City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us

17111
July 17, 2000

PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
July 17, 2000

The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in its regular session in the council chambers in City Hall on Monday, July 17, 2000 at the hour of 7:30 o’clock p.m. with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Kreun, Martinson - 13; absent: Council Member Glassheim - 1.

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.

APPROVE MINUTES JULY 5, 2000

Typewritten copies of the minutes of the regular city council meeting held on Wednesday, July 5, 2000 were presented and read. Council Member Bjerke stated that the roll call on the item relating to adoption of Ordinance No. 3852 showed Council Member Brooks voting yes and no, and should be Council Member Brooks voting yes and Council Member Bakken voting no. Mayor Brown stated correction noted. It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Klave that these minutes be approved, with correction. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

ADOPT ORDINACE NO. 3853 AMENDING ZONING MAP
TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE I-2 (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL)
DISTRICT ALL THAT PORTION OF NW QUARTER OF
SECTION 5, T150N, R50W, 5TH P.M. AND ALL THAT PORTION
OF SW QUARTER OF SECTION 32, T151N, R50W, 5TH P.M.

An ordinance entitled “An ordinance to amend the Zoning Map of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, to rezone and exclude from the A-2 (Agricultural Reserve) District and include within the I-2 (Heavy Industrial) District, all that portion of the Northwest Quarter of section 5, T150N, R50W, 5th Principal Meridian, lying west of I-29 containing approximately 100.4 acres more or less to be platted as Brown Corp. Addition to Grand Forks, ND and all that portion of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, T151N, R50W, 5th Principal Meridian lying west of I-29 containing approximately 29.4 acres more or less and to be platted as Oakwood 2nd Addition to Grand Forks, North Dakota”, which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on June 19, 2000, and upon which public hearing had been scheduled for this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.

The city auditor reported that the required legal notice had been published calling for a public hearing to be held on this matter this evening and further that to date no protests or grievances had been filed with his office.

Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none.

The Planning and Zoning Commission reported having considered the matter of the request from Merrilee Brown on behalf of AG Park, LLP for final approval of an ordinance to amend the Zoning Map and to exclude from the A-2 (Agricultural Reserve) District and include within the I-2 (Heavy Industrial) District part of the SW Quarter lying westerly of I-29 right of way of Section 32 of Township 151 North, Range 50 West from the 5th Principal Meridian )TelPro - 7251 South 42nd Street) and part of the NW Quarter lying westerly of I-29 and southerly of Grand Forks Drain No. 4 of Section 5 of Township 150 North, Range 50 West from the 5th Principal Meridian (Agsco - 1160 and 1168 12th Street NE), and recommended final approval subject to conditions shown on or attached to the review copy, platting of properties and passage of the ordinance amending the zoning map.

It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Babinchak that this recommendation be and is hereby approved.

Dennis Potter, city planner, reported this is the Agsco property which lies south of Merrifield Road and west of Interstate 29 and the TelPro property which lies west of Interstate 29 and north of Merrifield Road, and the bordering road on the west is South 42nd Street. He stated this area came into our two-mile zoning jurisdiction when we annexed the golf course and housing area, that Agsco is expanding their storage facilities and requires a conditional use permit and to get the proper conditional use permit and to look at their zoning long term and TelPro’s need to make industrial, which is a close mirror image of what they had under the County zoning.

Upon call for the question on the motion of the recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the motion carried 13 votes affirmative.

Upon call for the question on the adoption of the ordinance and upon roll call vote, the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 13; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the ordinance adopted.

TABLE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE RELATING
TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PUBLIC ENTERPRISE
KNOWN AS THE RED RIVER RENAISSANCE

An ordinance entitled “An ordinance enacting Article 3 of chapter XXIV of the Grand Forks City
Code relating to the establishment of a public enterprise known as the Red River Renaissance”, which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on June 5, 2000, was presented and read for consideration on second reading.

Council Member Klave moved to table second reading of the ordinance, Council Member Christensen seconded the motion. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3854 RELATING TO PENALTIES
FOR SPECIFIED TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLE OFFENSES,
FOR SPECIFIED CRIMINAL OFFENSES AND RELATING TO
FEE FOR IMPOUNDING ANIMALS AT LARGE

An ordinance entitled “An ordinance amending Section 8-1503 relating to penalties for specified traffic and motor vehicle offenses, Section 9-0503 relating to penalties for specified criminal offenses, and Section 11-0112 relating to the fee for impounding animals at large”, which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on June 5, 2000, and continued until this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.

Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter.

Mel Pederson, 2423 University Avenue, stated he would like to see less repeat offenders, that he doesn’t see any people in court with parking or noise violations, that until the fine is high enough that they go and make complaint.

Mayor Brown closed the open hearing.

Committee No. 2, Public Safety, reported having considered the matter of ordinance relating to traffic fines, re. no liability insurance, and recommended to leave the minimum fines of $150 (first offense) and $300 (second offense) for a no liability insurance charge and leave the parking fines open to the judge’s discretion.

It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Martinson that this recommendation be and is hereby approved.

Howard Swanson, city attorney, stated some concerns with reference to the amendment over the reference to leaving parking offenses fines to the discretion of the Court, those typically are enumerated fines and also appear in the back of the parking ticket for those who wish to post bond. Council Member Bakken stated their recommendation was based on request by the Court to leave them some latitude. Mr. Swanson stated that all of the parking fines are a specified fine, that there is nothing left to the discretion of the Court and had difficulty in recommending that the council pass that type of a fine for parking fines.

It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Martinson to amend the motion by deleting the second part of the motion (leaving the parking fines open to the judge’s discretion).

Council Member Gershman stated he would like to see the base parking tickets stay as it is because they have a tremendous amount of money invested in downtown Grand Forks and also have a high school downtown and if trying to send message that we want people to come downtown to visit the various establishments, that by raising the rates from $5.00 to $15.00 or leaving at the Court’s discretion is the wrong message to send; and perhaps talk to the City and the School District to see if there was some way to utilize the ramp for the high school; and moved a substitute motion to leave the base parking fine as it is. Council Member Hoff seconded the motion.

It was noted that the students would be able to use the parking ramp and would not have to negotiate with anybody, the ramp is free to park in , and option of parking ramp is available to anybody.

Upon call for the question on the amendment and upon roll call vote, the following voted “aye”: Council Members Gershman, Lunak, Kreun, Hoff, Hamerlik - 5; and the following voted “nay”: Council Members Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Martinson, Brooks, Bjerke, Burke - 8. Mayor Brown declared the motion failed.

Council Member Hoff asked what the proper time would be to entertain a motion to reopen the public hearing portion on this so that some of those minors who are present who were denied their opportunity to speak at the last meeting due to the length of the meeting will be given that opportunity again, and at some time reopen the public hearing portion for any citizen; and moved that motion to reopen the public hearing. Mr. Swanson stated that technically under the rules the public does not have an opportunity to discuss matters unless it falls in the context of a public hearing or they are recognized by the chair. There was no second to the motion, and the motion failed.

There was some discussion relative to fines in Grand Forks compared to fines in East Grand Forks or other communities in the state. Chief Packett stated that the schedule of fines drafted by staff was a representation of what was discussed in public safety over the last few months and also a comparison of actual ordinances in other cities; that there is a wide range of increases ranging from $30 to 100 to 200% but that this was a reasonable attempt to put these fines comparable with other cities without a dramatic increase now.

Council Member Christensen suggested that inasmuch as trying to keep the streets safe and keep speeders down, rethink our speeding violation penalties and suggest that we look at what charging for driving without insurance. Mr. Swanson stated that with respect to both DUI and driving without liability insurance, one of the observations that the city prosecutor’s office has made is that there has been a disparity in fines levied in District Court as opposed to Municipal Court, and that has led to an increase of appeals to District Court, and Municipal Court is recommending that our fines be comparable to what District Court is presently doing to avoid judge shopping.

Upon call for the question on the amendment and upon voice vote, the motion carried 12 votes affirmative, Council Member Hoff voted against the call for the question.

Upon call for the question on the amendment to leave the minimum fines of $150.00 for first offense and $300.00 for second offense for no liability insurance charge and upon voice vote the motion carried 13 votes affirmative.

Council Member Hoff asked for discussion on the matter of the animal fees, that he spoke to people at the Humane Society and they stated that if people put in a position of deciding whether or not they are going to pay increased fees to redeem their animal from the Humane Society or buy groceries, that people will make decisions like this and moved that the animal fees remain as they are and not be increased. The motion died for lack of a second.

Council Member Hoff stated that he has suggested that they keep these fees the same and attempt to generate new revenue sources by fining people at the dump who dump hazardous materials, currently there is no fine if caught. Council Member Bjerke called point of order as dumping fees are not relevant to the discussion. Council Member Hoff stated he is suggesting they do away with this whole ordinance and suggesting a new revenue stream and that is part and parcel of this discussion. Mayor Brown noted point of order and the question was called.

Council Member Martinson called for the question and Council Member Babinchak seconded the motion. Carried 12 votes affirmative; Council Member Hoff voted against the motion.

Upon call for the question on the adoption of the ordinance, as amended, and upon roll call vote, the following voted “aye”: Council Members Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson, Brooks, Bjerke, Hamerlik, Gershman - 11; voting “nay”: Council Members Hoff, Burke - 2. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried and the ordinance adopted.

ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3855, RELATING TO OATHS
OF MUNICIPAL OFFICERS

An ordinance entitled “An ordnance repealing Sections 3-0-602 through 3-0604 and adopting a new Article 1 to Chapter III of the Grand Forks City Code relating to the oaths of municipal officers”, which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on June 19, 2000, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.

Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who wanted to make comments on this matter.

John Rolczynski, 23 North 3rd Street, stated he wanted to summarize what he has to say about the oaths, that he called attention to what he thought was a discrepancy in the handling of the oath and Mr. Swanson stated that the City Code is silent on this point, that it should be corrected. He stated that Mr. Swanson has drafted the ordinance in front of city council, that says that four members: the city attorney, the city assessor, city engineer and the city auditor will have to take the oath, that he doesn’t think there is anything wrong with taking the oath by any person and all he is doing is saying that he will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State, is that he will act according to the law, and hopes that they will straighten out the matter and with regard to the oath, thinks everybody should be very proud that they’ve been either appointed or elected and take that oath without any hesitation.

Upon call for the question and upon roll call vote, the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 13; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the ordinance adopted.

APPROVE BILLS

Vendor Payment Listing No. 00-12, dated July 17, 2000, and totaling $976,405.40, all having been audited by the city auditor for payment in accordance with regulations, was presented and read.

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Bakken that these bills be allowed and that the city auditor be authorized to issue warrants in payment of the same.

Council Member Christensen stated in reviewing the bills he noted we are making a lease payment for a vehicle (an Expedition) and that we not pay that bill until we find out why we have a $40,000 Expedition.
It was moved by Council Member Christensen that these bills be allowed and that the city auditor be authorized to issue warrants in payment of the same, with the exception of the payment for the leased vehicle (Expedition); Council Member Brooks seconded the motion. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 13; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried and the bills ordered paid.

APPROVE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO MODIFY WATER
SERVICE CONTRACT WITH THE AIR FORCE BASE

Committee No. 1, Finance, reported having considered the matter of modifying water service contract to Air Force Base, and recommended to approve the proposed amendment to modify the water service contract with the Air Base.
It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Gershman that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 13; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

APPROVE MOTION NOT TO PURCHASE VOTING SYTEM

Committee No. 1, Finance, reported having considered the matter of status of voting system, and recommended not to purchase a voting system for the city council.

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Gershman that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

APPROVE STATUS OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS

Committee No. 1, Finance, reported having considered the matter of status of telecommunications recommendations, and recommended approval of recommendations 1, 2, and 4 and to amend the motion to add recommendation 5, centralize in the IS Department.

(Recommendation 1: Renew and renegotiate the Centrex contract with US West. This contract expires this fall. The City of Grand Forks needs to take some action to continue phone service. Elert & Associates recommends that the City proceed with a 36-month contract. Consulting fees: negotiate contract $3,240.

Recommendation 2: The City should put all services on the Centrex including the Police, City Hall DID numbers and the Aurora Dome. this will allow the city to have three or four digit dialing to all City buildings. This service is also less expensive and will save the City $16,068 annually over current costs.
Estimated savings, $16,608 annually; Consulting fees, implement changes $2,740.

Recommendation 4: Elert & Associates has identified lines being billed to the City. The City should carefully look at all those lines and insure that they are needed. It appears the city has too many lines and that there could be significant changes. Estimated savings, conservatively $13,080 annually, consulting fees, identify savings $4,600, implement $4,600.

Recommendation 5: the City needs to centralize its telecom management. Currently any employee of the City can order telephone lines from US West. This should be done only through one department. Tighter control will insure that lines are ordered properly and that billing can be audited appropriately.

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Gershman that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 13; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

CONSIDER REVIEW OF VARIOUS COMMITTEES AND
PROCESS OF DELETING, COMBINING UNDER STANDING
COMMITTEES

Committee No. 1, Finance, reported having considered the matter of review of various committees and process of deleting, combining committees under standing committees, and recommended that the four standing committees review the list and find out which ones are appropriate to them and to examine them for review, combining and deleting, keeping state laws and ordinances in mind.

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Gershman that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

APPROVE REFINANCING FOR LM GLASFIBER

Committee No. 1, Finance, reported having considered the matter of LM Glasfiber refinancing, and recommended approval of the LM Glasfiber refinancing as outlined contingent upon final document review by the City Attorney’s Office.

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Gershman that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 12; voting “nay”: Council Member Bjerke - 1. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

APPROVE COMPLETION OF POLICE VEHICLE
IMPOUND BUILDING SUBJECT TO FUNDING SOURCE
BEING IDENTIFIED

Committee No. 2, Public Safety, reported having considered the matter of completion of police vehicle impound building, and recommended approval subject to a funding source being identified.

It was moved by Council Member Babinchak and seconded by Council Member Martinson that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE INCREASING MOSQUITO
CONTROL FEE

Committee No. 2, Public Safety, reported having considered the matter of mosquito control utility fees ($1/mo for 12 months each year), and recommended to allow the mosquito control fee to be $1.25/month/12 months and also for the Health Department to look at what the actual costs would be to take a more proactive approach so we don’t have to keep coming back for increases.

It was moved by Council Member Babinchak and seconded by Council Member Martinson that this recommendation be and is hereby approved.

Council Member Burke stated that the Health Department had requested a 20% increase in the fee, and the committee approved a 50% increase in the fee, that in three months we will be done with the mosquito season and can deal with this in the budgeting process for 2001; and moved an amendment to the motion to approve the fee originally requested by the Health Department ($1.00/mo for 12 months each year). Council Member Lunak seconded the motion.

Don Shields, Director of the Health Department, and Todd Hanson, Mosquito Control Supervisor, Health Department, stated their request was to increase fees to $1.00 month for 12 months, and that was based upon the current costs of the program which have not increased since July of 1997 when the last increase in the mosquito budget took place. He stated that the matter of level of service is in theirs and the citizens hands for mosquito control - $1.00/month for 12 months for same level of service currently getting; and $1.25 for increase in services. He stated that the cost of mosquito control is based upon a comprehensive mosquito control program - larviciding , adulticiding, and mosquito habitat.

Mel Pederson, 2423 University Avenue, stated that along with mosquito control, bats and birds help out, that North Dakota has more wetland than Florida, and that along with mosquito control they would be talking some bird or other kind of conservation.

Joanne Gabrynowicz, 1323 Noble Cove, spoke in favor of the increased rate.

Upon call for the question on the amendment to the motion and upon voice vote, the motion was defeated.

Upon call for the question on the original motion and upon voice vote, the motion carried 12 votes affirmative, Council Member Bjerke voted against the motion.

Council Member Babinchak introduced an ordinance entitled “An ordinance amending Section 15-0117 of the Grand Forks City Code relating to the mosquito control fee”, which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.

APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT

A request for budget amendment for Wellness Program in the amount of $430.00 to reflect increased revenue in hearing and blood pressure screenings, was presented and read.

A request for budget amendment for Maternal Child Health Grant in the amount of $73,292 to accept the grant and to set up expenditures that go along with that grant, was presented and read.

It was moved by Council Member Babinchak and seconded by Council Member Martinson that these amendments be and are hereby approved. Carried 12 votes affirmative; Council Member Brooks voted against the motion..

APPROVE CHANGE ORDER FOR BALING FACILITY,
PROJECT NO. 5086

Committee No. 3, Public Service, reported having considered the matter of change orders for Baling Facility, City Project No. 5086, and recommended to approve the change order in the amount of $5,625.00 for Construction Engineers, LTD for additional rows of block and additional insulation in scale house, etc.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Hoff that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 13; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

APPROVE CONCEPT REPORT FOR PROJECT NO. 5111,
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Committee No. 3, Public Service, reported having considered the matter of Project concept Report for Project No.5111, Intersection Improvements at South 34th Street/17th Avenue South and South 20th Street/24th Avenue South, and recommended to approve the Concept Report and to authorize proper officials to sign the report.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Hoff that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 FOR PROJECT NO. 5111,
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS

Committee No. 3, Public Service, reported having considered the matter of Amendment No. 1 (Design) Interstate Engineering, Project No. 5111, Intersection Improvements at South 34th Street/17th Avenue South and South 20th Street/24th Avenue South, and recommended to approve Amendment No. 1 in an amount not to exceed $22,000.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Hoff that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Upon roll cal the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 13; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT
NO. 5171, STORM SEWER

Committee No. 3, Public Service, reported having considered the matter of plans and specifications for Project No. 5171, storm sewer on 40th Avenue South between Aspen and Pine Circle, and recommended to approve plans and specifications, contingent upon staff review.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Hoff that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

APPROVE CHANGE ORDER FOR PROJECTS 4981 AND
4982, REHAB. PUMP STAITONS 14 AND 15

Committee No. 3, Public Service, reported having considered the matter of change orders for Projects Nos. 4981 and 4982, Rehabilitate Sanitary Pump Station No. 14 and No. 15, General Contract, Change Order No. 3, and recommended to approve the change order to Moorhead Construction in the amount of $138.48.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Hoff that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 13; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

AMEND POLICY TO EXTEND RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL
TO STRUCTURE SALES ONLY AND TO DECLARE PARCELS
AS SURPLUS PROPERTY

Committee No. 3, Public Service, reported having considered the matter of reviewing policy of first refusal by former home owners, and recommended to amend the policy to extend the right of first refusal to structure sales only and to declare those parcels (Surplus list: 1212 Lincoln Drive, 1102 Lanark Avenue, 407 Pakenham Avenue, 610 Plum Avenue, 1605 Riverside Drive, 67 Sloping Hills Cove; Surplus non-profit list: 815 Almonte Avenue, 101 Euclid Avenue, 1017 Lanark Avenue, 1108 Lanark Avenue, 1110 Lanark Avenue, 401 Pakenham Avenue, 415 Pakenham Avenue, 505 Pakenham Avenue, 502 Plum Avenue, 506 Plum Avenue) as surplus property.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Hoff that this recommendation be and is hereby approved.

It was moved by Council Member Kreun to remove the property at 815 Almonte Avenue from the non-profit list and move that to the surplus list and offer for sale. Council Member Bakken seconded the motion. Carried 13 votes affirmatives.

Upon call for the question on the motion as amended, and upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 13; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

AUTHORIZE ENTERING INTO NEGOTIATIONS FOR
ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT, AND JOINTLY
TO LOOK AT OTHER OPTIONS

Committee No. 3, Public Service, reported having considered the matter of negotiating engineering services agreement, Burns & McDonnell, new landfill siting environmental impact statement (EIS), City Project No. 5178, and recommended to enter into the negotiations for engineering services agreement with Burns & McDonnell and jointly to look at some of the other options that are available.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Kreun that this recommendation be and is hereby approved.

Council Member Hoff stated they are considering negotiations for a contract for environmental impact statement, and that it’s not just negotiations but $1,500 of a lawyer’s time and once we get that statement this Manvel landfill starts moving forward, and questioned why throwing money away; that there is far too much opposition in Manvel to put that landfill there, they were stating that they were ready to fight us all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court; that there are many other matters that we can use to deal with the landfill situation that will satisfy the EPA, the FAA that we are doing everything to mitigate the bird problem to deal with this landfill issue besides moving forward on an environmental impact statement,
and that he wants to be very respectful to members of this council but he does not believe that all the council members should be casting votes on this particular item. Member Hoff stated it was his opinion as a lay person that since Council Member Christensen’s partner will be the one negotiating this contract and payment for it, that Mr. Christensen may have a pecuniary interest although Mr. Christensen has stated it will not. He stated that because of appearances and because we must attempt to distance ourselves from even the appearance of a conflict of interest, in his opinion he has respectfully asked Mr. Christensen to abstain and it is not personal.

Jay Fiedler, attorney, stated that we cannot use that proposal with Burns & McDonnell as a basis for an environmental impact statement with respect to another site.

Mr. Fiedler stated that he has been retained by the City to assist it in the zoning aspects of siting a landfill in Turtle River Township, that he asked that this matter come before the council as they have reached a point in the procedure where certain decisions have to be made that are beyond his authority, and they have many new members who may not have all of the background on the project. He addressed a number of subjects and summarized the status of the project as it is today, City’s options with respect to the project site in Turtle River Township and his recommendation.

Council Member Bjerke called point of order, that under Roberts Rules of Order and the City Code, that going into the audience while speaker is speaking is disrespectful and asked that they ask the council member return to his chair.

Mr. Fiedler stated his recommendation was to commission an environmental impact statement rather than to litigate the issue, and that is what the committee recommended. He stated that it is possible that they will end up in court, that the Township may vote against the landfill at the end of the process and council may choose to go ahead and litigate that decision, and if that happens would like to have an environmental impact statement as portion of evidence to present to a court. He stated that if the council adopts the committee’s recommendation, that he has a preliminary proposal in hand from the consulting engineers, they are proposing an environmental impact study that will cost approx. $50,000, that’s a proposal and that committee is asking that they go to the Township, and solicit their input in case there are areas of study that they want us to directly address, and if that happens he will have to work with the engineers to find out how those additional requests for a broader scope affects the cost, and then come back to the council with costs and time in September.

Council Member Kreun stated that in their recommendation they also are going to look at many other options as far as solid waste goes, some information outdated and want to update that and has asked Todd Feland to come up with some proposals that may be options to the landfill, ie., reducing volume, increase capacity of existing landfill, utilize the landfill at Manvel, to look for landfill outside the County of Grand Forks, haul to other landfills at Gwinner and Sawyer, and are going to continue to look at those options and explore them in more depth to make sure they have explored all the options.

Council Member Hoff called for point of order as president of the council has just returned to his seat, and asked for a ruling on whether a council member may leave his seat to speak to a member of the public or refresh himself. Council Member Bjerke called point of order - that under City Code which stated that when the presiding officer is putting the question or member speaking, no member shall walk across or out of the room nor entertain any private discourse or pass between the speaker and the presiding officer; and also in Roberts Rules of Order that you are not supposed to leave your seat unless have asked for that.

Mr. Fiedler stated he was retained for a specific purpose, the siting of the landfill in Turtle River and makes no value judgment on that option but that the City is fast approaching a point where a decision has to be made, there has been in the past considerable pressure regarding the existing landfill due to certain FAA regulations that have to do with bird hazards; but to a large extent believes that those hazards have been mitigated although the agencies have not committed to that but that the more pressing issue is ultimately that landfill is going to reach its capacity, and something will have to be done to address that issue, and best information is that the City has about five years and that because of those issues the City is operating on a year to year permit, that our existing permit expires in November, so long as showing progress toward a solution, have every reason to believe that it will be extended, but no guarantee.

Council Member Hoff asked Mr. Fiedler about the conflict of interest issue that he has raised.. Council Member Bjerke called for point of order if this has been ruled on. Mr. Swanson stated he has not made any formal ruling but provided Mr. Hoff with an opinion on another matter which he indicated to Mr. Hoff did not lead him to a position that would allow him to conclude that Mr. Christensen could not vote on the issue.

Council Member Hoff called for point of order, that he noted that council members having discourse among themselves, contrary to what Mr. Bjerke has raised.

Charles Grotte, assistant city engineer, stated if they were to look at all the options, never come to a conclusion, that he had Mr. Feland provide Council Member Kreun with a listing of reasonable options: composting, restricting what goes into the landfill, only allow the citizens of Grand Forks to put garbage in there, and possibly extend our landfill life three times by not allowing outside communities to use it, but first need to decide which options they should be looking at, and could spend length of time as to how many to look at and depth of study.

Council Member Hoff called for point of order - that Council Member Bjerke is having discourse with another council member contrary to the very Roberts Rules that he brought up a moment ago. Mayor Brown stated noted.

Council Member Martinson stated that if they limited the landfill to use by Grand Forks only, how would that take care of the FAA requirements. Mr. Grotte stated it would not, that our permit expires November 1 of this year, and if the State Health Department decides not to extend our permit, we will be hauling our garbage somewhere else; and some of the options would be to look at how can we extend our landfill if we control the birds adequately.

Council Member Hoff called for point of order, and asked for a cease fire with Mr. Bjerke and not call points of order upon each other for such minor things as council members engage in all the time, leaning to speak to another council member or talk to a member of the audience who has an issue, and that he will not call such points of order upon him if Mr. Bjerke not call them upon him because he feels it tears down the proceedings but feels he has made his point, and hopes Mr. Bjerke will respond. There was no response from Mr. Bjerke.

Amy Nelson, mayor of Manvel, stated that on this whole issue is that the whole idea of the Grand Forks re-siting their landfill has been very hit and miss in their communities and neighborhoods, not notified of hearings and the whole siting selection criteria was never fully explained to them, that they have people coming into their community telling them that the proper decisions were made and yet no explanation for any of these reasons, that they don’t understand the value of this particular site versus many other sites, including Grand Forks County, and are unaware of any other sites outside of Grand Forks County that may have ever been looked at. She stated that the siting process is difficult because of the setback rule, that they have people living across the street from the proposed landfill site, that Grand Forks has acceptable sites in their own community that are as acceptable and probably better sites and were excluded from the beginning because of setbacks the City has for its community, but yet a half a mile is okay for somebody and right across the street is okay for somebody.

Council Member Hoff called for point of order, that the parliamentarian rule upon himself as he violated Roberts Rules of Order by having discourse with Council Member Brooks. Mayor Brown noted and asked Ms. Nelson to continue.

Council Member Hoff called for point of order, that he has asked for a ruling from the parliamentarian, Mr. Swanson stated guilty as charged. Mayor Brown asked Ms. Nelson to proceed.

Ms. Nelson stated they were told that they are going to be the good neighbor because they also use this landfill, that a lot of communities use the landfill, communities in Minnesota and there are 130,000 residences that are supported by this landfill, Grand Forks as a city and community happens to be the largest one, there are a lot of other options that could be looked at and should have been looked at in the first place; that there are a lot of hard feelings in the outlying areas about the landfill issue and don’t think they’ve been treated fairly by the City of Grand Forks.

Todd Leek, resident of rural Grand Forks County, and member of the Grand Forks Citizens Coalition, which is a group that was formed this year to involve itself in pertinent issues in Grand Forks County, stated that one of the aspects is that the EIS be done properly, and within the zoning ordinances of Turtle River Township the EIS that will accompany the application is to be compliant with National Environmental Policy Act, the reason that the Board apparently has included an EIS along with the application is that the Board can make an informed decision on such an important issue as a municipal waste landfill, as this will be an all-time facility and be there permanently, and they have their responsibility to look for the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the township. He stated that if the City were to go ahead with a contract to have an EIS done, that Burns & McDonnell or whoever they negotiate with, is cognizant of the requirements of National Environmental Policy Act, including notices, public meetings. He stated there are alternatives to the proposed action and alternatives have to be studied as part of the NEPA process, and come to juncture where go through the EIS process or can look for alternatives. He state that the Grand Forks Citizens Coalition has proposed some alternatives which are near to the current facility: dispose of the arbitrary setback limitations that the City imposed upon itself in the search process which precluded several good sites, and that City put a three-mile buffer around each community, including the city of Grand Forks and that precluded the City’s own property which is zoned industrially quite some time ago and set aside for the very purpose of landfill expansion. He stated that one of the alternatives that the City might consider is a lateral expansion of the current landfill, which is creating a new cell next to the current cell that is compliant with the federal regulations, satisfying the State of North Dakota Health Department’s program and permit and providing the city with a landfill that is compliant, adjacent to the baling facility and adjacent to the city lagoon to treat leachate problems which may occur, other alternatives may be to acquire property adjacent to that area in Sections 24 and 25 of Rye Twp. which is also adjacent to the baling facility and adjacent to the lagoon facilities; that these types of alternates were arbitrarily precluded from the search process and council should be aware of that and take another look at the site selection process; and that the City could avoid long term maintenance of another large landfill in a flood-prone area; and provided a handout of alternatives for the council members. Council Member Kreun stated they are taking those items into consideration.

Council Member Christensen called for the question. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

Upon call for the question on the original motion and upon roll call vote, the following voted “aye”: Council Members Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson, Brooks, Bjerke, Hamerlik, Burke - 10; voting “nay”: Council Members Hoff, Gershman, Lunak - 3. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

RECESS

Mayor Brown called for a 5-minute recess at 9:35 p.m.

Mayor Brown reconvened the meeting of the city council at 9:40 p.m. with all members present except: Council Members Gershman, Burke, Martinson, Christensen, Lunak and Hamerlik.

APPROVE AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN ENGINEERING
SERVICES FOR PROJECT NO. 4901, LIGHTING THE ENGLISH
COULEE BIKEPATH

Committee No. 3, Public Service, reported having considered the matter of agreement for design engineering services with Ulteig for Project No. 4901, lighting the English Coulee Bikepath from 6th Avenue North to Gateway Drive, and recommended to approve the agreement in an amount not to exceed $14,372.00.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Hoff that this recommendation be and is hereby approved.

COUNCIL MEMBERS HAMERLIK, GERSHMAN AND
CHRISTENSEN REPORTED BACK

Mr. Grasser, asst. city engineer, explained that this was to increase pedestrian usage and safety in the evenings, and there has been controversy about lighting a bikepath and encourage nighttime usage, because there is a lot of vegetation along the edges are you increasing safety or not.

COUCIL MEMBER MARTINSON REPORTED BACK

Council Member Hoff and Brooks called for the question.

Council Member Brooks stated this bikepath was very isolated and was a dangerous area at night, that now with building being done on the Bronson Property and increased traffic it’s a safety issue that the lights will address and make it a safer bikepath.

COUNCIL MEMBERS LUNAK AND BURKE
REPORTED BACK

Council Member Hamerlik also noted that the City passed this provided that the University of North Dakota provide the lighting, that they found other sources of financing this.

Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 12; voting “nay”: Council Member Bjerke - 1. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

RECEIVE TABULATION OF BIDS, ESTIMATE OF TOTAL
COST AND AWARD CONTRACT, PAVING PROJECT NO. 5145,
DISTRICT NO. 579

The city auditor presented and read tabulation of bids which had been received by the consulting engineer for Paving Project No. 5145, District No. 579, paving for North 69th Street, indicating that Robert Gibb & Sons, Inc. dba Urban Contracting, L.L.C. was the low bidder based upon their bid in the amount of $1,165,808.20: Document No. 8002 - Bid Tabulation.

The city engineer’s estimate of total cost on Paving Project No. 5145, District No. 579, in the amount of
$ , was presented and read.

Committee No. 3, Public Service, reported having considered the matter of bids for North 69th Street pavement, City Project No. 5145, District No. 579, and recommended to accept the bid of Robert Gibb & Sons, Inc. dba Urban Contracting, L.L.C. on a unit price contract in the amount of $1,165,808.20.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Hoff that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

Council Member Klave introduced the following resolution which was presented and read: Document No. 8003 - Resolution.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Hoff that this resolution awarding the contract for Paving Project No. 5145, District No. 579, to Urban Contracting, L.L.C. be and is hereby adopted. Upon roll cal the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 13; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the resolution adopted and the contract awarded.

APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 7, PROJECT NO. 5086,
BALING FACILITY STRUCTURE

Committee No. 3, Public Service, reported having considered the matter of Change Order No 7, Construction Engineers, Ltd. Baling Facility Structure, City Project No. 5086, $85,002.00, and recommended to approve Change Order No. 7.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Hoff that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Upon roll cal the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 13; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

ACCEPT BIDS FOR SURPLUS PROPERTY (HOUSES)

Committee No. 3, Public Service, reported having considered the matter of bids for surplus property (houses), and recommended to accept the high bids on parcels: 103 Grassy Hills, $10,000.00; 3723 Belmont Court, $10,000; 3205 East Elmwood, $15,500.00; 3312 Elmwood, $13,300.00; 1023 Lincoln Drive, $5,000.00; 2423 Olson Drive, $15,800.00; 3134 Olson Drive, $8,100.00; 120 Spruce Court, $5,000.00; and 200 Hughes Court, $4,200.00.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Hoff that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 13; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

APPROVE COST MATRIX TRANSFERS

Committee No. 4, Urban Development, reported having considered the matter of supplemental CDBG cost matrix project budget amendments, and recommended to approve the cost matrix transfers and to pay $700,000 out of Administration to cover the expenses for City Hall and Civic Auditorium contents that were not covered by FEMA.

It was moved by Council Member Burke and seconded by Council Member Lunak that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 12; voting “nay”: Council Member Bjerke - 1. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

ACCEPT BIDS FOR SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY

Committee No. 4, Urban Development, reported having considered the matter of sale of surplus property, and recommended to accept the low bids for the following non-conforming residential lots: 519 2nd Avenue North, $125; 407 North 4th street, $1,000; 814 North 4th Street, $125; 818 North 4th Street, $120; 311 5th Avenue North, $100; 317 North 6th Street, $100; 518 North 7th Street, $301; 905 Chestnut Street, $100; 411 Franklin Avenue, $100; and 511 Gertrude, $1,005; and to allow Urban development staff to negotiate with adjacent homeowners for those lots that did not received bids.

Committee No. 4, Urban Development, reported having considered the matter of sale of surplus property, and recommended to reject the bids received for 3110 South 10th Street and 812 North 25th Street as not meeting the minimum bid requirement and offering those lots plus 624 North 25th Street and 1527 Chestnut Place up for sale at 100% of their market value as determined by the city assessor’s office.

Committee No. 4, Urban Development, reported having considered the matter of sale of surplus property, and recommended approval of the bid of $101 by Lavid Leonardi for the surplus garage at 623 4th Avenue South with the requirement that the structure be moved off its current location within 30 days of signing the purchase agreement.

It was moved by Council Member Burke and seconded by Council Member Lunak that this recommendation be and is hereby approved.

It was noted that the difference between the surplus properties referred to the engineering department and those referred to the urban development office, was because of the sources of funding, some properties purchased by CDBG funds and others purchased with dike project funds. Mr. Swanson noted that both are treated by the same standards for determining whether surplus and procedure for distribution or disposal., and there was no reason from City Code perspective or legal issue why this couldn’t be handled by one department/committee.

Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 13; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

AUTHORIZE RELEASE OF FUNDS FOR UND FACULTY
RESEARCH

Committee No. 4, Urban Development, reported having considered the matter of seed money for UND faculty research, and recommended to approve the release of $100,000 for UND faculty research funds.

It was moved by Council Member Burke and seconded by Council Member Lunak that this recommendation be and is hereby approved.

The city auditor reported that this funding is coming from the Loan & Stabilization Fund and are spending down that fund to virtually nothing so there’s no guarantee that there will be additional funding in the future. It was noted that the money they are granting has been appropriated and would leave $160,000 still unmatched which the University hopes to be able to find match for this year, but this is not a commitment by the council to continue to fund this program into the future.

Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 12 votes affirmative; Council Member Bjerke voted against the motion.

APPROVE FINAL PLAT OF REPLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK
A OF REPLAT OF COLUMBIA PARK 15TH ADDITION

The Planning and Zoning Commission reported having considered the request from Steven L. Adams on behalf of Arthur Greenberg, Jr. for final approval (fast track) of a Replat of Lot 1, Block A, of a Replat of Columbia Park 15th Addition (all of Block 1) to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota (located in the southeast corner of 24th Avenue South and South 38th Street), and recommended final approval subject to special conditions shown on or attached to the review copy.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Babinchak that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RECYCLABLE
PROCESSING CENTER

The Planning and Zoning Commission reported having considered the matter of the request from Mitch Gibb on behalf of Residual Materials, Inc. (RMI) for a conditional use permit for a recyclable processing center, Lot 1, Block 1, Lockwood Addition (located at 2550 27th Avenue North), and recommended approval of the four-year conditional use permit subject to conditions set forth by staff and with the stipulation that the tree screening be checked after one year.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Babinchak that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

ADOPT RESOLUTION OF ANNEXATION FOR ALL THAT
PORTION OF SOUTH HALF OF NW QUARTER OF SECTION
20, T151N, R50W. OF 5TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN

The Planning and Zoning Commission reported having considered the matter of the request from the Planning Department for approval of a resolution of annexation of the piece of property lying 140 feet west of the western right of way line of South 38th Street between Lot 7, Block 1, Columbia Park 27th Addition and the southend drainway (located in the NW Quarter of Section 20, T151N, R50W of the 5th Principal Meridian, and recommended approval of the annexation request, to introduce the annexation resolution and to set the public hearing for September 5, 2000.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Babinchak that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

Council Member Klave introduced the following resolution of annexation, which was presented and read: Document No. 8004 - Resolution.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Babinchak that this resolution be and is hereby adopted. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 13; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried and the resolution adopted.

APPROVE REQUEST FROM NORTHERN STATES POWER
COMPANY FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
PROCESSING OF CONTAIMINATED SOIL (2900 MILL ROAD)

The Planning and Zoning Commission reported having considered the matter of the request from Al Pearson on behalf of Northern States Power for approval of a conditional use permit for the processing of contaminated soil, Lot 1, Block 1, NSP & Pillsbury 2nd Resubdivision and Lot 3, Block 1, NSP & Pillsbury Industrial Park Resubdivision (located at 2900 Mill Road), and recommended approval of the conditional use permit subject to the requirements established by staff.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Babinchak that this recommendation be and is hereby approved.

Judi Paukert, Community Relations Manager at Northern States Power, was present.

Council Member Hoff stated that he cannot separate the issue of moving forward the conditional use permit from the fact that NSP appears to be ready to lobby the North Dakota Public Service Commission to have the public clean this matter up, that they have known about this area for a hundred years, admittedly the flood and dike project has caused it to become urgent but as long as NSP is prepared to make utility users pay for this because they can’t get decent wages in this town, and as long as NSP…
Council Member Babinchak called a point of order, that is not germane to our decision re. a conditional use permit. Council Member Hoff stated he had a point of order, and he says the two are tied together because moving one forward will move the other forward, one issue, and asked the parliamentarian to rule whether he can discuss this issue which is important to the public and which is tied to the conditional use permit. Mr. Swanson stated he sees no relevance or matter of germaneness between an application for conditional use permit and an application for the Public Service Commission as to a tariff for rate issues.
Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 12 votes affirmative; Council Member Hoff voted against the motion.

HOLD MATTER OF REQUEST BY WESTERN WIRELESS
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR INSTALLATION
OF MONOPOLE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AND
EQUIPMENT SHELTER

The Planning and Zoning Commission reported having considered the matter of the request from Greg Hoovestol on behalf of Western Wireless for approval of a conditional use permit for the installation of monopole communications tower and equipment shelter as provided for in Section 18-0206, (3)(B) of the Land Development Code (located in SE ¼ of Section 18, T151N, R50W of the 5th Principal Meridian), and recommended approval of the conditional use permit subject to requirements set by the Board of Adjustments and staff.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Babinchak that this recommendation be and is hereby approved.

Council Member Christensen questioned the height and location of these towers, and number of towers. and whether we want to begin the development of a tower farm in that location. Dennis Potter, city planner, reported this recommendation is for one tower and tower height is 150 feet, and that applicant had only tentatively identified two sites and did not actually have leases yet and they asked the Planning Commission to approve both sites and once had lease negotiations complete they would select one of the two sites that we would ultimately approve for them; that Planning Commission said they would select one site because that’s our normal process and after review data selected the site on the east side which is this item. It was noted that there is a tower on the Nodak site and also towers that provide lighting to the 32nd Avenue South/I-29 Interchange. Council Member Christensen asked why we wouldn’t begin thinking about putting towers two or three miles out of town but within our zoning jurisdiction rather than at an intersection at an off-ramp that comes into this community. Mr. Potter stated that this wireless communicator needs a tower in this general area to fill a gap in their coverage area; that they have not looked at trying to develop a specific digital farm site at this point in the process, simply reacting to an application made by a wireless provider; and conditional use permit runs with their lease which is five years from the property owner and applicant is aware of that. Council Member Christensen stated he wanted to make it clear that if we decide we don’t want a lot of towers coming into our city on that off-ramp, that during this growth period after five years there’s no towers there. Mr. Potter stated that if we don’t renew the conditional use permit then they do not have a right to have a tower there. Council Member Christensen stated that we may want to consider siting these type of towers in an area that is not so conspicuous going forward in this community.

Mr. Swanson stated this is an area of law that is somewhat in flux, there have been some rulings by the FCC that would appear to limit what zoning authority a community would have over the siting of certain digital communication towers, that his office drafted a draft ordinance that would appear to give as much authority as presently allowed under federal law, and that is currently under review by the Planning Office. He stated there are certain areas you can designate as not being acceptable for towers, and other areas that you would not have the ability to make those determinations, you have some ability to require co-location of towers and some ability to require design and aesthetic standards or requirements for placement of towers; that he is familiar with some communities that have actually required those towers to be placed in such things as church steeples, water towers, etc. but we need to be aware of some restrictions by federal law which appear to be growing as to what authority the City will have, but Planning Department will be moving forward with recommendations on that draft ordinance sometime in the future

Mr. Potter also stated that there is some capability to co-mingle towers but doesn’t know technical capability as to whether or not they could co-mingle with Nodak and asked them to talk with Nodak, and they came back and still wanted to build their own tower; don’t know results of those discussions. Council Member Christensen stated that he is aware of people who construct towers are now selling towers and time on the towers or rights to the towers, and asked if conditional use permit limited solely to Western Wireless so that they don’t have the ability to sell time on the towers or rights to the use of the tower. Mr. Potter stated he looked at conditions and his review of the minutes and conditions they put on would not preclude what he is describing, that city council can add that as an additional condition if they choose. Council Member Christensen stated they could delay this for two weeks until they find out the status of the negotiations were between them and Nodak and if they could use Nodak’s tower, we wouldn’t have to have another tower located in this community at the most visible intersection in this community.

Council Member Babinchak moved to table this matter until our next city council meeting; Council Member Lunak seconded the motion; and upon voice vote the motion carried.

TABLE REQUEST FROM WESTERN WIRELESS FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR INSTALLATION OF MONOPOLE
COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AND EQUIPMENT SHELTER

The Planning and Zoning Commission reported having considered the matter of the request from Greg Hoovestol on behalf of Western Wireless for approval of a conditional use permit for the installation of monopole communications tower and equipment shelter as provided for in Section 18-0207(3)(A) of the Land Development code (located in the SE Quarter of Section 18, T151N, R50W of the 5th Principal Meridian), and recommended denial of the request.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Babinchak that this recommendation be and is hereby approved.

It was moved by Council Members Christensen and Babinchak to table this matter until our next city council meeting, and upon voice vote the motion carried.

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND TEXT OF LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER XVIII, SECTION 18-0204(2)
DEFINITIONS TO DEFINE EVENT CENTER SIGNS AND
SPONSORSHIP ADVERTISING

The Planning and Zoning Commission reported having considered the matter of the request from the
Grand Forks Planning Department for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the text of the Land Development Code, Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, amending Section 18-0204(2) Definitions to define event center attraction signs and sponsorship, and recommended preliminary approval of the text ordinance, to introduce the ordinance amending the Land Development Code and to set the date of the public hearing for August 7, 2000.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Babinchak that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 11 votes affirmative, Council Members Bjerke and Martinson voted against the motion - 2.

Council Member Lunak introduced an ordinance entitled “An ordinance relating to the grand Forks city Land Development Code, chapter XVIII of Grand Forks City code of 1987, as amended, amending Article II”, which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND ZONING MAP TO
INCLUDE WITHIN DANKS PUD, CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT
PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 1, ALL OF DANKS ADDITION AND
DANKS 2ND RESUBDIVISION

The Planning and Zoning Commission reported having considered the matter of the request from the Grand Forks Planning Department for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the Zoning Map and to exclude from the Danks PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan and include within the Danks PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 1, all of Danks Addition and Danks 2nd Resubdivision (located between DeMers Avenue and 17th Avenue south extended and between South 42nd Street and I-29 Right of Way), and recommended preliminary approval subject to special conditions shown on or attached to the review copy, to introduce the ordinance amending the zoning map and to set the date of the public hearing for August 7, 2000.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Babinchak that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 12 votes affirmative, Council Member Bjerke voted against the matter.

Council Member Lunak introduced an ordinance entitled “An ordinance to amend the Zoning Map of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, to rezone and exclude from the Danks PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, and to include within Danks PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 1, all of Danks Addison and Danks 2nd Resubdivision to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota”, which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND ZONING MAP TO
INCLUDE WITHIN UNIVERSITY VILLAGE PUD (PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN,
AMENDMENT NO. 1, ALL OF UNIVERSITY VILLAGE ADDITION
AND ALL OF THE COLUMBIA ADDITION

The Planning and Zoning Commission reported having considered the matter of the request from the Grand Forks Planning Department for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the zoning Map and to exclude from the University Village Planned PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan and to include within the University Village PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan Amendment No. 1, all of University Village Addition and all of the Columbia Addition (located between Gateway Drive and 6th Avenue North and between North Columbia Road and the English Coulee), and recommended preliminary approval subject to special conditions shown on or attached to the review copy, to introduce the ordinance amending the zoning map and to set he date of the public hearing for August 7, 2000; the ordinance is also subject to the recording of the University Village Addition plat.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Babinchak that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 12 votes affirmative; Council Member Bjerke voted against the motion

Council Member Lunak introduced an ordinance entitled “An ordinance to amend the Zoning Map of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, to rezone and exclude from the University Village PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, and to include within University Village PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 1, all of University Village Addition and all of the Columbia addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota”, which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.

ACCEPT BID FOR OFFICE FURNITURE FOR EVENTS CENTER

The Events Center Core Committee reported having considered the matter of recommendation for office furniture bid, and recommended to accept the low bid of $69,417.00 from Norby’s Work Perks for office furniture.

It was moved by Council Member Babinchak and seconded by Council Member Klave that this recommendation be and is hereby approved.

Jeff Kossow, Compass Facility Management, Alerus Center, stated that the budget has contingencies built into it and this is a partial bid.

Upon cal for the question and upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 13; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

APPROVE APPOINTMENT TO THE EVENTS CENTER
CORE COMMITTEE

Council Member Hamerlik stated that as chair of the Events Center Core Committee moved that Council Member Christensen be seated on the Events Center Core Committee, the motion was seconded by Council Member Lunak. Carried 12 votes affirmative; Council Member Hoff voted against the motion.

REFER MATTER OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS TO
STANDING COMMITTEES

Council Member Gershman reported that there was a meeting of the committee chairs to begin the discussion to make city council and government more efficient and made presentation of concerns of the current system and suggestions moving standing committee meetings to the same week as the city council meetings; that currently the city council meets on the first and third Mondays of the month and the second and fourth have committee meetings; that on the Friday prior to the city council meeting council members receive their packets and they have very little time to discuss an issue. He stated that the current system does not provide enough time to contact citizens, staff, Bismarck or Washington offices or other pertinent entities, does not allow enough time to gather supplemental information, receive public scrutiny or input or to inform the public of actions and consequences or time for ample media scrutiny, and current system requires too much staff time. He also noted that they do not have display of the other 30 committees that meet where there is council representation. He stated that the committee chairs are proposing is to move the committee meetings to the first and third weeks of the month, right after council meeting and the committee chairs and their members would determine the dates and times, then they would receive their packet on the Friday of that first and third week, which would give a minimum of six working days to contact various offices, staff, etc. and would clear up approximately 30 weeks a year of standing committee meetings. He stated that the first recommendation of the committee chairs is to move towards that idea, and asked for comments from the council members.

Council Member Burke stated that in some cases turns the problem around, while providing time for discussion between committee and council meetings, it provides very little time or no time for committees to study issues that have been referred to it by the staff or council from the council meeting just before it.

Several council members stated they were not informed of the meeting of the committee chairs relative to this matter. Various concerns were expressed re. staff and overtime issues, electronic transfer, increased pay for council members to allow more time to devote to issues, bringing extra items to committee of the whole rather than to separate committee prior to council.

The city auditor stated they tried to address this in a memo to council members, and staff is willing to try any enhancements in the process they are looking at, the concern they expressed was the overtime issue and how they would handle that if all the meetings were moved to the evening, and have to look at flex scheduling in order to avoid that, and if meetings moved to Thursday then concerned about being able to get all the information out on Friday; would make every effort to make it work and only know when we get into it.

Council Member Hoff moved to table this matter to the next meeting; the motion died for lack of a second.

It was moved by Council Member Klave to refer this issue to the four standing committees for recommendations. Council Member Hoff seconded the motion. Carried 12 votes affirmative; Council Member Lunak voted against the motion.

Council Member Gershman stated that the second suggestion is working towards the committee of the whole and be accomplished in two steps: 1) collapse four committees into two: public safety/public service and finance/urban development and committee chairs would become co-chairs; and benefits are that more council members get first hand information, easier for public to follow, less staff time required and easier for media coverage. He stated that if everyone agrees to go to the first and third weeks, then the committees fall into these days and committee chairs and members would decide what day they would meet, and if collapse two committees into the committee of the whole then current committee co-chairs would become portfolio holders or conduits to the various departments that they deal with now and benefits for committee of the whole is that all council members get first hand information, easier for public to follow, less staff time required, easier for media coverage and will improve the way the City does business. He stated that the committee of the whole meeting may be longer until they get to a point where more efficient and would like discussion in various committees as to when should they make the transition from the four committees meeting and collapse into the combined committees and when should they make the move into the committee of the whole. He stated what they hope to accomplish with the proposal is, to free up 30 weeks per year, have tremendous amount of time to hear the issues, address the concerns of the various departments by convening a committee of the whole to move certain projects forward and looks like an efficient form of government that the citizens can understand and where we can do better work.

Council Member Hamerlik stated he has a concern on how it’s said and how worded to go from four committees to two committees, would have to have an ordinance change, or having the two committees meet at the same time with co-chairs, and then wouldn’t have to have a change in ordinance before they know how it’s going to work; and in order to go to committee of the whole, have to go down to one committee and get rid of all four standing committees. He stated there is another major concern he has, whether number of committee, that in order to save time or orient council members there has to be a reduction in the items on the four committees, but has heard that there’s too much authority given to staff which should be made by elected officials and concerned in how they go through the items and determine which staff can handle.

Various other concerns were heard: time limit on committee of the whole, and if all four committees combined, not user friendly if public waiting any length of time for their item to be heard, overtime costs; hearing from citizens that council micromanaging, slow schedule of change to longer time period; not in favor of committee of the whole with a 14-member council.

It was moved by Council Member Babinchak and seconded by Council Member Hoff to refer this matter to all four committees of the council. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

REFER VARIOUS ITEMS TO COMMITTEE

Various items were presented to council for referral to committee and/or departments for consideration.

1) Council Member Burke presented the matter of proposed revision of the budget framework 2001 budget resolution to change Revenues, item #1, subparagraph a, to change reduction of 5 mills to reduction of 15 mills and explore the possibility of reducing mills earmarked in this budget for the dike into the special assessment they have coming in the future for the payment of the dike and reduce the mill levy by what is now earmarked for the dike and move into the special assessment, that we have a mill levy that accurately reflexes the services provided and is more comparable with other communities. The matter was referred to the Budget Framework Committee.
2) Council Member Hoff stated that the city of East Grand Forks is using malathion, and people have spoken to East Grand Forks about this before, but they continue to go their own way, and raised the issue for purpose of raising public consciousness about this.
3) Council Member Hoff presented the matter of legal hemp issue, and how to get economic prosperity in North Dakota, one is windpower and 2) is hemp; that Nadar petition is available at Amazing Grains; and also that the Herald is not publishing material written by teenagers.
4) Council Member Bjerke presented the matter of review of duties of Park Board and eliminating that Board; the matter was presented to the finance committee.
5) Council Member Bjerke presented the matter of request for information re. publishing “tip of the week” in newspaper by the sanitation department, the matter was presented to the finance committee.
6) Council Member Bjerke asked for review of question #1 on June 3, 1975 ballot re. levying of tax for providing a public transportation system and if that has to be funded at 4 mills; the matter was presented to the finance committee.
7) Council Member Bjerke asked for information on funding of mayor’s trip to Japan, the matter was presented to the finance committee.

Mr. Henry Valdur, Grand Forks, addressed the council in regards to the ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, re. the issue of his service dog. Mr. Swanson stated he was familiar with this issue, has rendered an opinion and found that under ND law Mr. Valdur’s dog is not certified as a guide dog, that Mr. Valdur does not suffer from a permanent full or partial impairment of vision which would qualify him under ND law, and did not find either certification from a physician or other medical care provider that he is suffering from a deprivation of a major life style or activity that provides for the ADA to use a guide dog; and also finds that the City has allowed Mr. Valdur to bring his dog into City Hall to all public meetings and to provide public transportation; that it is his understanding that Mr. Valdur’s complaints are with respect to private businesses and in that regard, the jurisdiction of the city council does not extend and that would be a matter that he would have to take up with Grand Forks County States Attorney.

Mr. Valdur stated he disagreed with Mr. Swanson on his findings, and stated he had communication from
Washington, D.C., Federal Registry, that Section 36-302 of the Final Ruling now provides the general public a combination of modified policies, practices and procedures to permit the use of service animals by any individual with a disability, this formally reflects intent of common good that public accommodation take necessary steps to accommodate service animals and to insure that individual disabilities are not separated from the service animal; that he has a doctor’s certificate saying that he’s a service animal, and quoted State Law penalty for interfering or denying uses of facilities to any person who denies or interferes with the administration to let people into public facilities. Mr. Swanson stated that under the ADA or State Law he has not seen any evidence that Mr. Valdur has a service animal that’s been certified. Mr. Valdur stated that as far as the ADA law he does not have to show that. Mr. Swanson stated under the ADA he’s not aware that he has any disability or regarded as having disability, and he understands there is no services or facilities under the control of the city of Grand Forks that are being denied him.

Mr. Valdur stated if the complaint cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant, the ADA coordinator will forward to the ADA for committee appointed by the mayor, he stated he has a doctors certificate and it’s a federal act too and trying to get him to divulge personal medical documents. Mr. Valdur stated that tomorrow he will be going to federal court.

Rick Duquette, assistant to the mayor, stated that as long as the animal is under control, does not present any harm to anybody or damage any property, it has been his recommendation to the department heads that provide these services to make them accessible to Mr. Valdur and will continue to do that. He recommended that if it would be of some help that he and Mr. Gordon of HR Department and Mr. Swanson try to break this issue into component parts for Mr. Valdur so he feels like he’s getting all the information he can, he may not agree with it but as far as the City’s concerned it’s his recommendation that we administratively provide services to him and have been doing that. He stated that the issue of outlying problems is not in the realm of our jurisdiction.

Mr. Valdur stated that his doctor is Dr. Goodman and he’s the one who gave certificate to him. He stated that he has seen great success with him in the last three years with the use of the service animal, that’s when he got him from Jamestown State Hospital when he was thinking about blowing up the federal building; that this dog makes him not have those thoughts and won’t let council give him those thoughts again.

ADJOURN
It was moved by Council Member Lunak and seconded by Council Member Martinson that we do now adjourn. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Schmisek
City Auditor

Approved:
___________________________________
Michael R. Brown, Mayor