Council Minutes

MINUTES -COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Monday, February 9, 2004 - 7:00 p.m.______

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, February 9, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. (following the special city council meeting and the meeting of the Growth Fund Authority (JDA) in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were: Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 7; absent: none.

2.1 Travel expense policy and procedures.
Council Member Gershman stated they are bringing procedures into line with changes but
asked why the oversight will be taken from the city council and given to the mayor because it has never been an issue and asked reasoning. The city auditor stated that within Code 6-0317 council established the policy to pay for those types of things as far as reimbursements and that once that was established and finance office was given the authority to establish those policies and procedures that were necessary, was then an administrative matter that the process could be split up by having the mayor approve it, and anytime there is a change like this council will be receiving copies of those policies - their intent is to start establishing a policy book and manual that will be maintained and will be part of information provided and the only changes they will make are if changes in the tables, etc. He noted changes hadn't been made since 1982 and that this is a major change. He stated guidelines change every year when they enclose GSA tables.

Council Member Brooks stated they are to set and oversee policy, that this is a policy and should remain with the council. Council Member Glassheim stated this is a policy that the council sets and the expenditure of money is set by the council, and administration carries it out, but setting the rate charge and the amounts is the expenditure of taxpayer funds and that is their responsibility, and should be changed unless hear better reason why they shouldn't do it.

Council Member Kerian asked what has changed. The city auditor stated the major change is from a policy in the past under state statute that they had set limits similar to the in-state per diem when you went out of state, that the in-state as it is still was $20 and had set limit out of state of $30 on the per diem and now the state statute has changed that you will follow the General Services Adm. federal limits and that will change based on the community you go to (chart and appendix included) so when end up in more expensive community, there is the potential for reimbursement closer to expenditures. He stated this is putting more into better format of a policy and procedure so it is written down exactly what they have been doing to date, and the traveling expenses allowed are exactly as it has been under state statute and under our policy, the expense amounts allowed are the same as in the past, and the in-state per diem is the same, the change comes in the out of state per diem meal expenses and that changes from in the past, the out of state lodging expenses has always been lodging expense incurred and in item 7 included that based on information from GSA to better define what incidental expenses are. He stated they have always followed the mileage and reimbursement regulations of IRS; verification of expense is more clarification for us internally as what expect to have and items 10 - 13 are additions for clarification.

Howard Swanson, city attorney, stated the concern he has is that the council is adopting a specific appendix by this policy, if the intent is to adopt current regs. by the federal government, then eliminate any reference to attached appendices because by including the appendix you are adopting by reference as specific document, and his advise would be if there is a new appendix is issued, the city auditor would bring it back to the council for adoption assuming that the ordinance is not changed. If it is the intent that the policy is fine and you are allowing administratively an adoption of a new federal reg. on reimbursement rates, etc. we can accommodate that but doesn't think that is written clearly, and the city auditor's point is if you want clarification now is the time to do that. He stated they have the pages that would be implemented in the employee's policy or department policies to give examples and how much of this is policy setting and how much is administration, this may have been the section that should have been included in the council's resolution a number of years ago on administrative matter but to avoid any concern as to potential conflicts if the intent is to allow the automatic adoption to changes, should change that. The city auditor stated that is why he recommended changing from council to mayor.

Council Member Christensen stated he agreed with issue re. deletion of city council from this statute as written and believes they are for the change in the policy and suggest that they give council the policy and if have reference to appendix that are going to be amended from time to time by GSA or IRS or State, that you include by reference changes to these appendices as they occur and so doesn't have to come back to council, that you will be watching what it is costing you if there is a change which may necessitate a budget amendment and then come back to the council with proposed budget amendment if change gave rise to additional expenses which didn't anticipate. He stated that they clean up the policy, do what Mr. Swanson was suggesting, by reference, and make reference to his three things and you budget for it every year and if a change in the monies you expect to expend then it comes back to council.

2.2 Amendment to Engineering Services agreement with Advanced Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. for Project No. 5316, UND Water Tower Reconditioning.______________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.3 Bio-terrorism Grant budget amendment and 1 FTE Project/Grant funded position.
Council Member Gershman asked how long the grant is for and what happens when the
grant runs out. Don Shields, Health Dept., stated this grant is on a year to year basis and when grant expires there is no obligation by the City to continue funding and there is no match by the City.

2.4 Appointments to various boards and commissions:
a) Events Center Commission
b) Emergency Management Board.
c) Civil Service Commission. [
d) Historic Preservation Commission.
Council Member Brooks stated all appointments, except 2 for Historic Preservation, were
re-appointments; change is hard but sometimes it is good to get turn-over and new blood and new ideas can be beneficial.

2.5 Bids for vehicles for police department.
There were no comments.

2.6 Fair Housing Impediments Analysis.
Greg Hoover briefly reviewed this item - that to receive CDBG and HOME funds, the
City is required to conduct an analysis of impediments to fair housing, and includes identifying
the impediments, listing actions that can be taken to overcome those impediments and
maintaining records of those actions. The City had contracted with the ND Fair Housing Council
to do this analysis, they reviewed the following items: demographic data, local mortgage
information, zoning regulations, sales and rental market, hosing advertising practices, appraisal
practices, administrative policies and fair housing complaints . They identified some housing
issues dealing mostly with educational efforts in the community directed towards the rules, state
and rental industry, lenders, housing providers and general public. He stated with the opening of
this 30-day comment period they are inviting the public and those who are involved in the
housing industry to review and comment upon this report and it will be made available on the
web at City's website and will also make contact with all the entities that are identified in the
report so they can review and get their comments back to them.

Council Member Glassheim asked what is the relationship of this activity with the Housing
Authority. Mr. Hoover stated these are separate regulations that come under the broad umbrella
of the consolidated plan for HOME and CDBG and don't directly impact or impinge upon the HA
but they are providing this to the HA for their review and comment and they are an active partner
in some of the programs that have been identified. Glassheim asked what federal monies depend
on this fair housing rating. Mr. Hoover stated CDBG and HOME and those are the two that the
City gets; there are no mandates and are all suggestions and deal with educating the public and
housing service and production industry.

Council Member Kreun stated there is a lot of intermingling between HA and Urban Develop-
ment, and if look at a lot of these there is lot of encouragement as far as funding for lower income
housing, to promote more low income housing and that they have been working on that and been
in their long range goals and this reinforces some of the things they have been trying to do.

2.7 Fannie Mae Loan.
Mr. Hoover stated that sometime ago the City received $5 million line of credit from
Fannie Mae for affordable housing activities and this is something they brought to the
council previously and they referred it back to the Finance/Development Committee for further analysis and what they are proposing is that a good portion of this money be used to pay the first two years of the special assessments on the infrastructure that is done in the City's affordable housing districts and at the end of those two years there will be a bond taken out that pays that off, and the balance of the money will be used for a home-buyer incentive program for prospective buyers who are at 80 to 120% of the median income, it would be for them to purchase a single family condo or town home and has to be their primary place of residence, the loan will be low interest and now computing at 5% that will be a 10-year amortized loan with a balloon at the end of 5 years.

Keith Lund stated they did provide a proforma in the staff report for council to review
and consider. He stated that the city auditor has been in contact with Springsted and Moody's with respect to this note.

Council Member Christensen stated this is an alternate source of financing so we don't
have to actually spend more than we would have to pay for the infrastructure because if went to the market and sold bonds it is 1.27%, and this is more dollar for dollar and interest rates 4.5% to 5%, and will be using this money to fund our infrastructure costs for the two low-income housing projects approved last year, and there will be additional monies available to do the first time home buyer program and monies available if need to do other low income housing projects in the community (near northside project or Promenade project north of University) and have review they asked for and likes proforma so it gives better idea of how it may cash flow.

The city auditor reported they have had casual conversations with Moody's and gone through information with them and they don't see where this would have any adverse effect on our bond ratings.
2.8 Request on behalf of City of Grand Forks for final approval of the Replat of Lots 13-17, Block F, Sunbeam Addition (loc. at 51, 55, 59, 63 and 67 Sloping Hills Cove)
Mark Walker, asst. city engineer, stated that the lots on that plat have homes on them and
those homes will be resold sometime next summer after the majority of the construction is
complete.

2.9 Request on behalf of City of Grand Forks for final approval of Replat of Lots 4, 5, 6, 14, 15 and 16, Blk. 6, Sunbeam Addn. (loc. on Gentle Hills Circle and Rolling Hills Circle)._________________________________________________________________
Mr. Walker stated there are two city homes that will be in the same situation and two
homes privately owned.

2.10 Request on behalf of City of Grand Forks for final approval of Replat of Lots A-F, 8, and 10-13, Block H, Sunbeam Addn. (loc. on Northridge Hills Court)__________
Mr. Walker stated there is one home that will be for sale, and all the other lots that are
shown on that plat homes have been removed and those lots will not go up for sale but the levee will be built on those lots.

2.11 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Roberton and Kokron for final approval of the plat of Robertons First Addition (loc. at 24th Ave.S. and S. 36th St..) to include a variance to the Land Development Code, Article 9, Subdivision Regulations; Sec. 18-0907, subsection (2), R/W, paragraph (L) as it relates to access to collector streets._________________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.12 Request on behalf of Miller and Holmes, Inc. and Randy Gram for conditional use permit for Lots 1 and 3, Block 5, Original Townsite (loc. at 419 N. 5th Street) for purpose of rebuilding a neighborhood convenience grocery and automobile service business.________________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.13 Request on behalf of Greenberg Enterprises for final approval (fast track) of Replat of Lots 10 through 14, Blk. 6, Columbia Park 29th Addn. (loc. in 3800 block of Pembrook Court_________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.14 Request on behalf of University of North Dakota for preliminary approval of ordinance to amend zoning map to include within University Village PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 2, all of University Village Addn. and Columbia Addn. (loc. in NE 1/4 Sec. 5, T151N, R50W of 5th P.M.)_____________________________________________________________
Mr. Potter stated that the University of North Dakota wants to increase the housing units
from 200 to 500 and want to provide for two changes that would allow a gas station in the southeast corner of Ralph Engelstad Drive and Gateway Drive, and a bank in the southwest corner of Ralph Engelstad Drive and Gateway Drive. Council Member Christensen stated when he looked at the PUD he didn't see any densities for housing; Mr. Potter stated the density is 200 units currently spread over 160 acres and they are asking to go to 500. Council Member Christensen asked what they intend to do with the balance of the property. Mr. Potter stated that residents will be notified for both the Planning Commission public hearing in March and for the City's public hearing in March. Council Member Christensen stated that either the Planning Commission and council should be discussing the density as to the number of housing units we anticipate having been built on this parcel and that there is some type of development planned in the strip center and get additional oversight as to the proposed development of the remaining Bronson Tract; Mr. Potter stated he would bring that to council next week.

3. INFORMATION ITEMS

3.1 Portfolio Management Summary ending January 31, 2004
There were no comments.

3.2 Information on Sorlie Bridge Lighting Project.
Council Member Christensen stated that the staff was going to go out and get some engineering estimates but not sure whether want to go with this and spends $230,000 plus to light the Sorlie Bridge but perhaps address couple other issues in our minutes were whether what contacts were made with the City of East Grand Forks and what get done over there first before start spending some money for engineering, not sure where want to go. Council Member Gershman stated that the general feeling at the committee meeting was that lighting the bridge would be nice thing and something they should consider, but when first heard it was approx. $125,000 and now up to $230,000 and has concern about that and what he had suggested was to flood light the bridge from both sides from the exterior, and would be much less expensive and also to be able to change lenses on lights to change colors with season - and would rather do that than spend monies for engineering fees but money is an issue.

Council Member Kreun stated what we would want to do is direct engineering to look at alternative lighting sources and systems so we can go forward with it because it is a project that is good but want to look at an alternative that is less costly.

Council Member Gershman stated that we have some communication with DLG because they brought it forward and to let them know there doesn't appear to be much appetite to do an internal lighting but perhaps an external and they might have some thoughts on that too and to be a part of the discussion.

Cindy Voigt, asst. city engineer, stated what they had in mind based on the committee's thoughts was to take some of these new ideas, assign some cost to it, meet with East Grand Forks, which is meeting tomorrow with one of their committees and this is on the agenda and know more about their participation, select a firm and get cost estimates, and come back to council with est. costs so council can make decision. She stated she needs to make sure that the ideas that were brought forward last week at the finance committee are feasible, doable and have solid costs for the options; and stated they would look at laser lighting.

Council Member Hamerlik stated he needed clarification, that he thought that engineering was going to go ahead, talk to EGF, try to come up with some options but didn't hear that they were going to engage consultant for $30,000, thought push was to eliminate that at that meeting, and if now saying that needs to be done to get the job done accordingly, and that is new information and should discuss it but thought have phase I with some ideas and go from there.

Ms. Voigt stated that $30,000 is their maximum amount without coming back to council, but they don't have a contract or have a firm selected and not fair to say contract may have been $30,000, will know that and if over $30,000 will come back but they are authorized to spend up to that if it is in the budget, and doesn't expect it to be that for this option study.

Council Member Gershman stated there are companies that provide lighting and if went to them and asked for an estimate of what it would cost, wouldn't have to go out and hire an independent engineer that would do the very same thing of contacting these companies and thinks should go to a lighting company and ask for costs for external light, laser light in order to get the business from us.

Ms. Voigt asked for clarification. Council Member Christensen stated that they would ask to use staff within the engineering department to try to flush out some of the suggestions that various members of the council have made this evening and which were brought up at their committee meeting - the idea is that they can't go with lighting the bridge as originally proposed but as suggested at the meeting if have some exterior sources and have it lit in some fashion for the Juniors, as that is their goal, but don't want to spend $25-30,000 for consultant to design something until have done some of the suggestions by Council Member Gershman.

MAYOR & COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:

There were no comments.

2.15 Mediation of Claims (City v SJ Louis)
(council may adjourn into executive session pursuant to NDCC 44-04-19.2)
It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Christensen to go into executive session pursuant to NDCC 44-04-19.2 to discuss pending settlement proposal from SJ Louis in a matter pending in federal court. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

The committee of the whole reconvened after executive session.

ADJOURN

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

Respectfully submitted,



John M. Schmisek
City Auditor