Council Minutes

Minutes/Committee of the Whole meeting
Monday, May 10, 2004 - 7:00 p.m._______

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, May 10, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Glassheim, Gershman (teleconference), Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 6; absent: Council Member Hamerlik - 1.

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

Mayor Brown commented on various events held during the past week and upcoming events:
He stated that the headgear he was wearing was result of a wager with Mayor Stauss of East Grand Forks this weekend, and has to say congratulations because his pinewood derby car beat his last Saturday at the areas Cub Scout Pinewood Derby and congratulations to his young engineer, 10-year old Tom Gander who helped him win, and walked away with a nice try award and thanks to Cub Scouts - that it’s a Cats Incredible hat and looking forward to chili cookoff this summer as part of Cat Fish Days.
Also pleased that most of the attendees at Springfest behaved this year and pleased with organized and professional approach taken by our police department, the park district, student groups and numerous other individuals and thanks especially to the volunteers who came in and cleaned up the park right after the event.
He stated it was wonderful that the Letter Carriers Food Drive was successful, they collected 55,000 lbs. of donated food, that we beat Fargo, Minot and Bismarck.
He reminded everyone that the Police Memorial Day Service this Thursday at the Police Department will honor Officer Robert Martin and encourages everyone who can to attend and Hats Off to Sanitation crew for successful spring cleanup week.

2.1 Joint Powers Agreement for combining city election with primary election.
There were no comments.

2.2 Applications for exemption of remodeling improvements to residential buildings at:
a) 2215 Fallcreek Court
b) 519 North 7th Street
There were no comments.

2.3 Request by Grand Forks Taxi to amend Grand Forks City Code Section 21-0311 to increase the fee for the first one-eighth mile or portion thereof._________________
Council Member Christensen stated this matter should be referred to one of the standby
committees to get some input as to the type of revenue it would generate, the budgets of the organizations and get an idea of what organizations will be doing as far as capital improvements. Council Member Kreun stated it was fair to give the opportunity for owner of Grand Forks Taxi to visit with them in smaller setting so they can look at pros and cons of equipment, etc. A motion will be made next Monday to refer this to committee.

2.4 Grand Forks Flood Protection Project - Transfer of remainder of Lot 13, Block 3, Rivers Edge Resubdivision to Leslie Sullivan and Richard Hayes.______________
There were no comments.

2.5 Budget amendment request - Inspections.
There were no comments.

2.6 Plans and specifications for city projects:
a) Project No. 5603, Dist. 602, paving in Birkholz Homestead Addn. (Lydia Circle).
b) Project No. 5653, Dist. 598, paving in Columbia Park 29th Addn.
(Pembrooke Dr., Brookshire Dr. and Pendleton Dr.)
c) Project No. 5669, Dist. 601, paving in Southbrook Addn., Phase II Curran Ct.)
There were no comments.

2.7 Three-way construction engineering services agreement for Project No. 5555, TCSP Greenway/Bikeway Enhancements Phase 2.__________________________________
There were no comments.

2.8 Consideration of bids for Project No. 5604, Dist.. 281, watermain on S. 42nd St. and 36th Ave.S._____________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

NOTE: Council Member Gershman stated he was trying to participate but cannot hear, that they need to look into the system and get this addressed. He then went off the system.

2.9 Amendment No. 1 to Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) between the Department of the Army and the City of Grand Forks and City of East Grand Forks for Flood Damage Reduction and Recreation Project for purposes of allowing advance funding, Project 4704._____________________________________________
Council Member Glassheim asked for status; Mark Walker, asst. city engineer,
stated that about a year ago they were trying to get advance funding worked out and found out some problems getting approval at the federal level and that was start of the Corps of Engineers working with the federal government to allow this to happen, and understand that Congress has passed legislation that allows us to enter into this agreement and asking for approval to enter into this amendment.

2.10 Utility relocation agreement with Nodak Electric Cooperative for Project No. 5635, Flood Protection Project, Phase 4, Utility Relocates.___________________________
There were no comments.

2.11 Utility relocation agreement with Grand Forks-Traill Water District for 5635, GF Flood Protection Project, Phase 4, Utility Relocates_.__________________________
There were no comments.

2.12 Amendment No. 1 to engineering services agreement for Project No. 5456, Dist. 416, Lift Station 89 Rehab._____________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.13 Location list for Project 5572, 2004 Sidewalk Repairs.
There were no comments.

2.14 Budget amendment request, engineering department.
There were no comments.

2.15 Authorize elimination of temporary levees along the English Coulee between Gateway Drive and 6th Ave.N. and along Gateway Dr. between Ralph Engelstad Arena Dr. and Columbia Road.__________________________________________
Council Member Kerian stated that as part of the agreement that the UND would be
responsible for the bikepath and lighting, and asked if they could decide that there wouldn't be a bikepath. Al Grasser, city engineer, stated that it was not the intent that they could eliminate it in entirety, there are places in various areas where the bikepath will have to be moved to fit the buildings and it could be part of the motion in final act that the bikepath would continue through that area, the idea was that they would take care of all the operations and maintenance - Council Member Kerian stated for our bike transportation it would be important element to be there.

Council Member Brooks stated they are transferring responsibility and asked if bikepath or lighting would be moved. Dennis Potter, city planner, stated they are just transferring responsibility to the University, that as the University continues to develop along the English Coulee they may have to move it.

Mr. Grasser stated with those points being made they can change the recommended motion between now and council to try to get some language included that the bikepath will maintain in continuity between those points. Council Member Brooks stated that people in the neighborhood like that bikepath and would like to see it remain.

Council Member Glassheim asked if there would only be a motion by council of a legal document transferring something and if there shouldn't be an agreement. Mr. Potter stated the basic motion is to have the council set as a policy to do this exchange and then tell staff to proceed, and they would look to the city attorney to see if there is a need for a formal document and ask him to draw it up.

Council Member Christensen asked who owns the bikepath as it is on Bronson Tract land; Mr. Grasser stated the City has permission for the bikepath in writing. Council Member Christensen stated that is part of the quality of life and is a bikepath along a coulee so has some aesthetics and would like to make sure that we have a bikepath there as close to the coulee as possible. Mr. Potter stated they will work on changing the motion and ask the city attorney to draw up a document.

2.16 2004 Affordable In-fill Housing Program.
Council Member Kerian thanked people for getting in their applications and committee
who reviewed those; and asked what the process was like. Greg Hoover, Urban Development, stated the process was that they put out RFP's, had a number of proposers come in with those, they were all submitted by the deadline and a panel of three interviewed them and after the review they looked at the criteria and based on the criteria made a collective decision based on the highest and best proposal that was submitted. Bidders have been notified.

Council Member Kreun stated it took about 6 hours of meetings with individuals besides panel that went over these proposals, criteria was ranked and each proposer was given same opportunity and same time frame to make their proposals and was publicly announced and open for the public.

2.17 Request from Jerry Pribula on behalf of Grand Forks County for final approval of replat of Fairgrounds Third Resubdivision, being a replat of Lot 1, Block 4 of a Replat of Block 4, Fairgrounds Subdivision (loc. at U.S. Hwy.1, N. Columbia Road and Gateway Drive. (NOTE: Public hearing and second reading of ordinance amending Street & Highway Plan scheduled for May 17.)___________________
There were no comments.

2.18 Request from Bobbi Hepper-Olson on behalf of Grand Forks Housing Authority for final approval (fast track) of Replat of Lots 22 - 27, Block 2, Promenade First Addn. (loc. in 5300-5400 blocks of 6th Ave.N., including variance to the Land Development Code, Article 2, Zoning, Section 18-0204(2) Definition of Minor Subdivision limiting the number of lots to five.__________________________________________________
Council Member Kerian asked what the timing was for this property to be developed and
to have some homes ready to go there. Terry Hanson, Housing Authority, stated that the recommended action is regarding 6 lots that currently exist on 6th Avenue North and as soon as this is approved they have a developer who is going to go in and start putting houses on those 6 lots - proposed as 6 twin homes and 6 duplexes and range $97-98,000. land available this fall.

2.19 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Deacons Development for final (fast track) approval of the Replat of Block 3, Deacon's Garden Addn. (loc. at Columbia Road and 62nd Ave.S._________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.20 Request from Jon Ramsey on behalf of Lavonne K. Adams for final approval of an ordinance to amend zoning map to exclude from Shady Ridge PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, and to include within Shady Ridge PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 1, all of Shady Ridge Estates First Addn., Shady Ridge Estates Second Addn., Shady Ridge Third Addn., Shady Ridge Estates Fourth Resubdiv., Shady Ridge Fifth Resubdiv., Shady Ridge Estates Sixth Addn., Greenwood Subdiv., and to include unplatted portions of Section 26, T151N, R50W of 5th P.M. (loc. in vicinity of Adams Drive and Shady Ridge Court). (NOTE: Public hearing and second reading of this ordinance is scheduled for May 17.)_____________________________------____________
There were no comments.

2.21 Petition from Pribula Engineering and Surveying on behalf of Lavonne Adams to vacate 25-ft. storm sewer easement 12.5 feet on either side of the line between Lots 2 and 3, Blk. 1 and Lots 5 and 6, Blk. 1, Shady Ridge Estates Fifth Resubdiv. (loc in 5000 to 6000 blk. of Adams Drive)__________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.22 Request from Pribula Engineering on behalf of Lavonne Adams for preliminary approval of Replat of Shady Ridge Fifth Resubdivision (loc. at intersection of Adams Dr. and Shady Ridge Court._____________________________________
There were no comments.

2.23 Request from Bobbi Hepper-Olson on behalf of GF Housing Authority for preliminary approval of Replat of Promenade Second Resubdiv. (loc between 6th Ave.N. and 8th Ave.N. and between N. 53rd St. and N. 55th St.)________________
Mr. Potter stated the introduction they will ask for next week is the first part of a larger
development that encompasses all of the Promenade area and asked Mr. Hanson to give council a brief overview of the entire development.

Mr. Hanson showed streetscape of what street will look like in Promenade; and stated that they went before Planning and Zoning last week with a concept for preliminary approval of the concept of Promenade, and presented map on the overhead of what they are proposing to do there - this concept when completed will have 127 housing units and will be made up of single-family residences with attached garages, single family residences with detached garages, twin-
homes with detached garage, 5-unit townhouse type arrangements with detached garage and 6-unit townhouse arrangement with detached garages; that they plan on coming forward this year with the Promenade Court, which is 8th Avenue North, and install that and install infrastructure for Promenade Court; next year if things move well they will move into Thames Court and have that developed. He stated in Promenade Court they are projecting 52 housing units and units included in the 5-unit townhomes which are two-bedroom and three-bedroom units will be the most affordable units of this development, and will bring housing on the market at about $85,000 a unit. He stated in order to do this they need some subsidies to this project and have proposal to the Federal Home Loan Bank for assistance from them and have a proposal before Greg Hoover at the Urban Development Office for some additional assistance from the City; and if get the assistance that is what will bring the prices down. He stated they anticipate that getting the assistance from the City and if they do, that will require the Housing Authority as a developer to provide 51% of these units and sell to low and moderate income families and would guarantee that to the City. He stated that 49% can be sold to those above 80% of the area median income and of the entire 100% of this development, homes have to be at a value of less than $132,500 or close to that, and they believe that they will bring in all of these homes in at $115,000 or less; that might not include the garages for some of them in order to get the price down to that, but can get the initial home at a price of $115,000 or less.

He stated with the help of the City engineering department proposing to put the Promenade and 8th Avenue North infrastructure in this year and get some concrete or some gravel into some of these homes. He stated one of the unique things about this development is the only place where you find driveways coming off the streets in front of the homes that back 55th Street because they cannot curb cut into the homes from 55th and the homes on Thames Court to the north because on Thames Court have no access to the back and those will be tuck under garages, others will have garages but set back on the lots; all the other homes on this development will not have garages or curb cuts coming off the street to their homes, will all come off the alleys. He stated this is the first one in many years designed and trying to eliminate the curb cuts for garages on the front.

He stated this came before Planning and Zoning and now before council because in order to make units affordable will be asking for waivers or variances of the Building Code and the Land Development Code and that with the authority given by the city council as this is designated affordable housing district and that this is designated a PUD that the city council will have the authority to make those variances, none of them are that great a variance and that working with engineering and planning they will be able to come forward in June and start constructing homes in the middle of the summer, that they do have access to lots off 53rd and can start building as soon as they get approval for the replat of this property.

Council Member Kreun stated this is part of the project they discussed several years ago that they wanted to start, that Grand Forks has home ownership of about 51%, national, regional and state averages 67%, that factors as University come into play along with flood but are still considerably below home ownership, and this is to replace a lot of the entry level homes, and when brought this before you with $135,250 limit, many people indicated that was not an entry level home but this project with some assistance; assistance from the City will not be tax dollars that we pay in February, but the assistance is some of the CDBG funds that are available through HUD and Urban Development Office, and that will help off set some of these costs to bring true entry level homes into our market which they are in drastic need of.

Council Member Brooks stated the actual location of this is directly west of Congressional I and south of Gateway. Mr. Hanson stated on the north end of this property today see some construction going on and that is 60 units of rental property that is being developed by a group out of Minneapolis (behind the old Cartiva on Gateway). Mr. Hanson stated they will not compete with other developers and only way to bring true entry level housing into the community is through the assistance that can be provided, and that when the City provides that type of assistance they are going to want some assurance that the families that they are trying to get into housing are the ones that receive it, and are going to market these to the families of 80% or less of the area median income because the funding they are proposing will make that a requirement of them.

2.24 Request from Scott Stauss on behalf of Hampton Corp. for preliminary approval of ordinance to amend the zoning map to exclude from Perkins Third PUD, Amendment No. 2 and to include within Perkins Third PUD, Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 3, Lots 26-33, Blk. 2 of Perkins Fourth Addn. and adjacent vacated Pine Circle thereto, and all of Perkins Eighth Resubdiv. (Loc. in 3000 block of 40th Ave.S.)__________________-----------_________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.25 Request from Scott Stauss on behalf of Hampton Corp. for preliminary approval of Replat of Perkins Tenth Resubdiv., being a replat of Lots 26-33, Blk. 2, Perkins Fourth Addn. (loc. in 3000 blk of 40th Ave.S.)________________________________
There were no comments.

2.26 Bids for Street Department tandem truck, truck box and hoist.
There were no comments.

2.27 Final Environmental Impact Study for the Grand Forks Municipal Solid Waste Balefill Facility._______________________________________________________
Todd Feland, public works director, reported he would present a history of the landfill
project from 1990 until today and give a chronological briefing and then Jay Fiedler, attorney representing the City on the landfill siting case, would give comments at the end of his presentation.

Mr. Feland reported that the landfill project started in 1965 when the City opened its current landfill serving 37,000 city residents and between 1965 and 1995 they gained more customers over that time period and one of the major issues is that EPA created new rules in ways landfills constructed and maintained which priced a lot of the smaller landfills out of existence and therefore have regional landfills and private sector landfills and at that time the City of Grand Forks began looking at a different site and one of the major criteria that we were in violation of was the FAA setback requirements and City looked at alternative ways in which to dispose of solid waste in this particular region. He stated that currently we are operating under landfill extension which expires in November, 2004 and are also in possession of a letter from the FAA saying that they would concur with extensions of our landfill permit through the ND State Health Department permitting process up to November, 2007 and that timeline is at or near when we will run out of room for solid waste for the city of Grand Forks and the region.

Mr. Feland made a brief presentation of the history of the landfill.
He noted that on Saturday, May 8, 2004, they published the final EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) which contains an executive summary, the document also contains all the comments that were presented, written or oral, and responses to those comments. He stated that the EIS document is two-volumes, one is draft EIS and one is final EIS.

Jay Fiedler, attorney, stated that the City has gone through a rigorous, detailed and demanding process to deal with the landfill issue that they are facing with other communities that depend on us for their landfilling needs. He stated there are three things that are going to happen, all related, 1) they are asking for authority to go to the Township and request a public hearing on its zoning ordinance, on an application for a conditional use permit; 2) they will be making application to the County for the appropriate zoning under its zoning ordinance, and the reason is that under our state scheme the townships and the counties have concurrent and to some extent overlapping authority and we have to deal with both of those zoning authorities, and both of them have requirements we have to meet, to the extent they are legally enforceable regulations and have to comply with the more rigorous, and the immediate issues is the EIS requirement in the township ordinance; 3) the permitting process with the State, it is nearing point where the permitting documents should be submitted to the State, there has been pre-approval of this site but not final approval, the State Department of Health has been very much involved in the EIS process and we have received considerable comment from it and well along in applying for that permitting process.

He stated that the EIS is a pre-requisite found in the Township zoning ordinance to a public hearing on our application for a conditional use permit, the Turtle River zoning ordinance states that upon presentation of an EIS compliant with NEPA a public hearing will be provided, NEPA is a federal law having to do with environmental protections, the City engaged a firm with a great deal of NEPA compliance experience and great deal of experience in preparation of environmental impact statements and environmental assessments, that the document that was generated as a result of this process complies in all substantive regards and ways with the federal NEPA requirements. There is no federal agency involved in this project and there were some procedural steps that could not be followed because they were impossible in the absence of a federal agency but with the substance of this document, what you see is a document which is done in the same way that a federal EIS would be done and addresses the same issues and is compliant with the requirements of the Township ordinance in our estimation.

The preparation of the EIS was exceedingly detailed and demanding process. The City's design engineers developed a very detailed construction plan for the project and that the project design as it exists today is far more advanced than it was at beginning of the process, there are far fewer questions that have to be answered. He stated when the City decided to undertake the EIS process they made that decision for two primary reasons , first to satisfy the Turtle River Board of Supervisors and the residents of Turtle River Township that the City was acting in a responsible manner and in an environmentally sound manner and to satisfy ourselves that we have selected an appropriate location, the purpose of the exercise is to determine whether the site is appropriate or whether it presents any conditions that would make construction and operation of the landfill unsound and after this entire process the answer was that the site is appropriate and does not present issues that makes its operation and construction unsound; there are recommendations in the document for a number of mitigations to various impacts that come from a project of this nature - all of those mitigations are well within engineering feasibility. He stated from what he had been told the process that the City has just come through is the most detailed and rigorous siting process that has been undertaken in the state and likely to become a model.

He reviewed process with respect to the zoning, the Turtle River Township zoning ordinance requires the EIS as a prerequisite to a public hearing, and they propose to submit the EIS to the Board and request a public hearing, they are confident that the documents complies in all respects and there will be a public hearing and the conclusion of the public hearing, hope will have been able to present sufficient objective information to convince the Township Board that this is an appropriate project, there are issues and strong feelings re. the project, that this has not been a process that has been taken on lightly, the issues have been studied and answered in detail. But that the council needs to know what is the process if the Township declines, that several years ago the ND Supreme Court laid out the roadmap for what we do in this situation. The Supreme Court stated we are to submit our application to the local zoning authority, and if denied by them or otherwise restricts it in some way that is unacceptable to the applicant, an appeal is taken to the District Court and a trial is held, an evidentiary hearing, the judge listens to evidence and what has been done and to the detail in which the studies have been done and circumstances, the factors being considered, and then applies a balancing of the interest test - the court considers the public importance of the project, not only to the applicant but also those other communities that are depended upon us as well and considers what precautions, safeguards and diligence we have supplied in the selection process and studying and then weighs that against the impact on the host community and determines whether the public need outweighs impacts with the burden of proof on the applicant to demonstrate that the public utility is the way to your concern.

There also is the application to the County Commission for its zoning and Mr. Feland mentioned that the County has setback requirements of a half mile in which there may be 3 residences, two are barely within the half mile and that by adjusting the footprint of the site by couple hundred feet that issue can be addressed. He stated he doesn't want to suggest that the process is a walk in the park, it isn't, there are strong feelings on the issue, arguments that can be made but feels there are few communities who are better prepared to address the issue than Grand Forks is now having gone through the process that it has, it would be hard to think of an issue that has not been raised and has not been addressed, and have come to the point where they feel they can make their applications and address all of the issues, that this demanding study has not revealed any impacts or circumstances that say that this is an inappropriate site or infeasible site and that is essentially what the zoning process will be.

Council Member Kerian asked if there is some agreement and who is the City accountable for the mitigation that we would do. Mr. Fiedler stated they would anticipate that some of the mitigations would be made a part of a conditional use permit issued by the Township and we would be answerable to the Township with respect to those mitigations, there are a lot of state and federal regulations that we would have to comply with in any event.

Council Member Glassheim asked who will be responsible for the design when it is presented to the Township and when it is presented to the District Court, if that happens, will it be staff, council involved, and that some of the concerns of people seem to have some merit and some require response from the City, and who decides what will be the City's response. Mr. Fielder stated that he doesn't consider the comments that were received on that EIS to be frivolous in any sense, they were serious comments and reflected concerns that people have, but that each and every one of those concerns was addressed in the document - who addresses those and to the extent they present engineering concerns which is large percentage of them and would see those concerns addressed by the City's design engineers in designing those mitigations into the project and presenting those to the Township; with respect to the procedure or presentation to the Township Board, as far as he knows he would be involved in marshalling the response and would come primarily from City staff and City's consulting and design engineers; that to extent there are discussions about more social, economic, financial issues, tipping fees, and seems that is an issue begging for council participation - but depends on what issue we are dealing with.

Council Member Glassheim stated he is trying to find out when it is appropriate to get into more detail, before going to the Township Board, or afterward when on-going negotiations. Mr. Fiedler stated this design contains a lot of detail, and to the extent will there be discussions, would hope that this project raises issues and concerns upon which reasonable people can discuss and agree, and would hope there would be the opportunity for that dialogue, and what will happen is that either he or somebody in similar position will have to communicate with reps. of the Township and ask if they are willing to engage in that sort of a dialogue and invite them to it, and are getting to that point.,

Council Member Christensen stated he would request that Mr. Fielder or Mr. Feland draft resolutions they would like passed so that council would have as soon as possible, e-mail to council and to press, so that they have something they can act on Monday, and pointed out to the council, no idea when hearing would take place, that Mr. Feland suggested that we have until sometime in 2007, and if we can't get into the negotiation that Mr. Fiedler is suggesting, that court process could take easily two years, and we have to move forward and have to pursue that tri-factor they are suggesting we pursue because we have to get this moving and behind us. Mr. Fiedler stated there is undoubtedly a time element.

Council Member Kreun stated that Mr. Feland made about control factors in the decision making process, we have to remember and have to be responsible for all of our municipal solid waste wherever we send it.

Council Member Christensen stated that will be a concern of the citizens of Manvel that if this were to happen, how would they know that there will be an appropriate avenue of redress and of making sure that if it isn't happening the way it is intended and how do we make sure that it does happen and what form of representation if any, are we going to have. He stated those would be council issues and when go to permitting process, would hope they would along with administration have developed some type of plan you would present to them that we would enact as an ordinance, municipal waste disposal commission, but this is something that is going to be for 70 years and has to have oversight of others that follow us.

Council Member Brooks stated we have done the EIS and as read through the comments of people and consider those, and that this is the landfill of Grand Forks and for the region and for all the small communities that look to the landfill for their use too.

Council Member Glassheim stated that many improvements have been made as a result of rethinking on our own or observing the comments and that we have done some things to improve the site; that on some of the comments that the answers were technically correct but not emotionally correct and some where he would err on the side of reassurance of people living near it, even if that meant some increase in cost to all and that the citizens of the township are paying for their waste to go into this operation as well and if put our best foot forward rather than wait for some things to be pulled out of us - that where find something reasonable even though it might not be technically required of us at least consider making an accommodation in advance of delivering - there are hundreds of items and can't satisfy everybody on everything. Mr. Fiedler stated he wouldn't disagree but would state that the document is a technical document and authors felt obliged to respond in that fashion and the response to the emotional side is really a policy -- but how do you generate the meaningful dialogue that we would like to generate when talking about two public bodies, formalism gets in the way
3. INFORMATION ITEMS

3.1 Schedule update for Project No. 5517, Dist. 592, paving in Promenade 1st Addn.__________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

3.2 Information on bids for Proj. No. 5607, Bus Turnout Lane at 6th Ave.N. and Hamline Street.____________________________________________________
There were no comments.

3.3 Portfolio Management/Summary for period ending April 30, 2004.
There were no comments.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Brooks stated Springfest when started this last weekend that it was in the hands of the students, that staff did excellent work in putting it together and tried to make it something positive, and hats off to the students, and that at 8:30 p.m. area cleaned up.

He noted he had received annual report from the Fire Department and as looking through the list of staff and years of service that in the near future will lose number of good long-term employees to retirement need to plan for in next few years so don't have a void there and continue that department's excellence.

2) Council Member Christensen stated that he thought the mayor was going to reconvene a committee similar to the wage study committee to review benefit issues and spoke with several employees in the rank and file level and there are some issues that we have to address concerning implementation of pay for performance policy and a review of our benefit level as we see the transition from our senior management to our up and coming junior management.

3) Council Member Kreun stated he received the best pit crew award from the race on Saturday.

He stated he sits on the Safe Kids Coalition Advisory Board and there will be a program for crushing car seats tomorrow at Alerus Center in the south parking lot at 1:00 p.m. Important to check registration numbers on car seats and take them to the Alerus Center to see if in recall position; that after about six years car seats are outdated and used to a point where may not be safe, that recalls should be destroyed as well as those that have been in any kind of accident; critical as far as safety goes with the children.

Council Member Kreun expressed condolences to families of two soldiers killed in Iraq and to all families of soldiers in harm's way and appreciation for what they do for us.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Glassheim and seconded by Council Member Brooks. Carried 5 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Schmisek, City Auditor