eickhof on behalf of Wickhof Development Group, LLC for variance to the Land Development Code, Article 9, Subdivision regulations, Section 18-0907; subsection (2), rights of way, paragraph (L) right of way access; subparagraph 3, Arterials to the city of Grand Forks, ND for the purpose of varying the site access off University Avenue located on Lot 7, Sunny Nodak Farms Addition. (loc. At 200 North 69th Street)

Council Member Glassheim requested details on this item, as there was a difference of opinion between the staff and commission recommendations.

Dennis Potter, City Planner, stated that the need for a modification on this site was due to the fact that the City cut off the existing access to this property from North 69th Street as a part of the English Coulee diversion project and the city had agreed to provide an alternate gravel entry point, which staff has provided at the 600’ point. Potter stated that his staff reviewed the long-term anticipated usage of University Avenue and allowance for access points on that street based on the anticipated usage. The property owner had inquired about adding an access point at the 305’ point at his own cost to provide a direct access into the parking lot his staff and customers use. He stated that there was a concern that if a direct access was granted as requested at the 305’ location, that the properties across University Avenue may be developed with anticipation of also having a straight across access, which could lead to a different traffic flow than desired in this area, and that traffic flow patterns may be adversely affected based on the changes in turning radiuses. Mr. Potter stated that staff recommended that the access for the parking lot be north to the edge of the property then east along an internal road, which would be the responsibility of Eickhof and Associates to maintain, and then connect to the 600’ entry point. Mr. Potter stated that following discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting the Commission decided to approve the curb cut at the 305’ point for parking lot traffic and and at the 600’ point for heavy equipment. Council Member Kerian stated that there was just a settlement on this property at a recent Council meeting in regard to the taking. She stated that based on the layout of the property, with the staff recommended entry there is not a very accommodating view of the site and does not seem to fit, it also goes over a septic bed and is very low with a ditch alongside. Council Member Kerian stated that the 305’ curb cut seemed to better fit the site design and further stated that perhaps in the minutes it could be stipulated that there would not be a north access point granted at the 305’ point.

Council Member Kreun referred to the map that Mr. Potter was displaying and stated that there is a blocked off portion that Eickhof had agreed to remove in order to gain the requested entrance point. He stated that the 305’ entry point would only be utilized for cars going to the main building parking lot, primarily staff and clients, a very low traffic driveway, and there is a separate entry point at 600’ for heavy equipment. The committee discussed whether in the future if the property were sold, could the new owner reopen the area that is to be removed. Mr. Potter stated that if any modification would be considered a site plan modification and would come to the Council for approval.

2.12 Matter of change in amortization in unfunded liability.

There were no comments on this item.

2.13 Matter of Aeltus CORE account.

There were no comments on this item.

2.14 Matter of Request for health insurance by grant employee.

There were no comments on this item.

2.15 Matter of Post-Employment Health Plan.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that the group that worked on this proposal met at least 15 times and he attended most of their meetings. He stated that the group’s sole focus was to look for ways to make the costs of health care more affordable for retirees. He stated that there was an article in the newspaper today that stated that making retirement easier could lead to downsizing and staff reduction through attrition and he wanted to make sure that everyone understood that while the statement may be true, it was not the intent or focus of the committee.

Gary Goetz, chair of the retirement working group, briefly addressed the committee with some details on the plan. He stated that the main focus of the plan was to allow for employees to place unused sick leave or vacation leave into the account on a tax-free basis at the employee’s separation from the City, and then be able to withdraw the money to cover the cost of health expenses on a tax-free basis. He stated that this can provide significant savings to the employee and is at no cost to the City. Council Member Kerian inquired as to whether or not the retiree has to elect any certain insurance carrier to be a part of the plan. Mr. Goetz stated that the retiree could use any provider, and that with the passage of Senate Bill 2176, the legislature made it possible for retirees to continue on the City’s health plan even after retirement.

President Gershman expressed his thanks to Mr. Goetz and the committee for the time that they put into researching this benefit.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Brooks stated that the Gateway Association Group is anxious to get going on their review board and inquired as to the status of the documents establishing their guidelines. Potter stated that he believed the City Attorney was in the process of drafting the appropriate documents. Swanson stated that he had not yet received any list of duties and responsibilities for the group to put into a formal document. He stated that he could draft very broad language based on prior committee discussion if that is the wishes of the group and provide a draft of that on Monday.
2) Council Member Glassheim stated that the Third Street paving project was completed very quickly and the road is much better. He inquired as to the connecting space between the road itself and the driveways. Grasser responded that will be taken care of in the near future.
3) Council Member Christensen encouraged all interested Council members to attend the 4:00 p.m. Wednesday Finance/Development Committee meeting. He stated that the purpose of the meeting will be to begin prioritizing the items that need to be discussed as a part of the budget process such as the 2 –5 year CIP, how the Pay for Performance plan works and will be funded, and additional contributions to pension. The meeting will be a brainstorming session to compile the list of items to be prioritized for the budget discussions.
4) Council Member Christensen also stated that conversations with the Park District on potential needs for outdoor water facilities. He stated that there is a 2000 agreement that staff has been working on which includes the conveyance of property to the City and would like information of the status. He stated that he had previously been informed that the property was in the platting phase and would like to see if that is still the case, or if not an update on when the conveyance will occur, and the agreement finalized. He stated that the Greenway is in the budget for the flood project for the next couple of years, but the City needs to discuss how much additional funding may be needed and how much will be going to the Park District.
5) Council Member Kerian inquired as to the status of Columbia Road and whether or not it will be back to four-lane by the holiday shopping season. Mr. Grasser stated that they are currently installing the underground piping and will continue until the frost layer prohibits future work. They will then have street work to do next summer to finish up the project. He stated that as they finish piping an area, they will be patching it up and reopening those sections, and to finish by the end of November will be tight. He stated that he will keep the Council updated as to the progress on this project.
6) Council Member Kerian stated that she will be gone for the next three weeks on a vacation to New Zealand and Australia and hopes that the public can be patient with her on that.
7) Council Member Kreun stated that tomorrow is Veteran’s Day, which is a very special day and opportunity to express our appreciation for what they have done for us.
8) President Gershman called for a meeting of the Wage Study Steering Committee, as they have not met for some time and feels that a report on the implementation of the Pay for Performance Program is in order. He stated that he will work with Mr. Bunce on an appropriate date and time.
9) President Gershman stated that there may be a need to look at exiting at the Alerus Center as he was made aware of some delays following the concert on Saturday night and he believes that part of the problem may be the light cycles at DeMers and 32nd Avenue South, and perhaps there should rather be a police direction of traffic flow there instead. Council Member Hamerlik stated that this item is already on the agenda as a result of one of the commissioners and that he also wants Council to be aware that the Police Department meets the first Tuesday of each month with Alerus staff to discuss any problems from the past and during the past month.

President Gershman stated that the week of November 16-22 is National Homeless Awareness Week, as provided to him by the Red River Community Action Agency. He also again offered congratulations to the Sioux sports teams and to the Alerus Center and the Engelstad Arena for providing quality events for the weekend.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Christensen that we adjourn. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,



John M. Schmisek, CPA
Director of Finance and Administrative Services