City of Grand Forks - Print Friendly Form

Council Minutes

PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
October 16, 2006

The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in the council chambers in City Hall on Monday, October 16, 2006 at the hour of 7:00 o’clock p.m. with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, McNamara, Gershman, Christensen, Bakken - 5; absent: Council Members Glassheim, Kreun - 2.

Mayor Brown announced that anyone wishing to speak to any item may do so by being recognized prior to a vote being taken on the matter, and that the meeting is being televised.

Mayor Brown commented on various events during the past week and upcoming events:
He thanked the city council members who met with the UND Student Senate yesterday, that this is an important conversation to keep going and that the discussion was informative and have solid ideas with which to move forward.

APPROVE ASSESSMENTS, FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
NO. 4704.3, DISTRICT NO. 14.2

The city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the Special Assessment Commissions and the approval and confirmation of assessments by the Commission on Project No. 4704.3, District No. 14.2, City-wide Flood Protection, in the amount of $930,510.46, with annual installments for 20 years, and reported that the legal notice to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been published as required, and further that protest had been filed.

Mayor Brown opened the public hearing on the assessment project.

John Shockley, attorney on behalf of Suellen Bateman for appeal of assessments on her property, are objecting to the assessments on her property on the grounds that her property is being assessed for a general benefit, meaning that there is no special benefit accruing to her property. There has been no adequate determination of the special benefits accruing to the property., that they had requested some findings of fact and other items from the City and based on the findings of fact it appears that there is no special assessment that would accrue to this property because there is no identifiable individual special assessment. The conclusions are just mere conclusions, the assessments on this land are not limited to the proportion of the cost and this land is being grouped together with developed commercial property and in a group that is receiving nearly 68% of the cost of the flood assessments; there has been no distinction drawn between undeveloped land and developed land, and developed land is clearly receiving a higher benefit than undeveloped land and furthermore there has been no distinction between undeveloped residential land and developed commercial land. The assessments against her property exceed the benefits to her property, the property is located to the west of I-94 and is over 4 miles from the Red River and no determination that there is a benefit greater than what the general public was receiving. He stated it is their position that there may have been irregularities in the statutory procedure for annexing the property and at this point would like to make an objection on the record that they had requested some documents relating to the annexation and the creation of particular improvement districts for the property, they have not received those documents from the City of Grand Forks and were unable to determine whether or not the statutory requirements for assessing property has been complied with, they made the request nearly a week ago and have not received any documentation from the City and under ND law such records are subject to disclosure and open records, tomorrow they will be making a formal request to the city auditor to get the additional information to determine whether the statutory procedures have been followed.

There was some discussion between Mr. Shockley and Mr. Swanson relating to assessment and annexation of the property; Mr. Shockley stated they made an objection based upon annexation because they don't have access to the documents and therefore can't make a determination whether or not the statutory procedures have been complied with; and they are following the procedure for contesting the assessment and asking that the assessment on the property not be made because it exceeds the benefits to the property; the issue with respect to annexation addresses whether or not the statutory procedure has been followed, and making an objection on the record because they haven't been able to get the documents from the City of Grand Forks to determine whether the proper procedure for assessing annexed land has been followed. Mr. Swanson stated that is not germane to the issue of certification of special assessment by this body tonight but Mr. Shockley disagreed that if the statutory procedures for assessing property that has been newly annexed have not been followed, then the assessment would be invalid; and they are objecting on the record because they have insufficient information and it would be inappropriate for us to ask us any type of questions regarding that because the City hasn't been forthcoming and presenting them the documents. Mr. Swanson stated documents are being compiled, and his question is if this body is to rule on your objection on annexation, what are you asserting was improper in the annexation, when did the annexation become effective and when did your clients know the annexation. Mr. Shockley stated they are reserving their objection because they don't have access to those documents. Mr. Swanson stated he was asking for the purposes of this body acting upon their request, that they were not able to address issues of annexation.

The city auditor stated this is a continuation of the flood control special assessment and the Assessment Commission has done this over the past few years and have developed findings based on this master special assessment; the Commission did meet on the 27th of September to hold their hearings and Ms. Bateman was there to establish her protest and the Commission heard the protest and found after that meeting that the property did benefit, that they were not going to make any change in the assessment, the Batemans were notified of that, and in the past the Commission has acted under its authority and has exercised its judgment and discretion in the determination of certification of the assessments and benefits, that the Commission in their routine has acted in good faith with due diligence to carry out their responsibilities, the Commission did approve this project and the special assessments against the property as described, the project is a continuation of the construction of the Grand Forks permanent flood protection and the English Coulee Diversion Project and in the past properties can be a significant distance from the River and still benefits from the project, the Commission has adopted findings in regard to this in the past, the council has directed that special assessments be assessed for phases of this project, and as new properties have come in they are brought into the project with an adjustment to all. The boundaries of the district were published in the Grand Forks Herald and the boundaries are the entire city of Grand Forks within the city limits, they approved that district this year and was published. He stated when the Commission met on this looked at this as agricultural land and have had the same situation from other owners as they are annexed into the city of Grand Forks, and were found to be the same situation as other agricultural lands annexed as right of ways, determined that specific benefit, and to say there is a general benefit as there is a general benefit to other properties in the city, and the Commission in the past and the council in their findings in the past have found that there is a special benefit to all properties within the city limits of the city of Grand Forks due to the flood protection project.

Mr. Swanson reported that the council has previously adopted findings and can adopt similar findings having been updated but the record should also reflect that not all properties within the city limits are assessed, there are certain properties that are below a certain elevation that have been found not to benefit, as to the argument that the distinction should be made between developed and non-developed property, there is no provision in NDCC for such a distinction to be mandatory, nor are the cases in ND required that; furthermore, what the distinction has been drawn is between residential and non-residential property, with that property that has been characterized as agricultural receiving an additional reduction in area by 30% to reflect future platting of rights of way and utilities, so this property does not carry the same level of assessment as other commercial property or non-residential property within the improvement district. The determination of fact that was previously made includes those types of benefits as well as others that the Commission has likewise adopted previously.

Al Grasser, city engineer, identified location of the property on the overhead screen, west of I-29 and property is on the westerly edge of the city limits. The flood project and levees are built significantly higher than the actual water elevation we received in 1997 and if the levees were topped and that protection wasn't there, those lands would be flooded irrespective of what happened in 1997. The other feature of the project along the west end represents part of the English Coulee Channel that intercepts the overland flows from the westerly side, flows generally flow from the southwest to the northeast in this part of the valley, this interceptor diversion ditch takes the water and diverts it around to the north end of town and back out to the river, this area has had significant issues in the past with chronic flooding during spring events and large rains, and as a practical aspect since we have had this diversion in place, we haven't seen flooding problems in this area, in 2006 would have expected to see significant flooding problems in this area along with some others without that project. Those are the physical benefits and protections that were provided and the assessment and the future assessment boundaries encompass basically the entire area bounded by the project which is bounded on the north by the diversion channel, on the south by the Merrifield Road tieback that encompasses this boundary of protection for those properties.

Council Member Gershman asked the cost of the assessment; it was reported that the assessment is $4,195.61 over 20 years and annual payment is approx. $200.00.

Mayor Brown closed the public hearing.

Mr. Swanson stated with respect to council's responsibility tonight they have the obligation to hear anyone that wishes to present protests and to argue why the action of the city auditor in notifying property owners and publishing the assessments following the action of the Special Assessment Commission should not be confirmed, the council's decision cannot change the total number of dollars that are assessed in the project, the aggregate assessments have to remain the same, can alter individual assessments and if were to lower one property's assessment you would have to increase other property owners assessment to equal that aggregate number of dollars being assessed. With respect to newly annexed property, your authority is set forth in NDCC 40-23.1-13, and with respect to newly annexed property under 40-23.19 any property that was outside the corporate limits of the municipality at that time that the project was initiated and is found to benefit by the improvement is eligible to be assessed for the benefits from that project.

The city auditor reported that his office had received e-mail on the flood control assessment from Grant Shaft, attorney for University Village Townhomes exemption and that they discussed the claim exemption from the flood control assessing district, relevant State statutes were 57-02.26, 40-22.01, 40-23.22.1, 57-02.01, subsection 5 and 57-02.01 and 12, and sent this as a protest for the September 27 meeting to the Special Assessment Commission. The Commission reviewed that information and decided that there was special benefit to those properties, Townhomes along the Bronson Tract by REA, and asked us to refer that request to the city attorney as a legal issue, that he sent a letter to Mr. Shaft requesting additional information as to the specifics of the legal objection under each one of those statutes and also for other background information so that could turn that over to Mr. Swanson for review, but have not yet received that total background information for legal review.

Mr. Swanson stated it was his opinion that the assessments with respect to the townhouses located in the area generally known as the Bronson Property is appropriate under the provisions of NDCC 40-23-22.1, subsection 2, and that law says that if the property is owned by the State it shall be exempt from special assessments for flood control purposes, however, the exemption to the State-owned property does not apply to any privately owned structure, fixture or improvement located on state-owned land, unless that improvement is used for athletic or educational purposes that a state institution of higher education, and is his understanding of the facts that all of those structures owned by individuals and land is leased from a university entity, and does not believe they quality for that exemption; the protest in that regard was specifically based upon that subsection and his opinion that the subsection does not apply.

Mr. Swanson stated with respect to the protest of the Batemans if the council is inclined to decline or reject that protest, it would be his recommendation that you adopt findings of fact and conclusions consistent with those previously adopted by the Special Assessment Commission and this body and specifically finding that the provisions for assessing on newly annexed property under NDCC 40-23.19 apply, noting that the information provided to you in today's hearing has been received; with respect to the protest for the Bronson property townhomes, but adopt findings finding that the exemption under 40-23-22.1 does not apply to the structures that are privately owned and used as residences; and that it would be his recommendation that you adopt a resolution certifying the assessments as presented to you by the Special Assessment Commission for collection, and that act is under NDCC 40-23.1.13.

Council Member Christensen asked to be recused as to the Bateman matter. Moved by Gershman and seconded by Council Member McNamara. Carried 4 votes affirmative.

Mr. Swanson stated they can divide the question or as a result of the motion to recuse Mr. Christensen from voting on the Bateman minutes would reflect that he did not vote upon the Bateman proceedings.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Gershman to adopt findings of fact and conclusions consistent with those previously adopted by the Special Assessment Commission finding that the provisions for assessing on newly annexed property under NDCC 40-23-19 apply; that the exemption under 40-23-22.1 does not apply to the structures that are privately owned and used as residences; that these assessments be accepted and confirmed, and that they be levied against the property benefited in annual installments as shown of principal together with interest on the unpaid balance yearly, to be collected with other taxes by the proper authorities. Carried 5 votes affirmative, with Council Member Christensen being recused from voting on the Bateman assessment.

APPROVE ASSESSMENTS, VARIOUS PROJECTS

The city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the Special Assessment Commission and the approval and confirmation of assessments by the Commission on the following projects and the amount of the assessments, and reported that the legal notice to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been published as required, and further that no protests or grievances had been filed with the auditor's office.

Project and District Nos. Amount of Assessment Annual Installments
Street Lighting Project No. 5511, Dist. 140 $ 48,174.00 10 years
Street Lighting Project No. 5620, Dist. 143 24,580.00 10 years
Paving Project No. 5048.5, Dist. 563.1 208,269.60 20 years
Paving Project No. 5653, Dist. 598 331,768.00 20 years
Paving Project No. 5672, Dist. 606 311,350.00 19 years
Paving Project No. 5669, Dist. 601 160,674.00 20 years
Paving Project No. 5767, Dist. 610 212,340.00 19 years
Paving Project No. 5787, Dist. 609 20,091.00 19 years
Paving Project No. 5811, Dist. 613 342,238.00 19 years
Paving Project No. 5834, Dist. 614 178,330.00 19 years
Paving Project No. 5842, Dist. 615 215,450.00 19 years
Sanitary Sewer Project No. 5488.1, Dist. 418.1 17,411.87 15 years
Sanitary Sewer Project No. 5650, Dist. 428 253,730.00 15 years
Sanitary Sewer Project No. 5666, Dist. 432 103,140.00 15 years
Sanitary Sewer Project No. 5772, Dist. 435 103,810.00 14 years
Watermain Project No. 5534, Dist. 288 51,200.00 15 years
Watermain Project No. 5651, Dist. 280 138,503.00 15 years
Watermain Project No. 5667, Dist. 282 41,911.00 15 years
Watermain Project No. 5773, Dist. 285 62,110.00 14 years
Watermain Project No. 5818, Dist. 286 26,430.00 14 years
Storm Sewer Project No. 5652, Dist. 429 90,194.00 15 years
Storm Sewer Project No. 5668, Dist. 433 79,889.00 15 years
Storm Sewer 5819, Dist. 439 113,330.00 14 years

Mayor Brown asked if there was anyone in the audience who had comments to make on these assessments. There were none.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Gershman that these assessments be accepted and confirmed, and that they be levied against the property benefited in annual installments as shown of principal together with interest on the unpaid balance yearly, to be collected with other taxes by the proper authorities. Carried 5 votes affirmative.

APPROVE ASSESSMENTS ON VARIOUS PROJECTS

The city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the city engineer and the approval and confirmation of these assessments by the city engineer on the following projects in the amounts as shown, and reported that the legal notices to the public that these assessments would be presented to the council at this meeting had been published as required and further that no protests or grievances had been filed with the auditor's office.

Project and District No. Assessment Years of Installments
2005 Sidewalk Project No. 5739.1 $ 44,071.92 4 years
2006 Sidewalk Project No. 5902 142,522.33 5 years
Weed Control Project No. 5913 10,636.00 1 year
Delinquent Utility Accounts No. 9002.3 12,303.45 1 year

Mayor Brown asked if there was anyone in the audience who had comments to make on these assessments. There were none.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Gershman that these assessments be accepted and confirmed, and that they be levied against the property benefited in annual installments as shown on principal together with interest on the unpaid balance yearly, to be collected with other taxes by the proper authorities. Carried 5 votes affirmative.

REFER 2020 RENEWABLE ENERGY BALLOT MEASURE
TO MAYOR/COUNCIL SESSION

The 2020 Renewable Energy ballot measure was presented to the council.

Council Member Gershman moved to refer this to the mayor-council working session on Wednesday at 4:30 p.m., seconded by Council Member Christensen.

Mr. Swanson reported he had placed a memorandum on the council members desks tonight with an attached e-mail forwarded to him from Tony Clark, president of the ND Public Service Commission, that e-mail is not in direct response to the questions he had presented to the Commission but is a copy of a letter that was forwarded to an interim legislative committee last summer and addresses some of the questions that he raised, that he spoke with Mr. Clark as to when they would receive a response but he was unable to give a timeline and this was as close to published or adopted information that he could provide at this time, that if he has something before the Wednesday's meeting he will provide that to the council.
Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 5 votes affirmative.

PRESENTATION FEMA MAPPING UPDATES

This information was presented at the committee of the whole meeting - no further questions or comments.

ESTABLISH HOURS OF ELECTION, POLLING SITES AND
ELECTION OFFICIALS

The staff report from the mayor's office relating to establishing election polling hours, polling sites and election officials (inspectors) for the November 7, 2006, general election, with recommendation to approve the polling sites and the list of election officials, including a change in the inspector for the 2nd precinct of the 4th ward.

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Brooks to establish polling hours as 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., and approve polling site and election officials. Carried 5 votes affirmative.

APPROVE EXEMPTION OF REMODELING IMPROVEMENTS
TO COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

The staff report from the city assessor relating to applications for exemption of remodeling improvements to commercial and residential buildings: 310 North 8th Street and 251 Northridge Hills Court, with recommendation to grant exemptions of increased value for 3 years.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Bakken that this recommendation be approved. Carried 5 votes affirmative.

APPROVE ABATEMENT OF 2005 TAXES ON PROPERTY
AT 1924 4TH AVENUE NORTH

The staff report from the city assessor relating to application for abatement for 2005 taxes by Joseph Miller, 1924 4th Avenue North, with recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that application be approved as submitted.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Bakken that this recommendation be approved and further that we adopt the findings, conclusions and recommendations as prepared by the city attorney. Upon roll call the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, McNamara, Gershman, Christensen, Bakken - 5; voting "nay": none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

APPROVE ABATMENT OF 2004 AND 2005 TAXES ON
PROPERPTY AT 2638 SARA LYN DRIVE

The staff report from the city assessor relating to application for abatement for 2004 and 2005 taxes by Lee and Pauline Finstad, 2638 Sara Lyn Drive, with recommendation to Board of County Commissioners that applications be approved as submitted.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Bakken that this recommendation be approved and further that we adopt the findings, conclusions and recommendations as prepared by the city attorney. Upon roll call the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, McNamara, Gershman, Christensen, Bakken - 5; voting "nay": none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE RELATING TO SPECIAL OR
LIMITED LICENSES AND DOMESTIC WINERY SPECIAL
EVENT LICENSE

The staff report at the request of Council Member Gershman relating to special or limited license for winery, with recommendation to approve the special or limited license for winery, special events.
It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Bakken that this recommendation be approved.

Council Member Gershman asked to be recused from voting on this issue, and it was so moved by Council Members Christensen and Brooks. Carried 4 votes affirmative.

Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 4 votes affirmative.

Council Member Brooks introduced an ordinance entitled "An ordinance amending Section 21-0205 (Class 11) of the Grand Forks City Code relating to special or limited licenses and domestic winery special event license", which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.

TABLE APPLICATION FOR CLASS 1 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
LICENSE BY SRJ, INC. DBA LUCKY'S GREEN ROOM

The staff report from the finance department relating to the application for Class 1 (General On and Off Sale Alcoholic Beverage) license by SRJ, Inc. dba Lucky's Green Room, 308 DeMers Avenue, with recommendation to approve issuance of the license contingent upon the approval of the city attorney and the police department and sign off by appropriate departments.

Mr. Swanson reported there is a copy of a memorandum from the police department to his office, and it specifically deals with one of the principals of Lucky's Green Room and his prior experience in holding a license in Moorhead, MN, and is germane to the application before you and it does raise some concerns as to the operation with a Class 1 liquor license; that they presently have a Class 3 Wine and Beer license, and is not aware of any extensive concerns that have developed at the local premise with the beer and wine license. The concerns with respect to the Moorhead operation were involving or concerning presence of minors and consumption of alcohol by minors on the premises.

Mr. Swanson stated the review of a liquor license under Chapter XXI of our Code would be based upon an arbitrary and capricious standard provided that the City acted in good faith and upon reasonable information provided to it with an explanation of what you did and why you did it, and council can either approve or reject the application, or could potentially approve it with contingencies or on a probationary basis. He stated the council may wish to consider tabling it, asking the gentleman to appear and present any additional information, the application has been pending for some time to clarify some other matters but he is not aware of this report as the memo was dated this afternoon and may like to have an opportunity to respond.

After further discussion Council McNamara moved to table this matter and allow the city attorney to accumulate the required information and allow Mr. Steen to respond, with report back at the next committee of the whole meeting. Council Member Bakken seconded the motion to table.

Council Member Gershman asked to be recused from voting on this matter, and it was so moved by Council Members Christensen and Brooks. Carried 4 votes affirmative.

Upon call for the question to table and upon voice vote, the motion carried 4 votes affirmative.

AWARD BIDS FOR SEWER LIFT STATION REPAIRS,
PROJECT NOS. 5983, 6021 AND 6022

The staff report from the engineering department relating to bids for Projects Nos. 5083, 6021 and 6022, Rehabilitate Lift Stations Nos. 8, 7.1 and 22, with recommendation to award the work for Schedule B- General, to Northern Plains Contracting in the amount of $325,000.00; Schedule B-Mechanical to McFarlane Sheet Metal, Inc. in the amount of $7,400.00; and Schedule B-Electrical to RBB Electric in the amount of $97,010.00.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Bakken that this recommendation be approved. Upon roll call the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, McNamara, Gershman, Christensen, Bakken - 5; voting 'nay": none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

APPROVE CHANGE ORDER FOR 2006 SIDEWALKS

The staff report from the engineering department relating to Change Order #2 for Project No. 5902, 2006 Sidewalks, with recommendation to approve Change Order #2 in the amount of $42,874.25.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Bakken that this recommendation be approved. Upon roll call the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, McNamara, Gershman, Christensen, Bakken - 5; voting "nay": none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

APPROVE 2008 TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT
PROJECT APPLICATION

The staff report from the engineering department relating to 2008 Transpiration Enhancement Project application, with recommendation to direct staff to submit Transportation Enhancement grant applications, and to rank South 20th Street Bikepath as number one priority.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Bakken that this recommendation be approved. Carried 5 votes affirmative.

APPROVE SURPLUS PROPERTY AT PUBLIC WORKS

The staff report from the public works director relating to public works department surplus property, with recommendation to declare specific equipment surplus and authorize staff to proceed with the sale of equipment according to established policies and procedures (1984 2 1/2 ton GMC Brigadier, 1978 2 1/2 ton FWD, 1988 Series P Pelican sweeper, 1988 Caterpillar compactor and 1994 Wildcat compost turner).

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Bakken that this recommendation be approved. Carried 5 votes affirmative.

APPROVE FINAL PLAT OF OSCARVILLE 3RD RESUB-
DIVISION

The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to request from AE2S on behalf of Allen Mercil for final approval (fast track) of the Plat of Oscarville 3rd Resubdivision, being a replat of Lot 2, Block 2, Oscarville Subdivision and Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Oscarville 2nd Subdivision to the city of Grand Forks, ND (located at North 43rd Street and 26th Avenue North), with recommendation to give final approval, and to include a variance from Section 18-0204, definition of a minor subdivision, subject to the conditions attached to the review copy.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Bakken that this recommendation be approved. Carried 5 votes affirmative.

AUTHORIZE STAFF TO START DESIGN AND ENGINEERING
WORK FOR MOSQUITO CONTROL/PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING
FACILITY

The staff report from the city administrator relating to Mosquito Control/Pubic Safety Training Facility, with recommendation to authorize city staff to begin the design and engineering work for the facility located in the Industrial Park, and as provided for in the committee of the whole and council work session discussions city staff will make every effort to complete this project within the existing city budget.

Council Member Gershman reported that staff and administration brought this forward to be budget neutral which means that they will be making every effort possible not to increase any mills to do this project as they have been working hard to reduce mills, and will be putting this out for bid and getting some costs and asked Mr. Duquette to address that from administration and staff's point of view.

Rick Duquette, city administrator, stated as part of this project and part of the construction they have made it very clear that it is their intent to construct this facility from a budget neutral manner, that they have some debt that is rolling off, having some revenue that is coming in from the revenue bonds, and are making commitment as staff to make this budget neutral and stay within the existing city budget. In addition he took note to Mr. Glassheim's comments at the last work session that we have windstorms and other issues that may arise and need to take those into account if those matters occur, and is commitment from staff and from administration to work together on this and stay budget neutral in this project.

Council Member Christensen stated during the review of this project, there was some discussion re. operational costs, received those costs and will take money to operate it (heat, lights, insurance, etc.) and the other matter that was reviewed was the 2007 budget and paying the bonds that will be sold to pay for this project, this current budget has in our Public Building Fund $3.09 million, and the city auditor was very candid in how the bonds would be paid for and that in the year 2009 an additional mill might be required to amortize the cost of the bonds, the commitment the staff made when they said budget neutral is to the best of their ability, they will try to find that additional mill in their existing collective budgets, today mill is $123,000, and the commitment they made is to the extent they can within their existing budgets try to find the money to cover the operational cost, $180,000; that this is the first major project, except for dike, since 1982. He stated he would support putting this out for bids to see what this will cost us and what might have to do to facilitate the project.

Mr. Duquette stated this is a premium public safety initiative for this community and ties back to our quality of life and thanked council for their commitment and vision to do as well as mayor's view and guidance, good project and appreciates work on this.

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Bakken that this recommendation be approved. Upon roll call the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, McNamara, Gershman, Christensen, Bakken - 5; voting "nay": none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.
AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OF COMMUNICATION
LINE IN CITY RIGHT OF WAY

The staff report from the engineering department relating to authorizing Dakota Carrier Network to construct communication line in city right of way, with recommendation to authorize construction in accordance with approved plans.
Mr. Duquette reported that the Dakota Carrier Network is in the process of bringing high speed technology to the University of North Dakota, they will be boring under the river and laying cable and boring through some of our rights of way; that our engineering, legal and finance departments have reviewed this matter and are okay with the work, but want to keep that separate from what the city attorney is working on re. right of way management ordinance that will apply to everybody that comes into our rights of way. Mr. Hass of Dakota Carrier Network is aware that they will be fitting into that when that is done, but presently because of the weather and need to get beneath the river and UND needs, recommends approval.

Evan Hass, general manager of Dakota Carrier Network, stated they are a fiber optic based company owned by North Dakota Telecommunications Companies, and have fiber optic rings that go around the State of North Dakota; that in February of 2006 they signed a contract with the State of North Dakota and part of that contract is to provide services to the state government, state agencies, counties, to all the K through 12 schools around the state, to the National Guard and to higher education. Part of that contract provided for a second path to the University of North Dakota, there is a path there but the University of North Dakota is a critical element in the state network; Connect North Dakota has all of the activity with students and a lot of that software located at UND and if a termination or a problem with a backhoe, etc. would have a serious problem if have to shut down that portion of state government. The University of North Dakota is also a hub of the network elements that are gathered from this part of the region. He stated they began doing their engineering in February, 2006 and in March, 2006 started working with the Grand Forks engineers, had basic understanding and agreement; in May they met with the city government, Mr. Duquette and Mr. Swanson and talked about concerns of the city and understood that City is developing a new process which they have reviewed in its draft form and have no problems with it, suggested a few minor changes some of which were agreed to and some were not. He stated they are concerned because the development has taken longer than they anticipated, their construction period is about 3 to 4 weeks, need to work on the project and get it done, have reached agreement with the city engineers and agree with the right of way process as it is proposed and asked for approval so they can proceed.

It was moved by Council Member Christensen and seconded by Council Member Bakken to approve the recommendation, and that action and authorization will require compliance with future adopted right of way management ordinances. Carried 5 votes affirmative.

INFORMATIONAL ITEM

The Statement of Changes in Cash Balances as of September 30, 2006, was presented for the council's information.

APPROVE BILL LISTING AND ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Vendor Payment Listing No. 06-20, dated October 13, 2006, in the amount of $1,081,032.54 and Estimate Summary in the amount of $21,743.55, were presented and read.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Bakken that these bills and estimates be allowed and that the city auditor be authorized to issue warrants in payment of the same. Upon roll call the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, McNamara, Gershman, Christensen, Bakken - 5; voting "nay": none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried and the bills ordered paid.

APPROVE MINUTES OCTOBER 2, 2006

Typewritten copies of the minutes of the city council held on Monday, October 2, 2006 were presented and read. It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Bakken that these minutes be approved as read. Carried 5 votes affirmative.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Brooks that we adjourn. Carried 5 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Schmisek
City Auditor

Approved:
_________________________________
Michael R. Brown, Mayor