Council Minutes

Minutes/Committee of the Whole
Monday, August 9, 2004 - 7:00 p.m.

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, August 9, 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, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 7; absent: none.

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:
Hats off to the crews of the police department, fire department and streets department and everyone else that made sure we made a great impression when Vice President Cheney visited us last week, our actions were thorough and professional - well done.
He stated he was at the Can/Am Rendezvous put on by the Rod Benders Car Club, his Nova led the parade - 150 entries with about half of them Canadian - great event.
Heritage Days parade on Saturday in East Grand Forks.
The World Juniors summer camp is underway at The Ralph this weekend and can see the USA teams play Tuesday, Friday and Saturday, and that all the players from the USA team will be in Town Square for Farmers Market on Thursday.
He wished a happy belated 103rd birthday to Nina Nordby and he had pleasure of meeting with her, that she has an amazing spirit, a sense of commitment, and a sharp mind.

2.1 Matter of ordinance relating to transient merchant licenses.
Council Member Brooks asked why included in the public facility and tailored for
the Alerus, shouldn't some other facilities where they have vendors. Howard Swanson, city attorney, stated in the past the only exception for transient merchant was the civic auditorium and this ordinance has not been updated since that time; what attempted to do was to write in such fashion that it will include such things as parks run by the Park District, Town Square, the Alerus and publicly-owned facilities, that exemptions for transient merchant licenses when they occur, are typically related to public facilities or public events.

2.2 Matter of ordinance relating to establishment of a special alcoholic beverage license for the Engelstad Arenas._________________________________________________
Council Member Kerian stated agreements are being worked on relating to alcohol in the
Alerus for sporting events and now seeing significant work making sure that there can be alcohol at University events that they own, and asked for explanation of why it is that we are having this difference. Mr. Swanson stated this ordinance has nothing to do with the negotiations, nor is he involved in them, but the purpose of this ordinance was to remove an ambiguity in the existing Code as to what was covered by the Engelstad facility, it was always intended to cover the entire facility but to make sure all he has done is to add a plural to arena, not intended to affect any discussion, negotiations or conduct at the Alerus Center. Kerian stated she didn't understand the difficulty having with two sets of rules.

Council Member Hamerlik stated all the responsibility having to do with alcohol rests with the University and part of the negotiations for the contract; the University talks with Ralph Engelstad Arena and with the Alerus Commission.

Council Member Christensen stated the amendment to the ordinance will allow alcohol in The Betty, that it doesn't make sense that if permissible to have alcohol in The Ralph and The Betty for athletic sporting events, then most certainly it should be permissible in the Alerus to have alcohol for the 6 or 8 football games that UND plays in the Alerus, and would like to see in negotiations that you strive very hard to make sure that we do have alcoholic beverages sold this season when our team takes the field.

Council Member Brooks stated when talking about The Ralph, talking about World Juniors and they are not a college event and not a University event. Council Member Hamerlik stated comments are not in the minority and that The Ralph Engelstad Arena is a separate corporation and that is not the University, whether they sell it there or not is between the University and Ralph Engelstad, Inc., and likewise a contractual negotiation between the University and the Alerus and has been on the table - they are in negotiations.

Council Member Gershman stated that next week he will be requesting that he be recused from voting on this item and next item.

2.3 Matter of ordinance relating to hours and time of sale of alcoholic beverages at Ralph Engelstad Arena.________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.4 Consideration of bids for Project No. 5704, bus garage re-roofing.
There were no comments.

2.5 Engineering Services Agreement for Project No. 5671, Point Bridge Rehabilitation.
There were no comments.

2.6 Engineering Services Agreement for Project No. 5672, paving 55th Avenue South (Belmont Road to Cherry Street)._________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.7 Amendment #2 to engineering contract with Webster, Foster & Weston for Project No. 5230, Telemetry Upgrade.______________________________________________
Council Member Gershman stated it appears that the IFIX was updated due to the manu-
facturer not supporting some of the computer hardware and software support was becoming very limited, and asked if we had a bad supplier, and if that is case, do we have any legal recourse to recover any of the money. Mr. Walker stated they were having problems, having the software supplier provide support for the previous version of that software so upgraded it , the other problem was being able to make the physical connections, there were certain cards that went into the old computers that they could no longer put into the new computers so there was a mix-match of software problems as well as hardware problems; but through no fault of the software provider nor fault of the computer provider. Council Member Gershman asked if can get more guarantees from suppliers - that sometimes in the software and hardware business, things don't match, and need this and that, and didn't tell us - if something we could do, would like to see it.

2.8 Engineering Services Amendment for Project Nos. 4948, 4948.1, 4948.2, 4948.3, 4948.4, 4948.5 and 4948.6, and 4948.7 - Interim Residuals Management Plan.
There were no comments.

2.9 Consideration of bids for Project No. 5562, Mill Road watermain.
There were no comments.
2.10 Engineering Services Agreement for Project No. 5673, Mill and Overlay N. 20th Street (University to Gateway)._________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.11 Engineering Services Agreement for Project No. 5674, Columbia Road and Ave.S. reconstruction._________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.12 Engineering Services Agreement for Project No. 5675, DeMers Ave./42nd underpass._______________________________________________________.
Council Member Kerian stated we have a number of street projects that we are doing
design work and getting estimates on - 55th Avenue South, N.20th Street, Columbia Road and 24th Avenue South, and now this one, 42nd Street underpass, and when talking about some of the issues that we are going to have to face with budget as this money is coming out of our Street money that is being depleted - important projects and need to move them ahead, but suggesting that if we don't get serious about looking at the planning, we won't be able to do this in the future, that we need to work on over the next year. Council Member Brooks stated that we not only look at next year's but need to look at about 5 years to take care of all these as they come forward.

2.13 Bids for Project No. 5705, Lift Station #17A Stairs.
Mayor Brown stated this item was pulled from the agenda as cost is under $30,000.

2.14 TCSP Grant Funds Project approval.
Council Member Kerian stated they have managed to stretch the TCSP money, that they
had discussion about whether or not we should hard surface or gravel bikepath and that they have come up with plan for more money and can hard surface it. Cindy Voigt, asst. city engineer, stated they can hard surface this under the same grant money and if it runs over, they have money in the budget. Council Member Kreun stated that bikepath is used a great deal and makes sense to hard surface it and will continue to get more people to utilize it. Council Member Brooks stated they have been able to get this done within those particular dollars and is appreciated.

2.15 Revised Urban and Regional Program Project request to NDDoT.
There were no comments.

2.16 Labyrinth in the greenway.
Mayor Brown stated this is amenity for greenway, that we are active community and
active participants in the community need a place to pause and reflect and compliments our Japanese Garden as a place to reflect. He stated it would be nice if we could celebrate Mike Maidenberg's contribution to this community by having a plaque at the labyrinth recognizing what he has contributed to the community. Council Member Gershman stated that he would make the motion next week that we do this and also to recognize Mike for his contributions, not only personally, but through the Knight Foundation as he continues with his position with the Knight Foundation.

Council Member Brooks asked if these are going to be betterment dollars (yes), and stated that we have one church in town that has a labyrinth and if touched base with them, and wouldn't think there would be an objection to having a second one. Melanie Biby-Parvey, greenway coordinator, stated she had a chance to go out to First Presbyterian Church and see what their labyrinth was like and visited with the pastor briefly and mentioned the mayor's idea at the time, and she was receptive to the idea, and could visit with her again.

Council Member Kreun stated re. the Japanese Gardens, should work with the Park District and put one more sign up indicating on 11th where the entrance to the Gardens is, have one on 34th and one on street behind the Hospital.

Council Member Christensen stated the idea is great and that at the park to the south of the icon that tells us the flood levels, doesn't know if that is irrigated, and if couldn't explore the installation of a watering system so have a nice green. Mayor Brown asked staff to take note.

2.17 FY2005 Sanitation, Wastewater and Waterworks Utility Funds rate changes.
Council Member Kreun asked if this includes water usage outside the city limits or if
separate city ordinance. Mr. Swanson stated within the ordinance itself it has provisions for the
higher rates to apply, do not have a separate schedule of out of town rates, and believes there is a
50% increase. He stated they changed that a few years back but one schedule now and text that
provides for a markup.

Mayor Brown stated that council should note that the recommended action approving the fiscal year 2005 utility rates and fees effective for the utility bill issued in February rather than in January.

Council Member Hamerlik stated during long process that these rates were discussed, there were discussions so the public knew what was going on, and asked if all those items to notify public have been taken care of. Hazel Fetters-Sletten, water supt., stated that Todd Feland had stated that this issue and the ordinance readings are in line with what done in the past, that one of his goals is to bring that back for discussion and how better work with the public, that through the process in developing the cost of service, he has been involved with industrial, commercial and residential users and his intent to address that and to make sure that we include the public in the discussion.

Council Member Hamerlik asked if we met our own standards of what we wanted to do. Mr. Swanson stated that his office in conjunction with Mr. Feland had requested that this body adopt an ordinance which would allow the establishment of rates by resolution, that this council defeated that recommendation and passed a resolution directing that any rates be adjusted during the time consideration of the budget, in prior years would include the revenues within your budget but the actual ordinance adopting new rates would not appear before you until November or December, that what has occurred now in coordination with that discus-sion and in accordance with directives of the council, now have the draft ordinance consistent with the time of consideration of your budget and have already considered those revenues in your budget and now have before you for open consideration and debate, the actual rates.

Council Member Glassheim stated this will go forward with the adoption of the budget and this is announcement to the public that there are increases intended in the rates in the 3, 4 or 5% range in most of the categories and that will be considered. Mr. Swanson stated this ordinance will be up for first reading next Monday, second reading and final approval on the budget will be on September 7.

Council Member Brooks stated that the City has the ability to have different rates inside the city limits vs. outside and that we serve customers outside the city limits, but have only one rate that applies to both. Mr. Swanson stated that he wouldn't agree that we had one rate that applies to both, you have one rate chart, however, if you would look at page 88 of material above roman numeral IV, not new language but existing Code language and referring to wastewater but this language is consistent with other utilities and that "for each user outside the city limits and served by the city's wastewater system, the rate shall be 50% greater than the rates set forth above for users located within the city limits." Council Member Brooks stated that people outside the city limits are paying higher than those inside and was concerned about rural water systems and our own citizens. Information is available on the website in the city packet and at the finance department; and the ordinance will be published upon final adoption.

2.18 Request from Mikkelson Consolidated for approval of an ordinance to amend zoning map to rezone and exclude from Village PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 3, and to include within Village PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 4, all of Village Resubdivision No. 2 and all of Village Resubdivision No. 3 (loc. between I-29 and N. 42nd Street and between 5th Ave.N. and University Ave.) (Public hearing and second reading of ordinance will be held on August 16.)____________________
Council Member Christensen stated when this came through the first time had discussion
re. access, and staff report stated that by combining the two types of land uses through the PUD
zoning process, the property owner will have flexibility of placing a mix of commercial and/or
higher density residential land uses, and asked if that is commonly done by Planning and Zoning
or if rather unique. Council Member Kreun stated this has been done before and two examples
given at Planning & Zoning and in this particular situation the B-3 and R-4 give flexibility
to combine some business with housing area in a higher density, and that developers don't know
exactly what the mix they are going to have.

Council Member Christensen stated R-4 is the highest density and B-3 is greatest business density
and what about to enact is a plan that the developer will have the highest density for apartments
and greatest configuration availability for any type of commercial activity that falls within B-1, 2
or 3, that he hasn't reviewed proposed uses within those districts (B or R districts) and asked if
moving into an area where becoming a free for all with PUD's , and noted that in the P & Z
minutes that they will be reviewing the planning and zoning rules and regulations, he will have
more on council comments as it pertains to this.

Council Member Kreun reported that this property has been zoned B-3 before and zoned R-4
before, and zoning has been changed back and forth a couple times and have authorized that and
not something that hasn't been done in that area before but this is combining the two together.

Council Member Christensen stated that is why have planning commission and rules and
regulations, and why have permitted uses within the PUD which is the most flexible and when set
up a PUD they will require the developer to come in and lay out portions of the PUD showing
portions with residential and another portion for business and that there is a flow - not sure who
will review the proposed PUD or if go through planning department, and that by giving this type
of zoning to this PUD you have turned development of this piece of ground over to the developer
unless there is going to be prior review by planning and zoning or this body or both.

Council Member Brooks stated when this came to council before, there was comment that had
constituents concerned, relating to a bookstore. Mr. Potter stated that the bookstore has not gone
away and is a generic use within B-3; that this raised some concerns about people in the area
by businesses there and people living there.

Council Member Christensen asked if anyone has laid out the residential aspect of this develop-
ment within the PUD, if know where the housing will be and density. Mr. Potter stated the PUD
is the drawing before you and actual site layout and site plans and how commercial and
residential will be mixed in the property has not been submitted to his office; that when the
developer has plans and presents them to the planning office, his office would review the formal
site plan and would have to meet all the requirements in the Code, staff handles this.

2.19 Request from ICON Architectural Group on behalf of Westside Properties, LLP for final approval (fast track) of a Replat of Lot 12, Block 1, Rydell-West Subdivision (loc. at 1015 N. 51st Street)._______________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.20 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of AG Park LLP for final approval of the Replat of Lot 3, Block 1, Brown Corporation Addition (loc. at 12th Ave NE and 12th St. NE) (Public hearing/second reading of ordinance to amend Street & Hwy. Plan will be held on August 16)_____________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.21 Request from Jerry Pribula on behalf of Lavonne Adams for final approval of the Replat of Shady Ridge Estates Sixth Resubdivision, being a Replat of all of Shady Ridge Estates Sixth Addn. (loc. at Desiree Drive and Adams Drive)___________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.22 Request from Jerry Pribula on behalf of Keith Danks and Shirley West for approval of Plat for Pribula Addition, being a portion of the S 1/2 of SW Quarter of Section 36, T152N, R51W of P.M. (loc. north of U.S. Hwy. 2 and between N. 62nd and N. 69th Sts.) (Public hearing and second reading of ordinance to amend Street & Hwy. Plan will be held on August 16)_____________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.23 Request from CPS, Ltd on behalf of Crary Development for final approval (fast track) of the Replat of Lots 13 through 18, Blk. 1, Cornerstone Estates Addn. (loc. in the 5400 block of Vineyard Drive).______________________________________
There were no comments.

2.24 Petition from the City of Grand Forks and Dacotah Building, Inc. to vacate all of 1st Avenue N. from N. 3rd Street to Riverboat Road between Blks. 17 and 24, Town of Grand Forks (Original Townsite) and the 32-foot wide alleyway from DeMers Avenue to 1st Avenue N. between N. 3rd St. and Riverboat Road adj. to Blk. 1, Auditor's Resubdivision Number 13 and Blk. -24, Town of Grand Forks (Original Townsite)_______________________________________________________________
There were questions as to vacation of this property, and it was noted that when 1st
Avenue North is vacated half goes back to each property owner, Dacotah Hotel and the city of Grand Forks, and questions of who owns the alley between 1st Avenue North and DeMers Avenue. Mark Walker, asst. city engineer, stated this relates to negotiations with the property owners for property needed for the flood protection project, and not sure who owns property on either side of the alley, some may belong to the City. He stated that when negotiated with property owner to the north, Dacotah Hotel, their request was that we vacate 1st Avenue North and to grant the entire street right of way to them in exchange for some of the land that the City needed. Council Member Christensen stated there was some conversation about developing land downtown that is owned by the City and one of the areas they have been suggesting is the parking lot and if gave up part of the alley in back we would be giving up developable land which would restrict our ability to develop that property, not sure if we have to do this now, to vacate property which would come back to us, one half and most of the alley and lose ownership of it, esp. the alley and half of 1st Avenue N. because part of the initiative for developing residential areas downtown, and asked they could have a week or two on this as the Downtown Dev. group will have a meeting on Thursday to finalize their report to the council. Mr. Walker stated that the City and the landowner had established a certain price for acquisition of the property the City needed and exchange of some of the land of vacated 1st Avenue R/W, however, could review that with John Warcup from the city attorney's office to see if there is problem with delaying this. Council Member Christensen asked for memo as they are going to have a final meeting on Thursday.

Council Member Gershman stated he didn't think it would be good idea to give up the R/W on that street because of future development and that we would have money to acquire the property behind him too - that is corner lot in downtown Grand Forks that the City owns and to eliminate access is not good idea because it changes complexity of the potential project or potential to develop and should go back and start talking to them about paying them cash would be his recommendation.

2.25 Summary of agenda items 2.25.1, 2.26 and 2.27.
No comments.

2.25.1 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Crary Development., Inc. for preliminary approval of plat of Johnson's West First Addition, being a part of Section 18, T151N, R50W of 5th P.M., lying north of and adj. to 32nd Ave.S.____________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.26 Request from CPS, Ltd on behalf of Crary Development, Inc. for pre-liminary approval of ordinance to amend the zoning map to rezone and exclude from Columbia Park West PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No 1, and to include within the Columbia Park West PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 2, all of Columbia Park 22nd, 23rd and 28th Addns. and Johnson's West First Addn., and to include unplatted portions of the SE Quarter of Section 18, T151N, R50W of the 5th P.M., lying north of and adj. to 32nd Ave.S.____ __________________________
No comments.

2.27 Request from CPS, Ltd on behalf of Crary Development for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the zoning map to rezone and exclude from A-2 (Agricultural Reserve) District and to include within B-3 (General Business) District Lot 1, Block 1, Johnson's West First Addition, excluding the southerly 595 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, as shown on the plat of Johnson's West First Addn. (loc. in the SE Quarter of Section 18, T151N, R50W of the 5th P.M., lying north of and adjacent to 32nd Ave.S.____________________ ___________
Council Member Gershman asked if approval of this ordinance would allow pylon signs.
It was stated Planning Commissions recommendation was denial of the request which would take
care of the pylon sign.

2.28 Request from CPS, Ltd on behalf of the City of Grand Forks for final approval (fast track) of the Plat of Auditor's Resubdivision No. 38 (loc. in the 2400 blk. of Belmont Road).__________________________________________________________________
Mr. Potter stated between the time it was filed as a fast track in the Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting and in reviewing it found that part of the property that is Belmont Road has never been platted and dedicated to public transportation uses and Planning Commission changed this at their meeting last week for preliminary approval, and will ask council to give preliminary approval to the plat and introduce an ordinance that creates a public right of way on Belmont.

2.29 Grand Forks Renaissance Zone Project GF-11.
There were no comments.

3. INFORMATION ITEMS

3.1 Update on right-in only access to Lot F, Block 1, Columbia Park 10th Addn..
There were no comments.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Glassheim presented proposal that we should cut 2 to 3 mills from the 2005 budget in ways that will not cause serious damage to the services the City provides. Because of increased property values and new construction an unchanged mill rate will bring in $99,000 in 2005 compared to $91,500 in 2004, and $86,400 in 2003, that this is an 8% increase in revenues to the general fund over 2004 and a 14.5% increase over 2003, these increases are well above level of inflation, and actual budget proposed by administration shows an increase in general fund property tax revenues of 9.4% to the general fund, and that this is too high and people of Grand Forks think this is too high. He stated he thinks council can find $250,000 to budget for a 2.5 mill decrease without doing harm to city services; a 2.5 mill reduction in city property taxes added to the School District's 3 mills and a hoped for decrease in County would not be huge tax savings for each tax payer in Grand Forks but worth doing to show our citizens that we can continue to exercise fiscal restraint and hear their concerns and going in the right direction. He presented a list of proposed increased revenues, decreased expenditures and transfers from surplus which would allow a cut of 2.5 mills from the City's budget: 1) attrition of two positions, 2) increased income from licenses and fees, 3) small decreases in non-general fund line items in the budget, 4) lowering the mills voted to the dike repayment because of surplus in that fund; 5) reduction of 3.5% in departmental cash carryover; 6) transfer of 3% of surplus sales tax set aside for FEMA repayment; 7) transfer of small amount from utility fund surpluses , and 8) small reductions in each department to bring operational budget lines closer to historic trends.

He stated they will be voting on the budget on September 7 and this is time to make concerns known to council people, and if call make sure you tell your council person your story, what tax burden means to you, etc. and that he intends to vote against any budget that does not have a 2 to 3 mill decrease and needs 3 of his colleagues to agree in order to make it happen; and only way to get a 2 to 3 mill reduction in city's budget is if you call your council person.

2) a) Council Member Christensen stated Council Member Glassheim proposes a 2.5 to 3 mill decrease, that a year ago he tried to rally council into making some changes and was unsuccessful. He stated this council will begin the discussion about 2006 budget in September, 2004 and will go through in a micro-managing fashion each department, the CIP issues, projects considered in the next 3 to 5 years and where money coming from. He stated to remember level of services provided in this community, the issue that this community suffered a flood in 1997 and have to commend Mr. Schmisek and his staff for doing what they have been able to do in the last 5 - 7 years that when a new council came in 4 years ago and called for a 10 mill decrease, they granted us that. He has learned that most of the budget is for people and people that provide these services are friends and neighbors and work for you, we have public servants and they shop at Hugo's, Super One, attend our churches, etc. but a little late to call for change in this budget, and that council should work together to analyze all the areas of services we provide over the next 9 to 10 months so that they can say they have looked at every area when pass 2006 budget, they will have Wednesday meetings every other week and have presentations by department heads, by committee chairs and others why your fees might go up and what is on agenda for needs and costs; will welcome telephone calls but not productive to change budget with two weeks to go,

b) He stated there has been a lot of conversation about business friendliness of city of Grand Forks and after watching what has been going on in Planning and Zoning activities of this community - tonight had conversation about a business that wants to locate on the west side of I-29, behind Kindness Animal Hospital and have an issue of whether they should be afforded a pylon sign, we have restrictive policy on signs in this community, billboards and have several design committees. He stated after asking questions re. University development how flexible our planning and zoning process could be because we were about to approve a PUD where turn over the interior development of that to staff; and somewhere between a planning decision being made by members of Planning and Zoning and somewhere between having some decisions made in a process that can take 6, 8 or 12 weeks to a piece of ground where have turned over interior design to staff and leaves him to believe that the time has come for a complete review of our planning and zoning ordinances, land uses because it seems council is being called upon to make minor amendments to districts to include land uses, these rules 15 or 20 years old and if want to move into 21st century and to be more business friendly and recognizing the short building season have to think about our planning and zoning process, and when can turn things over to staff as we have policies without having this managing by 14 to 18 peoples and coming back, incredibly slow, cumbersome and doesn’t think it is user or business friendly and asked Mayor to take that upon himself to convene a review of our planning and zoning.

Council Member Gershman stated he had a meeting last Thursday with Mr. Duquette and the Grand Forks Business Friendly Committee, should be an announcement that they will be looking at the process of planning and zoning and how they can streamline it, look at what is in the Century Code, what things they have to do and those under our control that we might be able to make more efficient.

c) Council Member Christensen stated it isn't too soon to convene legislative review committee because legislature starts in January and if want certain state laws changed, then have to identify laws and discuss the proposed changes with legislative reps. from this area, one of the statutes that may require drafting or amendments is the ND Planning and Zoning statutes and can discuss in committee.

3) Council Member Kerian stated that when going through this budget, everybody would like to lower taxes, and one of the factors is the flood which has 14 mills that goes for payment of dike, and sales tax money going into that, and have a number of years remaining on that. She stated we have been doing some one-time things and doing them again this year and have taken money out of Hwy. Users Fund and out of Economic Development to fill one-time needs with things like capital equipment and is way of putting things off and making short term decisions and that has worked for us for a number of years and right thing to do, but now is time to discuss and develop a plan and a process for looking at what the community needs and how going to pay for it; and not something that can be done in the next 3 weeks. That we need to start with what the community expects, have community discussion and have council discussion, look at the money we have and where should it best be spent and go from there to come up with something better next year rather than trying to make the decisions piecemeal as we approach the end of the budget time; and will be pleased to take phone calls.

4) Council Member Gershman stated that 14 mills of your tax bill goes to flood protection project and if took that 14 mills out we would have the third lowest tax rate in the state. He stated that we have lot of control because we are a Home Rule city and perhaps best way to approach trying to find a more fluid way to do development in Grand Forks is to present what we would like it to be and then take it to Mr. Swanson for review and steer in the right direction and might be way to proceed.
He thanked Mr. Grasser for getting the dike mowing on Belmont and Lincoln Drive.
He stated that for those who have not seen the play, Chicago, at the Empire Arts Theatre and is on Tuesday through Saturday, local talent and do a terrific show.

5) Council Member Glassheim stated that the point is not a question of cutting the budget, but question of reducing the increase is what he is proposing because home valuation increases and new construction have brought in an additional 9% in this year's budget, and by cutting 2.5 mills, trying to bring it down to 7% increase, not trying to harm the budget. He stated he has given them 8 possibilities and hope that they will look at each one and make their own independent decision as to whether those are realistic, whether they can be done and whether they will hurt anything in the budget and require any decrease in services, about half are not one time expendi-tures but permanent small cuts. He stated there are 14 mills going for flood, one of the highest priorities we have for spending money in this city, and if have to make some cuts elsewhere, maybe something we have to do. He stated he hoped they would look at the possibility; one is an increase in fees and that fees haven't gone up for 5 years the rate of inflations could warrant a 5% increase in the fees without changing what we already have, and look to see if they can't be made to bring down the increase in taxes.

Council Member Kerian stated she wanted the public to know that the city administration is in the middle of a fee study and is on list of things to do.

Council Member Kreun stated we keep indicating that it is an 8% increase in valuation of properties, but really the valuation of properties has only increased by 4.5 to 5% of existing homes, the rest comes new construction.

ADJOURN

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

Respectfully submitted,



Saroj Jerath
Deputy City Auditor