Print VersionStay Informed
MINUTES/COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 7:00 p.m.______

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Thursday, August 31, 2000 in the council chambers with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 13; absent: Council Member Lunak - 1.

SUSPEND AGENDA AND CONSIDER COMMENTS
AND REQUESTS FROM SENIOR CITIZENS

Council Members Hoff and Brooks moved to suspend the agenda and allow representatives of Senior Citizens to address the council.

Nancy Scherer, Ryan House, 23 North 3rd Street, stated that she uses dial-a-ride service but spoke in support of the bus services for senior citizens.

Alice Hoffert, 2120 9th Avenue North, president of Senior Citizens Center Board of Directors, stated that the request the Senior Citizens Center is making of the City of Grand Forks is for $58,000 in the City’s annual budget in order to retain the current transportation system for the fragile citizens of our city. She stated she has heard from numerous citizens from all ages, and hasn’t heard from a single person who isn’t in favor of this budget request; has heard numerous comments about the kinds and value of the current door to door service that’s maintained by this transportation system, and the great majority of seniors being served would be home-bound and isolated without this service. She stated there has been discussion about the dial-a-ride system for the citizens and that the City does subsidize and the City currently subsidizes the dial-a-ride program at about $3.00/ride; and are estimating that the citizens they supplied transportation to next year will amount to about 18,700 rides and est. approx. 90% would be eligible for dial-a-ride, and if senior citizen transportation system discontinued, and these citizens are forced to move from door to door service to curb to curb service (less service), and that service would cost the City in terms of usage of dial-a-ride about $50,000, and questioned if difference is of enough value that would take citizens and not provide them service or greatly reduce the service from current service; and that she would suggest that the outcome would be the reduced service to seniors again for $2,000 less than the cost of the current request for maintaining the existing service. She stated that it’s not just the seniors who are concerned about this issue, but what about value this city places on the most vulnerable part of its citizenry, and about future potential citizens.

Council Member Martinson asked what reason was for the financial change in their bus system. Ms. Hoffert stated that the change is over-all, part is dramatic loss of seniors since the flood of 1997, the contributions have substantially decreased and availability of seniors to support the program has decreased; that they have undertaken a number of measures to reduce those continuing deficits, including reduction of staff, reduction of existing staff salaries, put a number of things into place to assist them with that.

Jack Frisch, 1335 South 18th Street, spoke re. letter sent out by the City Bus Service, Roger
Page 2 - Committee of the Whole

Foster, Supt., and asked that the council come to good conclusion towards budget for bus service for senior citizens.

Council Member Christensen stated that they have some people here but this is a budget review committee meeting and asked if the $50,000 was included in the budget; that this is the first time it’s been brought before them and appears to have some social issues here as a community, and have to make a business decision as to what level of service we provide this segment of our community, that he’s not against these folks having bus service but shouldn’t approach in a band-aid fashion, should look at level of funding that is required, what we spend on busing in this community and address responsibly, keeping in mind the needs that these folks want this service.

Council Member Gershman stated this issue goes lot deeper than the bus and council wants to help solve this problem but City received response on desk, and suggested that if they could refer this back to the Bus Committee and asked if there was some way to include contingency in the budget so there is funding once they work out a plan, that they have money through September for the bus service, but not prudent to throw some money at it where next year could be in the same situation, but need to solve the problem on a long term basis, to find permanent solution, and would like to hear some suggestions.

The city auditor reported that there is presently nothing in the 2001 budget for funding of the additional senior citizens busing program, and if are going to do that would need to have some revenue stream for it, and if trying to buy some time, having some type of contingency fund that they could draw on by setting aside a portion of that $2.2 million of excess sales tax dollars, otherwise at this point the way the budget is set, he would have to budget for it probably as a transfer from the general fund and add to the mill levy about .72 mills to come up with $58,000; and if set aside as part of a contingency using that as one-time money until make a more educated decision through future discussion, wouldn’t have to do that and have some time to look at the full city services you want to do for 2002, that those are the only solutions he would have at this time, the concern they have is that if you are going to do something for 2001, need to put into the preliminary budget because can’t between the preliminary reading and final reading increase the budget, can decrease; or make a motion on September 5 as an amendment to the preliminary budget.

Council Member Brooks stated that this matter is in the finance committee (for 2000), that in 2001 we can’t increase the budget, and currently do have a contingency budget that we could look to of $200,000 in Miscellaneous, that’s one we could draw from at a later date once they complete things through the finance committee.

Council Member Burke stated that within the next 10 or 12 days a report from a consultant that deals with efficiencies that they have been studying in the transportation system, both bus and dial-a-ride, University and also looking to some extent at the senior bus system, and how we may be able to combine some resources and provide a better result for everyone in the community; that there may be resources within the organization that can be reallocated , not just money but
Page 3 - Committee of the Whole

people, but if we are going to be asked to put City resources on an on-going basis into a private
entity’s operation, will need to be much more competent about how that money is spent, that we dedicate 4 mills of property tax money to public transportation in this community, and would not like to increase it; that if they find a way to use that money efficiently to include the senior bus system or a system that includes transportation for seniors out of that money might be something he would be willing to support, but a separate allocation of $58,000 or any amount on an on-going basis to a transportation system that we do not operate, would not be willing to support for 2001.

Council Member Kreun stated this was never a budgeted item in the council’s budget, that this is a non-profit organization that was designed to help senior citizens and asked if this was a budgeted item at one point in time, and that they were cutting this out of the budget; that this will be an addition to our budget and have to look at that, as there are other programs that are run the same way, and have to look at those before making a commitment.

Several individuals spoke in favor of the senior citizen bus service: Sylvia Saumur, 406 ½ South 6th Street; Deacon Sam Pupino, 1019 18th Avenue South, Loretta Youda, 3415 20th Avenue South.

Mrs. Hoffert stated that they brought this matter before the finance committee of the previous city council, to this council’s finance committee and have met with the director of transportation repeatedly and supplied anything they’ve been asked to do, understand it’s a complicated process but important to understand that they’ve worked with Mr. Foster for an extensive period of time, and continue to do that, that they have been taking part of the consultant’s meetings re. the transportation system for the city and continue to be part of that discussion and reminded of the overall goal of the transit system for the city - that the overall goal is to provide quality public transit service to meet the needs of patrons, not about the social service agency, that we are a city committed to transporting its citizens, not just for those easy to do but those citizens for which a quality transit system is to be provided - a quality public transit system.

Council Member Brooks reported that the previous city council gave money for the interim while we waited to get financial information which they didn’t have, that information was brought after a requested delay on their agenda by the Senior Citizens Center, and this has been put on the agenda for the September meeting.

After considerable discussion by the council, it was moved by Council Member Glassheim and seconded by Council Member Hamerlik that we add $58,000 for the Senior Bus with the understanding that it will be revisited and looked at after the consultant report comes in.

Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Martinson, Hoff, Hamerlik - 7; voting “nay”: Council Members Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Brooks, Bjerke, Burke - 6. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

CONSIDER MATTER OF 2001 BUDGET
Page 4 - Committee of the Whole

The city auditor reported that the Budget Framework Committee had met on the August 28 and 30 and made recommendations for 9 amendments to the budget, and a summary is on the desk to help track that and if want to discuss any in more detail, and read the recommendations, that they would have the opportunity to pull and discuss those, discuss other items in the budget, and then have a recommendation to move the budget forward with any amendments.

Motions from 8/28/00 meeting:
1) The Budget Framework Committee considered the matter of moving money to the Parking Authority and Christensen and Kreun moved to not transfer $50,000 from the former River Forks dollars in the Economic Development to the Parking Authority; motion carried.

2) The Budget Framework Committee considered the matter of looking at setting up a reserve account for the Alerus under Economic Development, Christensen and Kreun moved to amend the budget to allocate $600,000 of the Economic Development budget as a reserve for the Alerus to be reviewed on a monthly basis and returned to Economic Development if not needed, motion carried.

3) The Budget Framework Committee considered the matter of the UND retention and recruitment funding, Gershman and Christensen moved to retain the $100,000 for UND recruitment., motion carried with Bakken and Brooks voting no.

Motions from 8/30/00 meeting:
1) The Budget Framework Committee considered the matter of funding four staff under JDA budget (Account Technician, financial analyst, senior accountant and office clerk), Gershman and Bakken moved approval of four temporary positions for the Urban Development Office; motion carried.

2) The Budget Framework Committee considered the matter of payroll correction to one department, Bakken and Gershman moved approval of the payroll correction in the amount of $69,793 in CDBG Entitlement Administration, motion carried.

3) The Budget Framework Committee considered the matter of an amendment to Building Permits Revenue and Inspections Department, Bakken and Christensen moved to allocate $188,587 and Ms. Collings to show Finance how she can match income with expenditures so we don’t increase our mill levy, motion carried.

4) The Budget Framework Committee considered the matter of corrections to Greenway and Corps recreation fund budgets, Bakken and Kreun moved to delete the Land Restorationist position out of the Greenway Fund and COE Recreation Fund and adjust the overtime to $12,172; motion carried with Brooks voting no. The overall adjustment with the reduction in the permanent positions in the ads of overtime is a net decrease of $43,287.

5) The Budget Framework Committee considered the matter of corrections in sanitation payroll, Christensen and Kreun moved approval of the corrections in the sanitation payroll, motion
Page 5 - Committee of the Whole

carried.

6) The Budget Framework Committee considered the matter of corrections in water distribution and water treatment, Christensen and Kreun moved approval of corrections in the water distribution and water treatment budgets, motion carried.

The city auditor reported that all of these corrections and amendments do not affect the mill levy, do not affect the projected rate increases that were submitted with the original budget.

Mayor Brown asked if any of the items were to be pulled for discussion; the following items were pulled: Council Member Bjerke asked that the item re. UND retention and recruitment funding; Council Member Burke asked that 4) from August 30 be pulled , matter of corrections to Greenway and Corps recreation fund budgets.

Mayor Brown asked for a vote on the other items: all items carried 13 votes affirmative.

3) UND retention and recruitment funding: Council Member Bjerke stated that the impression is that we need to do this for UND, questioned funding State institution, that we have made more than a valid effort to assist UND, put $82 million into a building and one of the main selling points of that building was that it was going to assist in the recruitment and retention of UND students, that there is not going to be any steam heat there from UND, not a UND graduation ceremony there, and $82 million is hefty investment for the citizens to make, that the City gave $1.6 million to the University Village project, another major investment that the citizens of Grand Forks gave to the University of North Dakota, and that we are owed some inspection fees from the UND, and if we can’t eliminate this the second motion he would make is that it would be dropped accordingly to whatever the inspections fees are that haven’t been paid. He stated if a private sector business does not pay its fees, we wouldn’t be talking about giving them money, and moved to reduce the $100,000 down to zero. Council Member Bakken seconded the motion.

Council Member Gershman stated he had heard that graduation would be held at the Alerus, and it is his understanding re. inspection fees, that $16,000 paid today for Barnes & Noble; that they have a legal question - that the other fees tied up with the State - the State of North Dakota does not pay city fees for State buildings. He asked what piece of economic development we do that has a greater and quicker return than this $100,000 to help recruitment - they brought in little over 400 students and nothing we do that comes close to what those students add to our community.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that these 400+ students stay for 4 years+ and this is compounding economic development, and if we deleted this, there is $100,000 more for economic development and not do anything re. our overall budget, as it will come out of sales tax, that isn’t issue here today to reduce sales tax - or give to UND and they will create a lot of interest and bring more people to the University. He stated there was some discussion that even though they can’t commit future councils, it was for a 5-year deal, and urged yes vote because the University has poured a lot of money into that operation.
Page 6 - Committee of the Whole

Council Member Hoff commented on the amount of money that students spend in the community; that we must compete to get those students.

Council Member Babinchak stated that when this commitment was made for 5-years, there was not $100,000 that was set that would be per year, it was a 5-year commitment with no dollar amount attached. The first year it was $100,000 because of the flood, that they asked for money before the Ralph Engelstad Arena appeared, before Barnes & Noble appeared, before the potential commercial development to the north, the Family Practice Center, and thinks they have enough tools to fund it.

Council Member Burke stated that education infrastructure is not there to provide economic benefit to the host community, nice side benefit, but that’s not why the institution exists; that we’re trying to turn this into a mercenary type of economic development tool; there are better reasons to spend money on the University, and the State struggles with that every 2 years; that there’s a limit to what this city can be asked to do, spending money outside the core function of the city.

Bob Gallager, 4904 Rivers Edge Road, Vice President, Finance and Operations at University of North Dakota, stated that he is the individual at the University who has been charged with negotiating with the City and whoever represents the City, their use of the Alerus, and that there has been no decision made to hold or not hold any function at that facility (Alerus), that he is in the process of reviewing system-wide within the University, every function that they use on and off campus to make an honest effort negotiation with the University and City as to what facilities they use at the Alerus facility - that decision has not been made and is a joint effort. He commented on the matter of the permits - there is a distinct difference of opinion on permits, that they delivered a check in the amount of $16,520.25 for services provided by the City, that the Mayor and President are meeting tomorrow to discuss this issue on an on-going basis. He stated there is a difference of opinion around the State who pays what, that in Bismarck the State pays nothing, some other universities pay, that the question was raised to them by the Attorney General, that he has lawyers to tell him what he can or can’t do, that he has a number of permits that are in discussion, and that his president has charged him that we will pay the City for services rendered, that if the City provides inspection services and they don’t provide their own, they will pay for those services; and they are trying to put that on paper - willing to work with the City on it and is a mutual cooperation agreement. He stated that the $100,000 benefits many folks in the city of Grand Forks, it’s paid out of sales tax and they generate a substantial amount of sales tax, and give some of that back. He stated that the major thing on the list of unagreed upon permits and being charged for permits that they haven’t asked for a permit for. He stated it’s an economic benefit to the State and to the community; and that they are willing to negotiate with the City and willing to pay for what they get - and question has to be between others as to what they are getting and what will they pay for.

Mr. Gallager stated that they still have to work out the negotiations on the Alerus.

After further discussion on the matter of payment of fees, Council Member Babinchak stated this
Page 7 - Committee of the Whole

is not the time to be talking about the Alerus contract or about inspection fees, but voting on a motion to deny $100,000 for retention or not, and called for the question.

Dr. Don Piper, 726 Terrace Drive, stated that no matter what happens tonight or in the next few weeks they are very appreciative of what the Grand Forks city council has done in the last couple years to help with retention and recruitment, that while he is hoping that the City will continue with the $100,000 for this coming year, not going to jeopardize relationships with the City in that situation. He stated the support given in the last couple years has been valuable beyond any imagination and that is recognized; that this was mentioned in President Kupchella’s state of the University address. He stated that the money that was given in each of the last two years, that last year with the help of that money they increased the student enrollment by more than 200 students, this year every indication is that with the help of the city council’s contribution again they will increase the enrollment by at least another 400 students. He stated that information from the Economic Development Office that for every in-state resident student the amount that is contributed to the community is approx. $7,500, for every out of state or graduate student, the amount that is contributed is approx. $14,500 into the city in general, that means that the increases in the last two years have brought more than $7 million additional dollars into the Grand Forks economy and the city is reaping a benefit from that. He stated they believe they will have to work very hard to keep up the enrollments in the coming years, that within the State of North Dakota within the next 10 to 12 years, the graduating seniors from ND high schools will decrease by approx. 20%, and the only thing they can do is look to other places, states to bring in the students they need to maintain those enrollments and to grow the enrollments. He stated that with the money given by the City two years ago and this year, those funds did not go into the University budget, that money is kept in a separate fund and is paid out only on the basis of proposals that people bring to them for recruitment and retention, and the guiding principal that the team follows in making that decision, is that it must be a new initiative, and will not spend a penny for on-going recruitment and retention efforts. He stated that he cannot identify one other economic development activity that has brought in as significant amount of money and as instant amount of money as this has, and has a tremendous economic effect.

Upon call for the question on the amendment to the motion and upon roll call vote, the following voted “aye”: Council Members Babinchak, Bakken, Martinson, Bjerke, Burke - 5; voting “nay”: Council Members Gershman Christensen, Klave, Kreun, Brooks, Hoff, Hamerlik, Glassheim - 9. Mayor Brown declared the motion failed.

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik that the council adopt the recommendation from the Budget Framework Committee; seconded by Council Member Hoff.

It was moved by Council Member Burke and seconded by Council Member Bjerke to amend the motion to reduce the amount to $50,000. Upon voice vote, the motion failed.

Upon call for the question on the original motion and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Council Members Christensen, Klave, Kreun, Brooks, Hoff, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman - 8; voting “nay”: Council Members Babinchak, Bakken, Martinson, Bjerke, Burke - 5. Mayor
Page 8 - Committee of the Whole

Brown declared the motion carried.

COUNCIL MEMBERS MARTINSON, HAMERLIK,
GERSHMAN AND HOFF EXCUSED

CONSIDER MATTER OF CORRECTIONS TO GREENWAY
AND CORPS RECREATION FUND BUDGETS

4) The Budget Framework Committee considered the matter of corrections to Greenway and Corps recreation fund budgets, Bakken and Kreun moved to delete the Land Restorationist position out of the Greenway Fund and COE Recreation Fund and adjust the overtime to $12,172; motion carried with Brooks voting no. The overall adjustment with the reduction in the permanent positions in the ads of overtime is a net decrease of $43,287.

Council Member Burke stated his point would be to reduce the amount of the position and not add in any compensatory overtime. It was moved by Council Member Burke to remove the additional overtime; Council Member Christensen seconded the motion.

COUNCIL MEMBERS GERSHMAN AND MARTINSON
REPORTED BACK

C. Grotte, asst. city engineer, reported that when they originally put together the budgets they had anticipated they would have a land restorationist and spend about 30% of their time working with recreation features and remainder of time working on the greenway functions, and with the loss of that felt that along with the current amount of overtime with the 3 people they have and would need more overtime to cover the loss of that one position and that’s why they asked for the increase; that this isn’t out of the General Fund and been unable to fill 1 position in this overall area, flood protection part, and have been working some overtime, and feel it is needed.

COUNCIL MEMBERS HAMERLIK AND HOFF REPORTED
BACK

Council Member Babinchak noted that this would reduce amount by about $4300; that if talking about 2 hours per week, not unreasonable.

After further discussion and upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion failed.

Upon call for the question on the original motion and upon voice vote, the motion carried 13 votes affirmative.

COUNCIL MEMBER BJERKE EXCUSED

Council Member Christensen questioned Fund 2163 Economic Development, withdrew $50,000 transfer to the Downtown, and what’s transfer to Greenway Authority, $50,000. The city auditor
Page 9 - Committee of the Whole

stated that when the $100,000 that originally went to River Forks came back into the City because River Forks has gone away, believes the recommendation at that time was to take $50,000 and transfer it to the Parking Authority and the hope was that $50,000 would go towards assisting in costs of the Greenway development. Council Member Christensen stated that we have an entry where there was going to be a transfer of $50,000 from Economic Development Fund to the Greenway, that the Greenway is being funded by the specials and were able to take $50,000 out of Economic Development and move it back into limbo, and recommended that we delete that transfer in Economic Development of $50,000 to the Greenway so have that in suspense, so have this money available for special projects and events. Council Member Glassheim seconded the motion.

COUNCIL MEMBER HAMERLIK OUT

After some discussion and upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 11 votes affirmative; Council Member Hoff voted against the motion.

CONSIDER NEW BUSINESS

Council Member Burke moved to delete from the City Hall budget the security guard line item and reduce the mill levy by a corresponding amount. Council Member Babinchak seconded the motion for discussion.

Mayor Brown stated he feels very strongly about the security guard position in City Hall and that’s why it’s in his budget.

The city auditor reported that the security guard does report incidents to them and can give copies of two reports in the last three weeks where they have had irate people come in yelling at individuals in utility billing area and confronting personnel in that office and security guard went over and settled the situation. Council Member Klave stated that this body makes a lot of decisions, some of those decisions are not considered favorable by some people, and take frustrations out on city employees, and recommended that position stay there.

COUNCIL MEMBER HAMERLIK REPORTED BACK

Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 12 votes affirmative.

COUNCIL MEMBER BJERKE REPORTED BACK

Council Member Burke moved to amend the Mayor’s Office budget to reduce the Information Office functions to include only the video and web page and to have the person providing that function report to the Mayor’s assistant and to reduce the mill levy by a corresponding amount of the reduction in dollars spent. The motion died for lack of a second.

Council Member Bjerke stated that under Base Retention they spent $50,000 last year, and on

Page 10

this year’s budget, it’s cash carryover, and not spend anything because nothing is listed as being
projected to be spent. The city auditor stated that the anticipation is to use cash carryover and that doesn’t mean that an item won’t be expended, but would have to approve a budget amendment to do that.

Council Member Bjerke stated that on the Public Information Office the two full-time people, will they be considered permanent civil service people or temporary. The city auditor reported that all the new personnel in the budget at this point are in a temporary position until there would be a recommendation to classify them, at the discretion of the mayor and council. He stated they put the new positions on a temporary basis to allow you to start the 2002 budget process and consider those whether end up being permanent or not.

Council Member Bjerke stated he finds it odd that we fund the Grand Forks Historical Society when they’ve cost taxpayers of this city and country literally hundreds of thousands of dollars, and moved that we delete that and go from $25,000 to zero. Council Member Bakken seconded the motion.

Council Member Glassheim stated that there is a City Historical Commission and there is a State Historical Commission, that the State is backed by the full power of federal law, and the fact that we have a City Historical Society making recommendations which on the whole have been more reasonable than the State’s would have been, has been to our advantage and saved us money. He stated that the fact that the City Historical Society exists and for small amount of money to help them to exist has helped the city of Grand Forks because if they want a solution less stringent than the State, that gives us some standing, otherwise the City vs. the State Historical Commission.

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

Council Member Bjerke stated that on June 3, 1975 ballot stating that we are not to levy a tax not in excess of 4 mills for the public transportation system and in our current budget we have 4.78 mills dedicated to the public transportation system, that Mr. Swanson stated that there were some increases allowed, and on the meeting on September 5 if they could have a ruling if the 4.78 mills were in excess of what they voted for or if allowable. Mayor Brown stated that Mr. Swanson is so charged.

Council Member Bjerke presented the matter that the city council in 1999 gave some raises to 8 employees, that’s a council action that’s now carried over into this budget, that the city auditor is one of them but not referred to him, but as far as the other employees are concerned in this budget, are those raises still included, and if those raises were intended to be permanent or temporary solution. The city auditor stated that they are included and would be a permanent
Page 11 - Committee of the Whole

solution.

Council Member Hamerlik stated he asked the question about Mr. Gordon’s memorandum to the attorney, 5 questions, and that was specifically mentioned in there - if permanent or temporary, and Mr. Swanson indicated that they were temporary, thinks it should be permanent but because of what the attorney has ruled, can’t make that assumption; and asked for some elaboration on that because he understands it to be temporary.

Mr. Swanson stated that he did write a memo earlier this year in response to an inquiry from the HR Department and based upon the Civil Service Code he found no provision in it that the market adjustment was made to be a permanent salary indication, and the reason for that is that positions are paid based upon classification not on individual positions, the market adjustments that he read in the minutes were allocated to specific positions and stated in his memo that if intended to make them permanent, the manner in doing that is to adjust the classification band as opposed to targeting. The effect of that is that any position within that band within that class also would receive the benefit of that increase in the class pay; that they have the ability to amend the Code to make market adjustments permanent and on a position basis, have the ability to revise the Code with respect to classifications, but as it exists right now based upon the present Code, the opinion he rendered is valid and supportable opinion, and is an adjustment to a position under market analysis or market adjustment is a temporary one intended to reflect the period of time that market adjustment is necessary, and could be acted upon by council on a periodic or regular basis.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that some of those 8 positions, about $60,000, and in the market analysis some of them are over the market now.

Dan Gordon, Human Resources, stated that because of the length of the market analysis, the prior council entered into this agreement understanding that the market analysis would be done soon, and to make these potential marketing increases that they did give those 8 people permanent - that because of the length of time that wasn’t done; however, at the last city council meeting they passed a motion for the Civil Service Commission to look at these at risk positions with the Civil Service Commission to report back to council on what they feel is the proper plan to make permanent decisions on certain positions; and that will be reported back within the next 60 days for the permanency of this and there may be other positions added to it.

Council Member Bjerke stated there was mention of a grant writer, and wants us to be careful when it comes to grants - that if we create new programs with grant money, will get people addicted to more government programs and when the grant money runs out, they will ask us to fund them through sales and property taxes, and would attempt to get existing programs funded or temporary vs. creating a lot of new programs. He thanked the city auditor and the workers on the city budget, and that there is only one elected body in this town that does it’s budget proposal in the open and that is the City of Grand Forks, and would challenge the County, the Park and School to start having some public comment on their budget, and asked media why they are not covering them, and that Grand Forks County is approx. 28% higher in mill levy rate than the
Page 12 - Committee of the Whole

other 3 major counties in the State of North Dakota. He made several comments on the budget in general - that the City had some extra carryover to spend and it was appropriate to spend that money and if have a problem with deficit spending, vote no. He stated we have a potential to find more savings and will work to look for them - that if a very minority amount of citizens are receiving a service the question needs to be asked, should you be paying a user fee vs. asking the entire city to pay for that service - need to look at some of our services and ask if the private sector can do them and is this the role of the government. He stated they should as when go into the future, continue to look at providing the basic services efficiently.

Council Member Brooks stated that he has some real concerns about what’s in this budget now - NRO positions, but don’t have dollars for that; not in favor of the $100,000 to the UND, not happy about the $25,000 to the Historic Preservation Society, nor about the Human Resource position, but that pales itself when he looks at the process they’ve been through and what has happened to the budget - and that he would support the budget the way it is. He stated a 10 mill reduction is a real start and is enough for now, and will support the budget; that this budget is a plan for providing services to the citizens within their financial constraints and need to monitor this budget so don’t have to tap reserves.

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and Brooks to recommend approval of the preliminary budget, as amended. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Kreun, Martinson, Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman Christensen, Klave - 10; voting “nay”: Council Members Babinchak, Bakken, Glassheim - 3. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

Mayor Brown stated that the way for citizens to bring new business to the council is to bring items to your council representative and he can bring it up under new business portion of the council meetings.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Bjerke and seconded by Council Member Kreun to adjourn. Carried 12 votes affirmative; Council Member Hoff voted against the motion.

Respectfully submitted,



John M. Schmisek
City Auditor