City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us

17551
May 7, 2001

PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
May 7, 2001

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, May 7, 2001 at the hour of 7:00 o’clock p.m. with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun - 12; absent: Council Members Lunak, Martinson - 2.

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

Mayor Brown read a communication from Congressman Earl Pomeroy which was received April 30, 2001, stating that as he watched the communities on the Mississippi fight the floods that he reflects on how fortunate we are in North Dakota to have the outstanding local leadership we have in our flood prone cities. Congratulations on the successful fight you led this year on behalf of your community. As always it was his pleasure to work with you and he looks forward to future collaboration on issues more lasting than temporary dikes. Sincerely, Earl Pomeroy.

Mayor Brown announced that Bev Collings, Inspections Department, has been recognized for her efforts in the floodplain management which has resulted in 5% additional savings in the flood insurance rates for the entire community; that Ms. Collings has spearheaded this effort for many years and has resulted in one of the best ratings in the entire country. Ms. Collings, Inspections Department, stated she didn’t accomplish this by herself and recognized the people in the department and other departments that have helped in getting this rating and that it is a total effort by the City to achieve that. She stated that the community rating system is a program that was developed by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to encourage communities to inform their citizens about floodplain issues and to educate them, that much of the program is education, public relations and keeping information so that the public has a place to go for the information.

Mayor Brown read a letter of appreciation from Joe Albaugh, FEMA Director, thanking him and the council for making his visit to Grand Forks so informative, that he has a greater understanding of the issues that face those affected by the floods and his intention is to solve the outstanding issues as quickly as possible; and continued cooperation will be appreciated.

Mayor Brown presented plaque to former council member Laverne Babinchak, Ward 6, in appreciation of her years of dedicated service as a member of the Grand Forks city council, June, 1994 to January, 2001. He thanked her personally as well as mayor for all that she did during those years of service. Ms. Babinchak thanked the mayor and current council members and also thanked the former mayors that she worked with, former council members, constituents who supported her and the city employees.

ADOPT RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING CONTINUED
AMTRAK SERVICE ON NORTH DAKOTA’S NORTHERN
ROUTE

The deputy city auditor read the proposed resolution encouraging continued Amtrak service on North Dakota’s northern route: Document No. 8073 - Resolution.
It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Gershman to pass this resolution unanimously encouraging Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railway to work with State and Federal governments to develop a solution to continue passenger service on the northern route. Carried 12 votes affirmative.

Mayor Brown asked that three city council members to serve on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Amtrak task force, that Council Member Lunak has offered to serve on this along with two staff members, the city engineer and the city planner, and asked to let his office know by Wednesday.

FLOOD REPORT

Al Grasser, city engineer, reviewed the May 7 flood update and this is the permanent flood protection plan:

Technical Work Update:
Through the Corps of Engineers Stanley Consultants has completed the Phase I levee plans and specifications, the Corps will be advertising for that project this month.
English Coulee Diversion project was scheduled for May 10 bid opening but will be delayed for about one week while work continues on land acquisition and plan updates.
Ayres Associates is a subcontractor for the Corps and are working on the design of the English Coulee pumping station to be constructed north of RDO Foods, design was delayed due to moving of the pump station because of geotechnical reasons, the revised right of way drawings have been received and appraisals are underway and expect the station to be operational by spring of 2003 for runoff period.
Quality Flow is a pump contractor (pumps for pumping stations in the flood protection project) and will begin shipment of pumps in July, September completion. The generator supply contract has been executed and will provide emergency generators at those stations. The Corps is negotiating with ICS as a sole source contractor to provide the control packages, process where the remote stations will communi-cate back to the water treatment plant, and network has to fit within our current communications system.
The North Dakota Department of Health has approved the plans and specs. for the new water intake, this project will not be operational until 2003, bids will be let upon receiving an easement from East Grand Forks to reach out to the Red Lake River intakes.

City Staff Update:
The construction is still underway on Lift Stations 1 and 5, Lincoln Park area and near St. Anne’s Guest Home, overall construction about 50% complete.
Bids were opened on April 16 for the contract to terminate and reroute water and sanitary sewer mains on the dry side of the levee in Phase I areas; award scheduled for this evening’s meeting, it’s a City responsibility to be doing the utility relocates prior to the Corps contractor coming in.
Removal of streets and utilities in Riverside and Lincoln areas was contracted with Gowan Construction, the streets have been removed in Riverside area; the street removal in Lincoln Park area is expected to begin in May but will ask the contractor to delay some of the street removal in Lincoln Park area pending review of the timing sequence on the Corps Phase I project, because they found in this year’s flood fight it was very useful to have a borrow pit that was accessible at high water levels and want to make sure that we have that available for spring flood fight until 2002.
He stated that on the federal level the fiscal year 2002 is currently in the House Appropriations Committee, budget contains $25 million, which is $10 million less than desired by both cities, our Congressional delegations are working on trying to get the $10 million back into the budget.
Acquisitions: Staff is involved with project acquisitions as is the city attorney’s staff, are trying to field a lot of questions as get down to final moments of acquisition from property owners, that accelerated schedule is not giving people a lot of time to consider the sales options and because of our time crunches with the bidding process, are moving into eminent domain with a number of these properties.

Phase II: He stated they are working on that project, there are eight homes needed with this phase along with twenty partial acquisitions, several previously purchased homes in this area have been sold and four more sold on May 2, hoping that will have the purchased houses removed by this fall, through the property owner moving the house or through property demolition - to get everything ready for the Corps project which will start next spring; that utility relocates being the City’s responsibility, will be relocating utilities in those areas this fall.

Southend Update: The Barr Phase II study for the southeast levee alignment alternative was received on March 27 and has been distributed; a meeting of staff, Sr. leadership and County reps. was held on April 25, and upon receipt of comments from the regulatory agencies, the options that can potentially be implemented will be determined and decision process will continue. He stated that means that some of the alternative alignments on the far southend do show some hydraulic impacts to the river and need to be dealing with DNR, State Water Commission to determine what impacts they will allow as the regulatory agencies that may indicate to us whether some alternatives are in fact viable or not.
He stated they are investigating some additional floodwall options and working with some of the property owners on the amenities on the southend alignments and actually the floodwall options will be applicable to both Sunbeam area, Reeves Drive area and the northend area, and trying to bring more alternatives for the citizens to look at, that they are planning to have the Corps come in early July to do presentations on the floodwall alternatives they’ve worked up with their landscape designer.

Council Member Christensen stated he had talked with Mr. Grasser regarding asking someone from the Corps who is experienced in designing floodwalls to be available to the residents who are asked to give opinions regarding the type of floodwall they want - that residents may design floodwalls that may have an expanse of close to a mile in the city, concrete edifices, and that if the Corps is going to give a presentation in July with only three choices - and it seems to him as they have $6.5 million for enhancements and the Corps is paying for the architect for the floodwalls and that our community should make some of our resources available so that people who are asked to make a decision on the three floodwalls that are presented by the Corps probably have some input between now and July so they have proper perspective - that there are maybe 50 different types of floodwall designs they could pursue, and if we have to allocate $30,000 to hire our own landscape architect to assist our residents in this process, would like to do that sooner so that we have this information available so citizens will have some help in making those decisions.

Council Member Gershman stated there was a meeting with the architects from the Corps with the neighborhoods affected, and each neighborhood does have a book of the types of things we can do but there was also an offer made that we could design our own on a certain reach - that we have the ability to design our own walls, but that they don’t want to have 30 different sections of walls, and there have been meetings in various neighborhoods. Council Member Christensen stated that he is suggesting that staff secure more information available to the citizens so they are better informed as to what their selections are before confronted with the three choices the Corps is going to give them in July. Mr. Grasser stated that what they are working on now accomplishes those goals, doing some research to find out if they can put together a catalogue or scrapbook of different alternative things that have been done, that he went through some of the information they have in the office and citizenry needs some pictures of what designs look like in place and their office will try to help facilitate some of that and get done in an efficient cost effective manner, and do understand that there’s some expediency needed here. He stated their plan is to make these options available so people can review.

Melanie Parvey-Biby, Interim Greenway Coordinator, stated that the council does receive a Greenway Update every month in addition to the Flood Protection Update, and reviewed a more detailed description of the Nature Center and the planning efforts that have been done to date. She stated that the Nature Center is included in the Greenway Plan, which was approved by council in December, 1999. It is a conceptual plan that includes ideas of amenities that could be included in the Greenway - location of the Nature Center is proposed in the south part of Grand Forks near the Belmont Coulee (north of Sunbeam Park). She stated that the Greenway will be developed along with the flood protection project and the Nature Center is in the section of the Greenway that is part of Phase II levee development. Since Phase II levee construction is planned for 2002-2003, design for this is underway for the levees and the recreation features in this area; the recreational features in this area include a trail head facility which is a restroom and a parking lot, if a nature center would be added to this area Corps could possibly cost share on the restroom and the parking lot facility so there is some advantage to adding it now. In February staff put together a group of technical advisors to see the merits of whether or not it was possible to put a nature center in Grand Forks and to see what resources various organizations could contribute. Some of the ideas this group came up with are listed in the update, and potential users include very young children to very old adults , school children, local residents, disabled, tourists and our future generations. She stated some of the facility options that came about out of discussions with the technical group included a one or two story building with offices, meeting rooms, restrooms, a possible observation deck since this building would be near the flood protection levee system, having an ADA accessibility multi-purpose classroom with a divider, some of the other amenities that were listed under this area included indoor/outdoor exhibits, interactive self interpretive panels, outdoor theatres or classrooms and computer terminal accessibility. Another thing that was identified that would be important to include was transportation as part of the operations budget which could be cost-shared with other centers in the area such as the Minnesota DNR Center that will be going up in East Grand Forks. School teachers expressed concern for the transportation because they are only allowed one field trip a year, which prohibits using facilities like this over and over again. This group also talked about possible programming that this facility could have, and programming dependent upon size of the building and will determine how many people will visit this type of center (classrooms for school children, community center).

Some of the other things that came out of the planning meetings included partnership possibilities, the City of Grand Forks could provide the site and facility along with the recreational amenities, the Audubon Society expressed interest in partnering with the City for on-going operations and maintenance along with a full-time staff at the Center. Dakota Science Center expressed interest in using the center and helping to program it, also ND Game & Fish, Soil Conservation District - ND Game & Fish is currently looking at placing an outreach biologist in this area, and this person would work on education and public relations, the center could possibly provide offices for agencies that wanted to place staff in this area.

She stated that the next phase on nature center planning is to put together a couple public meetings to discuss these ideas with the community and the neighborhood; the first meeting is tentatively set for May 17, with another meeting following in July - during this time they would need to get letters of commitment from possible agencies that would be willing to partner along with council involvement, there would need to be a commitment or authorization from the council to include this type of center along with Phase II development of the greenway project.

Council Member Burke stated that authorization of the council to include the nature center with Phase II development August 6, 2001 - what would we have to decide at that point, to go ahead with the whole project or allow for the ground to be prepared for potential nature center. Ms. Parvey-Biby stated either, to have the nature center to include additional building with the trailhead facility would be a betterment so the council would need to approve that - so would have to go with whole project (nature center) by August of this year. Council Member Burke asked if they would have commitments of funding and operations money from the various entities by then. Ms. Parvey-Biby stated the plan was to obtain commitment from these agencies that they are willing to continue to partner, that there could be a chance to include the nature center at a later date, but to enable use of Corps funding with these recreational features would have to be included with the Phase II development and design. She stated that hopefully the commitments would be made before the commitment of the council.

Council Member Glassheim asked if there would be further updates on what we are talking about, how much and likelihood of other participation. Ms. Biby stated there would be updates along with the planning process and community involvement.

Mr. Grasser stated that the August date isn’t the last opportunity to comment on this, but it’s a milepost where we have to authorize that they start expending the funds to do the design and bidding, but we will still have the option when the bidding is done to break out those bids and review before doing a final award.

Council Member Burke stated that the capital costs are only part of his concern, to construct a building and not know what it’s going to cost to operate it, or staff it, or who’s going to do it, or relationships are going to be in any certain way - understands that people may give letters of support but we could end up with a building and we become the programmer of it, staff it, and becomes an on-going cost - and that’s his real concern.

Council Member Klave asked how large an area would be notified for these public meetings, that all residents understand what’s happening. Ms. Biby stated the area they identified for notification was south of 32nd and east of Belmont Road to 49th, and an area south of Terrace Drive - notification will be put in the paper and notices to the media to let community know. Council Member Klave suggested going east of Cherry Street and include SunBeam in that notification area.

Council Member Christensen stated he reviewed the minutes of past meetings, that people are talking that it’s going to have educational value and commitment, and that a lot of people coming to the meetings are teachers and touted as an educational experience for our children, and would be interested in seeing the School District step up and make a commitment to the funding and staffing of this so that it would be a jointly owned project and/or a jointly funded and staff project going forward so that it isn’t something that falls back in our lap two or three years from now, or the Audubon can’t fund it - and he would be very interested in making sure that we know who is going to staff it, because it appears we’re moving towards a full time staff person or two and still have to fund it which equates to one mill and would like to make sure we have a good handle sooner of what costs of maintaining and operating this would be and asked that they have that to us as early as July 1, as well as what kind of commitments we’re going to get from other entities in this community - and questioned involvement from Park District. Ms. Biby stated the Park District staff was invited to the meetings, although in discussions with staff, the Park Superintendent stated they had a good group of people put together to discuss the matter. Council Member Christensen stated that as they approach these betterments, understand what it is going to cost us going forward and who is going to pay.
ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3884, RELATING TO USE
OF PUBLIC SEWERS

An ordinance entitled “An ordinance amending Section 15-0204 of the Grand Forks City Code relating to use of public sewers”, which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on April 16, 2001, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.

Upon call for the question and upon roll call vote the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun - 12; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the ordinance adopted.

ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3885, RELATING TO APPEAL
FROM DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION

An ordinance entitled “An ordinance amending Section 18-0311(10) of the Grand Forks City Code heretofore effective relating to appeal from Downtown Design Review Board action”, which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on April 2, 2001, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.

Council Member Glassheim stated that if the city council does become the board of hearing of last resort that they will try to put on more of a planning hat than a political hat, that the point of putting them into planning was so that the well-being of the whole look of the downtown would be considered and not any individual property owner having too much weight, and if things do come up that the council will treat it as trying to do the best for the whole downtown. Council Member Kreun noted that there were other city council members on that particular board because it was stated that it was not being represented by elected officials, but Planning and Zoning Commission is made up of Park Board people, School Board, County Commissioners and city council members, and majority of that board is made up by elected officials.

Upon call for the question and upon roll call vote he following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun - 12; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the ordinance adopted.

APPROVE APPLICATIONS FOR ABATEMENT OF 1999
AND 2000 TAXES AT 815 DUKE DRIVE, #105

The staff recommendation from the assessor’s office relating to applications for abatement for 1999 and 2000 taxes by John Hoffman, 815 Duke Drive, Unit #5, with recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that the applications be approved as submitted.

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this recommendation be and is hereby approved, and further that we adopt the findings, conclusions and recommendations as prepared by the city attorney. Carried 12 votes affirmative.

APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT

The staff recommendation from the assessor’s office relating to budget amendment, transfer from cash carryover in Temporary Wages in Assessing Department, with recommendation to approve budget amendment of $12,056.80. It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 12 votes affirmative.

APPROVE APPLICATION FOR MOVING PERMIT TO
MOVE HOUSE FROM 207 HUGHES COURT TO 561
EVERGREEN DRIVE

The staff recommendation from the building inspections office relating to moving permit application to move the house from 207 Hughes Court to 561 Evergreen Drive, with recommendation to hold the public hearing on the issue of moving a house from 207 Hughes Court to 561 Evergreen Drive.

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

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this recommendation be and is hereby approved and further that the applicant, Robert Kvistad, be and is hereby authorized to move the building, subject to meeting conditions established. Carried 12 votes affirmative.

APPROVE APPLICATION FOR MOVING PERMIT TO
MOVE HOUSE FROM 203 HUGHES COURT TO 573
EVERGREEN DRIVE

The staff recommendation from the building inspections office relating to moving permit application to move the house from 203 Hughes Court to 573 Evergreen Drive, with recommendation to hold the public hearing on the issue of moving a house from 203 Hughes Court to 573 Evergreen Drive.

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

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this recommendation be and is hereby approved and further that the applicant, Rick Vari, be and is hereby authorized to move the building, subject to meeting conditions established. Carried 12 votes affirmative.

APPROVE APPLICATION FOR MOVING PERMIT TO
MOVE HOUSE FROM 109 GRASSY HILLS TO 2401 SOUTH
36TH STREET

The staff recommendation of the building inspections office relating to moving permit application to move the house from 109 Grassy Hills to 2401 South 36th Street, with recommendation to hold the public hearing on the issue of moving a house from 109 Grassy Hills to 2401 South 36th Street.

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

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this recommendation be and is hereby approved and further that the applicant, Wally Rogers, be and is hereby authorized to move the building, subject to meeting conditions established. Carried 12 votes affirmative.
APPROVE APPLICATION FOR MOVING PERMIT TO
MOVE HOUSE FROM 4619 LOAMY HILLS TO 3675
SOUTH 38TH STREET

The staff recommendation from the building inspections office relating to moving permit application to move the house from 4619 Loamy Hills to 3675 South 38th Street, with recommendation to hold the public hearing on the issue of moving a house from 4619 Loamy Hills to 2675 South 38th Street.

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

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this recommendation be and is hereby approved and further that the applicant, Wally Rogers, be and is hereby authorized to move the building, subject to meeting conditions established. Carried 12 votes affirmative.

AWARD BIDS FOR CITY PROJECTS NOS. 4815 AND
4816.1, SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SYSTEM
MODIFICATIONS

The staff recommendation from the engineering department relating to consideration of bids for City Project Nos. 4815 and 4816.1, Sanitary Sewer and Water System Modifications, with recommendation to approve award of a contract to the lowest responsible bidder from bid opening on April 16, 2001 at 2:00 p.m. at City Hall.

A communication from Webster, Foster & Weston, consulting engineers, relative to Sanitary Sewer and Water System Modifications, Projects Nos. 4815 and 4816.1, including a tabulation of bids received, and recommending that a unit price contract be awarded to United Crane & Excavation, Inc. in the amount of $209,771.59, as the lowest responsible responsive bid.

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this recommendation be and is hereby approved, and that the unit price contract be awarded to United Crane & Excavation, Inc. in the amount of $209,771.59. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun - 12; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

ACCEPT LOW BIDS FOR EQUIPMENT FOR STREET
DEPARTMENT

The staff recommendation from public works relating to matter of approval of bid on emulsion tank, with recommendation to approve Northwestern Equipment, Inc. bid of $9,900.00 as the lowest and best bid.

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this recommendation be and is hereby approved, and that the bid of Northwestern Equipment, Inc. in the amount of $9,900.00 be accepted. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun - 12; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

The staff recommendation from public works relating to matter of approval of bid for melter/applicator, with recommendation to approve the Swanston Equipment Corporation bid of $26,775.00 as the lowest and best bid.

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this recommendation be and is hereby approved, and that the bid of Swanston Equipment Corporation in the amount of $26,775.00 be accepted. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun - 12; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

The staff recommendation from the public works department relating to the matter of approval of bid on the 4 yd. payloader, with recommendation to not open the bid of RDO Equipment Company due to the failure to acknowledge Addendum #1 on the front of the bid envelope or include a signed copy of the Addendum in the bid bond envelope; and to approve the Butler Machinery Company bid as the lowest and best bid with an annual cost of $22,939.00.

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this recommendation be and is hereby approved, and to accept the bid of Butler Machinery Company with an annual cost of $22,939.00. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun - 12; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR HEALTH
DEPARTMENT

A staff recommendation from the health department relating to budget amendment (HL10, $5,000, 4/17/01) for Communicable Disease Grant with the North Dakota Department of Health, with recommendation to approve the budget amendment ($5,000) for Communicable Disease Grant (#F01-42) with the North Dakota Department of Health (new 2001 revenue).

A staff recommendation from the health department relating to budget amendment (HL15, $7,042, 4/16/01, 2000 Cash Carryover) for the Community Initiative Grant Program, with recommendation to approve budget amendment ($7,042) for the Community Initiative Grant Program.

A staff recommendation from the health department relating to budget amendment (HL25, $10,000, 4/16/01, Technical Correction) for the Care Coordination Grant Program, with recommendation to approve the budget amendment ($10,000) for the Care Coordination Grant Program.

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Kerian that these budget amendments be and are hereby approved. Carried 12 votes affirmative.

REJECT APPLICATION FOR PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION
BY AUTO WORLD, 210 NORTH WASHINGTON STREET

A staff recommendation from the assessing department relating to application for property tax exemption by Auto World at 210 North Washington Street (new or expanding business), with recommendation to consider feasibility of such an exemption, and if plans are to go forward, then set a date for public hearing.
It was moved by Council Member Bjerke and seconded by Council Member Stevens to reject the application and request for property tax exemption by Auto World at 210 North Washington Street. Carried 12 votes affirmative.

TABLE 2-YEAR PROPERTY TAX EXEPTION FOR NEW
HOUSING

A staff recommendation from the assessing department relating to 2-year property tax exemption for new homes, with recommendation to consider the implementation of 2-year new home exemption.

Council Member Burke stated they had received a lot of material in support of the exemption, most of it speaks to the economic development from building homes, but that he hasn’t seen anything that actually explains how effective this incentive is in creating new home construction; that it simply addresses the fact that if we build so many homes this will be the economic impact, and asked how the tax abatement would actually generate additional new home construction.

Council Member Kreun stated he thinks we should look at this from perspective of home ownership, Grand Forks has low home ownership, some of that is due to University area; that he brought this up because it could be one of the tools for building homes and community back to the numbers we need. He stated we have current programs - 3 at this particular time, and another 5 listed as proposed programs and that group of people should put together (2 from School District, 2 from Park District and 2 from city council) to see if can bring these together in a complete package as to what we can offer to the citizens of Grand Forks and people outside the community. He noted that for low to moderate owner/occupied households, Home Buyer’s Assistance program (LMI as well): Home Buyer’s Assistance for non-LMI families and was thinking could go from 80 to 120% of median income level, and work with Mr. Hanson and Mark Krauseneck as to how to fund some of these programs. He noted we have in-fill housing program and could use lots owned by the City and utilize the existing infrastructure that is already there and utilize that for down-payment or less cost if non-profit homeowner or a developer or however that wants to be designed; that he listed the home buyer tax abatement program so there are a list of items that are proposed. He noted that there are previous programs that we’ve had and maybe want to implement some of those - want to offer a variety of programs so that it can take pre-existing homeowners, pre-owned homes and utilize those so that have a complete spectrum of our community. He stated that the EDC is out marketing jobs on the web site and if we put a package together as far as marketing homes along with jobs on web site we could put together a complete package for Grand Forks to entice people to move here for jobs as well as homeownership. He stated that the new home tax exemption is a tool in the toolbox to use and would like to start that at this time but to put together a complete program at some point in time.

Doug Carpenter, 1260 Burbank Circle, stated disappointment at the lack of opportunity for public discussion in advance about this issue, that it was talked briefly at the last committee of the whole meeting but the general public didn’t know it as committee of the whole agendas aren’t published. He stated he is opposed to a general 2-year property tax exemption, thinks it’s an inefficient way of enticing growth, that most of the people that take advantage of it would be building anyway; no evidence that it is effective, one of the predominant things that make people determine if build a house is interest rates, that’s a permanent reduction if rates are low. He stated he doesn’t think this does anything for affordable housing if it’s a general across the board exemption; that there are a lot of lesser priced homes on the market right now. He stated he thinks there should be some discussion and potential support for a program that allows an exemption for somebody that moves to the community, want to attract people to Grand Forks for jobs, want to grow the community, program that might be in place for them and see actual results - could make that exemption available if somebody buys an existing house, and something that could get people here if they could help support the moving costs by not having to pay taxes for a couple years - drawback is money coming out of the budget that’s existing today and may have to have legislative approval - and those are issues that should have been talked about before the legislative session and if serious about attracting new people should be having a public discussion. He stated there is discussion about affordable housing and if want to talk about a tax exemption for “affordable” houses maybe the exemption should be limited to $125,000 or less to actually encourage growth in that area, and make more houses available that people can get out of apartments. He stated in the area he lives in, there are 8 basements that have been dug this spring, new houses are going up, basements are being poured, and asked if this is needed. He stated if they put this program in place put a sunset provision on it - it actually is an incentive and if leave it there all the time it becomes factored into the cost and no longer an incentive - shouldn’t be retroactive - and thinks this program is something that interferes with the market place and inefficient and shouldn’t have it - and if a program should be limited to who the availability is to it.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that they talked about affordable housing, have had study and should look at it and then put a package together, not in favor of piecemeal , but should have a plan and if enough items in the program, might be saleable. He stated that in receiving calls and people talking to him, no one in favor of the program except home builders and real estate people. He commented on the current number of houses on the market in the city - one way to get housing down is come down in price and if we build more homes will have another glut, that we were accused of that with Congressional; that he thinks the majority of people in apartments are not going to go out and build $150,000, $200,000 houses but more apt to move into one of the 310 houses for sale and that of the 310 houses there should be enough for people who want to move to Grand Forks, it isn’t as though we don’t have housing, it’s either the price or our tax structure, etc. and if encourage people to move in, a $5,000 incentive will be of some help, but have a package that they can modify or presentable motion that we can see what we’re going to do.

Council Member Gershman stated that he is in favor of this, that people who would get exemption would reinvest that money in their home , buy something else for it (carpet, increase value of their home). He stated that if approve program, that homes would qualify at completion date; and agrees with sunset on the program - do for five years and quantify what we’re doing.

Council Member Brooks addressed this item from the podium - stated that at the committee of the whole meeting discussion brought out that we needed this program to compete with East Grand Forks, Thompson and small cities around, that he doesn’t think he has a conflict of interest but because of that he will ask to abstain from vote on this - but as a citizen wants to address it - that he thinks that Grand Forks is a leader in our metropolitan area and taking this action with reasons publicly stated because we’re competing with the small towns around us, everyone who moves to these small towns helps bring up the economy of Grand Forks and that we need their economic input to survive in this metropolitan area - but we need to be looking at bringing businesses in, not going to bring people here to retire - people who come here to buy a house come here because of a job, and need to look at economic development for this town, and need to put that together - then look at housing and total picture.

Council Member Kreun stated we are not just talking affordable housing, want to create an atmosphere for all citizens of Grand Forks, that interest rates haven’t been spurring home building and has to be something else that does that, want to supply programs for every entity and also think supply and demand will dictate to building, this is just an incentive; and that he doesn’t think we’re competing with other communities but is an offering that we want to be a leader in the region and offer all the citizens plus people from outside the area to come to Grand Forks and be able to build here and have a higher quality of life. He stated that the proposed programs fit in all the economic levels of the individuals and want a complete program to put together, and is willing to wait to put into the program.

Council Member Glassheim stated he reviewed building starts in the city (as well as East Grand Forks and surrounding communities), considered interest rates and amount of exemption and couldn’t find any conclusion except that the housing starts seem to track interest rates; that if want to spend money attracting people to the city or to make a marketing package, in favor, but take it out of economic development not property taxes - that 95% of people who live here are in houses and this is an unfair advantage to new houses as opposed to those who might be selling their houses; that if builders want to take 2% off the cost of building or land owners take couple percent off the cost of the land in order to give the people the incentive to build new house, in favor.

Tim Lamb, 1704 Belmont Road, spoke in favor of the 2-year tax exemption, that there’s a danger in over analyzing - that the Legislature has provided this program to cities who want to take advantage of it, thinks that with the interest rates being low, lumber at a low and this incentive will be the trigger for incentives for new house starts, last year had an all time low in the community and does send a message to people who are thinking about building a new house, and urged the council to pass and put in effect.

Council Member Kreun stated he had visited with Mr. Krauseneck and there is some funding available through the EDC so that it can be economic development, and that would be a part of the funding mechanism through some of the programs he has proposed, and can go to Urban Development for some other funds as well and can put together a complete package as far as all entities are concerned, but we have to do something and make a positive statement to the outside communities and everyone who wants to come to Grand Forks so that we do have affordable housing for all social economic levels.

Council Member Brooks requested to be excused from voting on this issue; and it was so moved by Council Member Glassheim and seconded by Council Member Gershman. Carried 11 votes affirmative.

Council Member Klave stated that after having given this a lot of thought and discussed with Mr. Swanson, that there is no way that this will increase housing or won’t increase housing and does not have a direct effect on his business, that his company or subsidiaries of his company do not have any contracts that are hinging on whether this passes or not and that he doesn’t feel that he needs to abstain from voting on the issue.

Mr. Carpenter stated that there needs to be discussion of this issue, and that one of the functions of the committee of the whole was to talk in depth about issues of importance to the community, and in having one of the committee of the whole meetings that focuses on the issue of attracting people to Grand Forks and what programs should be put in place for that is something that should be done.

Council Member Christensen stated we need to develop a program (infill program) and if make our lower social economic strata easier for low to moderate income people, that is what affordable housing is about - that Mr. Hanson has explained to us that we probably could develop as part of the tool chest, a down payment strategy of $20,000, that we have some lots in this community that we own but can’t do anything with until we get a dike and if we can help people get into the homes, etc. we should work on a program for low to moderate income people.
Council Member Bjerke moved that the City not adopt the 2-year property tax exemption for new houses; Council Member Stevens seconded the motion.

Council Member Hamerlik moved that we table this issue for four weeks; Council Member Gershman seconded the motion. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Hamerlik, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun - 7; voting “nay”: Council Members Bjerke, Stevens, Burke, Glassheim - 4; abstaining: Council Member Brooks - 1. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

Council Member Hamerlik stated he felt it would be proper to give some instructions. Mayor Brown stated that Mr. Hanson will come forward with a proposal. Council Member Christensen stated that he would hope that as part of the proposal that they focus on his suggestion as a place to start and begin to address the affordable housing issue and get rid of the lots the City owns.

Council Member Kreun stated that he will get together with Mr. Hanson and Mr. Krauseneck and put together a full program.

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE RELATING TO COMMUNITY
SERVICE OFFICERS

The staff recommendation from the police department relating to amending clauses to the Grand Forks City Code regarding duties, responsibilities and authority of Community Service Officers, amendments to Chapters V, VIII and XI, with recommendation to approve proposed amendments to the City Code.

Council Member Glassheim asked what effect this has on the Community Service Officers, does this assure Community Service Officers of a new job, if they are paid differently from animal wardens, etc.; and if this changes anybody’s status, or is new term for animal warden, etc.

Chief Packett stated this amends the City Code to be in line with the decisions that the council made last year, changing the job descriptions of animal wardens and our traffic enforcement officer to community service officers, these are the non-sworn employees that do bailiff work, impounding of vehicles, little bit of street maintenance, etc. in addition to the animal warden and parking ticket duties; that we have 6 employees that are currently classified as CSO’s, non-sworn, and 3 of those are old classifications and 3 of those are grant positions that council will be looking at in the budget for 2002.

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Christensen to approve the recommendation. Carried 12 votes affirmative.

Council Member Bakken introduced an ordinance entitled “An ordinance amending Sections of Chapter V, Chapter VIII, and Chapter XI of the Grand Forks City Code relating to community service officers”, which was presented and read.

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPRE-
HENSIVE PLAN, AMENDING CHAPTER XVIII, ARTICLE 8, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ELEMENTS OF THE GRAND FORKS
CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED, PERTAINING TO THE
2022 TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE, 1999 BIKEWAY AND
PEDESTRIAN ELEMENTS; 2001 TRANSIT ELEMENT, AND 2000
STREET AND HIGHWAY ELEMENT, AND SET PUBLIC HEARING
The staff recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to the matter of request from the Planning and Zoning Department for preliminary approval of a resolution to adopt and an ordinance to amend Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, amending Article 8, Comprehensive Plan, Section 18-0802, pertaining to the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks 2022 Transportation Plan Update, (1999 Bikeway and Pedestrian Elements, 2000 Transit Element, Year 2000 Street and Highway Element, and 2000 Metropolitan Intelligent Transportation Systems Comprehensive Plan Element), together with all maps, information and data contained therein, with recommendation for preliminary approval of an ordinance, resolution and plan text to amend the Transit Element of the Transportation Plan incorporating a Study of Route/Point Deviation for Grand Forks/East Grand Forks with staff recommendations and to allow deviations for Dial-A-Ride eligible riders only, to set a city council public hearing date for May 21, 2001.

Council Member Bjerke moved to go to three routes with route deviations to establish specific pickup points and eliminate where allowing anyone to get on the bus anytime anywhere and to go to the Saturday where we pick up the dial-a-ride. Council Member Stevens seconded the motion.

Dennis Potter, city planner, asked Council Member Bjerke to hold his motion to May 21, that this item is only before you this evening to set the public hearing for May 21. Council Member Bjerke and Council Member Stevens withdrew their motion and second.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that the Public Transportation Committee had a motion which should be distributed to the council. Council Member Bakken stated that the motion that came out of the Bus Committee was similar with approval of routes with deviation for dial-a-ride on a trial basis on Saturday only, and the other routes weren’t deviated at all

Mr. Swanson stated that the public hearing is before the city council, the motion that was made and subsequently withdrawn certainly can be made, but it would be his recommendation not to vote on that, could table that to the 21st of May or if follow the procedure from the committee of the whole you would have no motion on the floor for the public hearing.

Council Member Bjerke moved an amendment to the Planning & Zoning Commission recommendation to go to three routes with route deviation, not point, with specific pickup points, eliminating the policy of stopping anytime anywhere and on Saturday we experiment with dial-a-ride on route deviations with buses picking up the people. Council Member Stevens seconded the motion.

Council Member Bakken asked if there would be deviation on the normal routes; Council Member Bjerke stated that on Saturday would do route deviation on trial basis. Council Member Bakken stated that the Bus Committee’s recommendation was to change the routes to three routes, and on Saturdays only the buses would deviate for dial-a-ride. Council Member Bjerke agreed that was his motion.

Ryan Brooks, MPO, stated there are two different deviations, point deviation which has been suggested by staff, Bus Committee and Planning & Zoning; and motion is for route deviation. He stated that the point deviation would have the bus deviate off the route and would return at the same point it left, with route deviation the bus would leave and would pick up the route again at some specified location farther down, and the advantage to the route deviation is that in the end they would be able to do more deviations, with the point wouldn’t be able to do as many deviations in the end.
Council Member Christensen stated people need to know the difference between route deviation and point deviation, and suggested the Herald or Information Office will put something out so that people will know what we are going to discuss.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that there are people who are opposed to this and they might want to appear at the public hearing, and moved that we table this motion until after the public hearing; Council Member Kerian seconded the motion. Upon voice vote the motion passed, with Council Members Bjerke and Stevens voting against the motion.

It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Klave that the recommendation be and is hereby approved. Upon voice vote the motion carried, Council Member Bjerke and Stevens voting against the motion.

It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Klave for preliminary approval of an ordinance, resolution and plan text to amend the Transit Element of the Transportation Plan incorporating a Study of Route/Point Deviation for Grand Forks/East Grand Forks with staff recommendations and to allow deviations for Dial-A-Ride eligible riders only, to set a city council public hearing date for May 21, 2001. Upon voice vote the motion carried with Council Member Bjerke and Stevens voting against the motion.

Council Member Bakken introduced an ordinance entitled “An ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan, amending Chapter XVIII, Article 8, Comprehensive Plan; Section 18-0802, Elements of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, pertaining to the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks 2022 Transportation Plan update, 1999 Bikeway and Pedestrian Elements; 2001 Transit Element, and 2000 Street and Highway Element”, which was introduced and passed on its first reading.

CONSIDER SCHEDULE CHANGES TO LIVE COUNCIL
TV BROADCASTS

The staff recommendation from the Public Information Center relating to schedule changes to live council TV broadcasts, with recommendation to receive report and give direction to Public Information Center staff on how to proceed.

Council Member Burke apologized to Mr. Brody - that the last time the council discussed this, he questioned Mr. Brody on some of the issues and apologized to him in public if he took offense to the way he was questioned. He moved to table this item pending information from the Public Information Office to provide whether or not we can have the opportunity to provide our signal from the city council chambers directly to the cable company without going through the University’s television facilities, and if that’s the case if we can do that for less; and perhaps can have a direct connect with the cable company and be more efficient and not need to put the University’s television center to providing programming of their computers that they need to do now. Council Member Christensen seconded the motion.

Council Member Gershman asked how long the table would be, that they’ve been discussing having information to the public and they should be seeing the committee of the whole meeting. Council Member Burke stated that our physical connection with the cable system actually is to the Mid-Continent Offices but there are various other interconnects that are required under the current system and wondering if we can take the middle man out of it. Council Member Gershman asked if what he is suggesting is that we would supercede any programming that the University would have, that this is the channel that we have given them the franchise for, now taking it back and going to control the air time. Council Member Burke stated that we would use the time exactly as we plan to use it right now, would simply provide a more efficient way of using it, would notify them when we would have meetings and not different than what’s contemplated with the current agreement, it would simply remove them from the responsibility of having to do their programming at their end and would be more efficient and not cost us the $6,000.

As to the matter of time of the table on this matter Council Member Burke stated that he would expect Mr. Dean to contact the cable company to find out if it’s feasible and what cost might be involved, and have something back to us by the next committee of the whole - to table for one week. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Bjerke, Stevens, Burke - 3; voting “nay”: Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun - 9. Mayor Brown declared the motion failed.

Council Member Hamerlik moved that we become involved as was presented to us by staff and that any revenues that we secure go towards the cost of paying for the transmittal. Council Member Gershman seconded the motion.

Council Member Bjerke questioned funding. Council Member Hamerlik stated that we are now putting the money that we are currently collecting into the General Fund, and all the expenditures would be coming from the General Fund - currently $3,200 and would go to approx. $6,000.

Kevin Dean, Public Information Office, stated he can look into this if you feel this is the best route to take, they spent considerable amount of time when this was set up and began broadcasting in June of 2000, and at that time discovered that the way they need to work on this was to do the wiring through TCI Cable and UND TV because UND administrates Channel 3, by trying to go past them not sure what ramifications that would have since they have been given the authority to administrate that channel and not sure if we bypass them where it would be broadcast because he didn’t know that there was a channel that it could be broadcast on; that he had that conversation with the general manager of TCI Cable and he informed him that as of now TCI is not interested in putting on another channel that is purely for government broadcasting and that’s because the channel right now the programming is not full throughout the day, there are some things that are repeated and a community calendar on there as well. He stated that if they choose to delay this it will delay the ability for them to collect any additional revenue for any sponsors for the committee of the whole meeting.

Council Member Klave stated they had discussed several weeks ago that when we have a five-Monday month the possibility of having the meeting on the fifth Monday because staff felt that might be needed during the summer when projects going on and sees that the contract deals with the first, second, third and fourth Mondays of the month, and asked if it’s opportune for staff to ask council to have meeting on the fifth Monday but not broadcast. Mr. Dean stated that was brought up as a possibility but doesn’t know that there was a firm decision made, there was some discussion, and as of right now the agreement they have put together with the University of North Dakota is for broadcast to be on the first, second, third and fourth Mondays, that there are three or four months out of the year where there’s a fifth Monday. As of the now the plan was not to have anything broadcast on that fifth Monday, that there are representatives here from UND and perhaps they could shed some light on that as to how we could handle that.

Council Member Christensen asked how we pay for this in the budget and this is a $540/monthly payment; it was noted this is covered under the General Fund, Miscellaneous. Mr. Dean stated we are earning approx. $360/weekly.
Council Member Christensen called for the question, seconded by Council Member Klave. Carried 12 votes affirmative.

Upon roll call vote, the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun - 12; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT

A staff recommendation from the Public Transportation Department relating to budget amendment, with recommendation to approve the budget amendment to increase federal funding received for Work in Progress in the amount of $10,469.64.

After some discussion relative to the amounts for the architect, it was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Klave that the recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 12 votes affirmative.

APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH CONSULTING ENGINEER
FOR CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION SERVICES FOR
PROJECT NO. 4974, 17TH AVENUE BIKEWAY

The staff recommendation from the Engineering Department relating to consideration of construction administration services agreement for City Project No. 4974, 17th Avenue Bikeway, with recommendation to approve agreement with Widseth, Smith, Nolting for construction administration services in the amount of $18,465.00.

It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Bakken that this recommendation be and is hereby approved to enter into an agreement with Widseth, Smith, Nolting for construction administration services in an hourly, not to exceed amount of $18,465.00. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun - 11; voting “nay”: Council Member Bjerke - 1. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

APPOINT TERM ADJUSTMENTS FOR GRAND FORKS
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD

The Mayor’s recommendation for Grand Forks Housing Authority Board term adjustments, with the proposed term adjustments as follows: Arvin Kvasager, term to expire August 2001; Keith Berger, term to expire August 2002, Joan Johnson, term to expire August 2003, Duane Hafner, term to expire August 2004, and reappointment of Judd Graham, whose term expired August 2000, term to expire August 2005.

Council Member Bjerke questioned why Council Member Burke’s request was not considered; Council Member Burke stated he had presented handout proposing a different way to realign the terms of the Housing Authority and the council passed a resolution urging the mayor to implement that proposal. Mayor Brown stated that after speaking with Mr. Swanson this was agreed to by the Housing Authority and less confusion with legal ramifications. Council Member Burke stated that his proposal and the resolution didn’t shorten the terms arbitrarily, it allowed them to run to their conclusion as was contemplated when those people were appointed, that it provided for the mayor to either reappoint at a specific time for each chair and allows the opportunity for other interested parties who would like to serve in this capacity to come forward and be considered at that time.

Mr. Swanson stated that by statute the appointments to the Housing Authority is at the discretion of the Mayor, there is no confirmation required.

APPROVE PURCHASE OF TROLLEY

The staff recommendation from the Public Transportation Committee relating to the matter to recommend purchase of one trolley and to send a letter of intent with a definite answer to purchase, with recommendation to approve the purchase of one trolley.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that at the Public Transportation Committee meeting on this particular item the committee action is not complete, that he made the motion to purchase one trolley and to send a letter of intent (or call) and give until Tuesday morning after the city council meeting as they need to know tomorrow, moved that we purchase one trolley. The motion died for lack of a second.

Council Member Gershman stated that we need to run this through the MPO to get it into the Transportation Plan and moved that we approve the purchase of the trolley, conditioned upon following process of the MPO for authorization that the long range transportation plan or TDP be amended to include the purchase and use of a trolley. Council Member Christensen seconded the motion.

Council Member Hamerlik raised questions as to whether there is a waiting period on this item and if there has been any contact with the trolley company. Mr. Foster stated he was told by the MPO it takes 45 to 60 days to finish the process to amend the TDP; that he had contacted the trolley company and expressed the need for us to go through the TDP process, they did not indicate that they could hold the trolley for 60 days. It was noted that this may detain it for 18 months if they sell this trolley, and Mr. Foster stated that could be accurate, however, there are other transportation properties that purchase these vehicles throughout the year and we could piggy-back onto a purchase from some other community other than Oklahoma City. Council Member Hamerlik asked if we proceeded without going through MPO, what are pitfalls with MPO. Mr. Foster reported he received a call today from John Dow, community planner for the Federal Transportation Administration, and was informed that Mr. Dow had received a call from MPO, Earl Haugen, regarding the purchase of a trolley and that he had not been a part of this process and felt uneasy about it, and essentially told Mr. Dow that we needed to go about amending the long range transportation plan in his estimation before he could move forward with the procurement of this trolley.

Mr. Foster stated that the long range transportation plan calls for low floor buses and the trolley is not a low floor bus and would have to go back if the council desires to purchase this trolley and City wants to do that, then request an amendment from the MPO to change the language in that long range transportation plan to include a trolley.

Council Member Brooks stated that we’ve been talking about smaller buses for some time, and now this trolley. Mr. Foster stated this is a smaller bus, 28 ft. rather than 35 or 40 ft. bus, 28 passenger, and cost is $11,000 more, that he couldn’t say whether this will improve ridership, that the vehicle was brought to the community to spark conversation about public transportation and it has done that. He stated that after discussion with the transit manager in Duluth, he thinks there is some application for such a vehicle in this community - talked to him about maintenance, ridership, application and sees there could be some application here in Grand Forks.

Council Member Burke questioned the $11,000 additional cost; and stated his concern about purchasing the trolley even if we can charter or rent it, whether infringing on someone else’s business (limousine operators); and would be interested in seeing letter of interest from current providers of that service around the community that they would be interested in doing that, and would be interested in having the motion that we approve buying this bus and stipulate that we would not charter or rent the bus and operate it independently from other people who are providing that kind of service now. He stated there are a number of things with regard to first getting information from the FTA that we in fact can use this bus other than on fixed routes, and would like to hear the information about the ability of the bus to withstand the washing, etc. from the manufacturer.

Council Member Gershman stated he is a supporter of the trolley for many reasons, having ridden it and seen the reaction of the public but also to differentiate our city, noted figures and for $0.39/day we can have something that is fun and can distinguish our community; that he would not be in favor of chartering this as a city but would be in favor of chartering this to the limo companies and people in that business, would have to clear that.

Council Member Bakken called for the question, seconded by Council Member Christensen. Carried 12 votes affirmative.

Council Member Gershman repeated his motion which is to approve the purchase of the trolley, contingent upon following the process of the MPO for authorization from the Denver office (request from the MPO that the long range transportation plan or TDP be amended to include the purchase and use of a trolley.); the motion had been seconded by Council Member Christensen.

Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun - 8; voting “ nay”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Burke - 4. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

REPORT FROM POLICE DEPARTMENT RE. UNOFFICIAL
SPRINGFEST IN UNIVERSITY PARK ON MAY 5

Chief Packett stated that a brief report from Lt. Kirby on the events of this past weekend, the unofficial Springfest, had been distributed; that they met with several of the interested parties: UND Greek Advisor, Park Board, members of the athletic teams, UND Police Department, neighborhood representatives and our staff, and after meeting with those people, assigned 19 personnel to the function (105 hours in planning and enforcement to that area) and $3,176.25 in overtime expended; that the PSAP received number of log calls (that the PSAP staff was overwhelmed and citizens were instructed to go ahead and log and keep track of their complaints unless of a very serious nature); that they made 25 arrests (24 cited and released) 1 person cited re. an arson. He stated people arrived around 10:00 a.m. (benefited from weather being cold and damp), there were a variety of activities taking place and towards end furniture was ignited and fire department was called. The crowd broke up after the fire was extinguished. He stated that Lt. Kirby and staff have made several recommendations and in meeting with Mr. Staley and Park District staff they are very receptive to working with the mayor’s office, the council and the police department in the future and perhaps have a safer and organized event in the future should the Park Board and City decide to go in that direction.
Council Member Bjerke stated he hopes these recommendations are looked at, that this is a serious problem and needs to be addressed by the City, the Park District and by the University of North Dakota.
Council Member Brooks stated his concerns were in driving by a liquor establishment at 10:15 Saturday morning and seeing it overflowing with kids and finding out they are offering 3 for 1 drinks, and thinks that our liquor association has to help us control this; and need the full cooperation of the city council and other agencies in town and some of the businesses that help promote and cause some of this.

Chief Packett stated he would concur and has allowed them to sit down with the Park Board and allowed reviewing the city ordinances and the Park Board ordinances making sure they are up to speed and caused the Park Board to revisit some of their past policies too.

Council Member Gershman stated that unfortunately they don’t have a liquor association that’s really functioning in Grand Forks, that we need to have a policy from the University stating that local establishments not advertise the Springfest - (that the registered name of “Super Bowl” cannot be used by liquor industry for advertising); that this is a different situation but would suggest that we have a meeting with the liquor establishments to discuss this - that this is a serious social issue and the products that are sold legally if misused can be very dangerous, and supports the initiative

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Gershman stated that he had presented matter of area at a vacant gas station on 43rd Street and Gateway that had vehicles, etc., that this was referred to Inspections and Public Health Department, and the area has been cleaned up.

2) Council Member Gershman stated that the Arts Reach published by the National Endowment of the Arts from Washington featured 20 states, including North Dakota, North Valley Arts Council, talking about our public art and wanted everyone to see the results of the work when you do that type of thing, it can be recognized.

3) Council Member Gershman reported that a gentlemen dropped off at his office a number of Grand Forks utility billing envelopes, stating that one way to start saving money is not to send envelopes to direct withdrawal people; and stated that if we can try to track that, would recommend that we do that.

4) Council Member Glassheim presented the matter of budget deliberations, that sometime within the month will receive a budget from the Mayor, but that we have no committees, no process, and that he would like some process for making sure that staff will be answering things and not just motions coming out of the blue. Mayor Brown stated they would be received notification in the next day or two, stating June 27 they will be meeting weekly in the evening to discuss the various budget items with council.

5) Council Member Burke asked if proposed budget would be presented by June 1; Rick Duquette stated that the city auditor intends to submit the Mayor’s budget June 1; summary presentation 2002 budget, June 20 - may change that; June 27 discretionary spending programs, discussion city council budget issues itemized from meetings held on Wednesdays; July 18 General Fund departments, enterprise funds, special revenue funds, debt service, capital projects, internal service agency funds, revised summary budget presentation; August 29 continued summary budget presentation if needed; September 4, preliminary approval of the budget; September 17, final budget adoption. Mr. Duquette stated they will provide an opportunity for the entire city council to digest the budget and discuss the many issues, that they will look at accelerating it, and way to improve what they are doing here.
6) Council Member Burke stated he had a copy of the letter that Mr. Swanson sent regarding the public transportation mill levy, and makes the case that the mill could inflate and would like to start work on an ordinance that would make our mill levy limits real limits, notwithstanding State Statute which we don’t have to adhere to as Home Rule, that the 4 mill levy limitation be held to 4 mills unless the council votes affirmatively to remove the 4 mill limit on transportation and any other items that we have limits on by our own hand or an initiative of the people of Grand Forks, that we adhere to those limits as they were passed by ordinance or initiative.

7) Council Member Burke stated that after the last election in the orientation of council members, Mr. Swanson provided some information on conflict of interest and would like to review that; that he has some concerns with regard to tonight and understanding what our obligations are with regard to conflict of interest and whether or not it is up to a council member to call themselves on conflict of interest or whether that can be raised by someone else. Mr. Swanson stated that at the request of Mr. Brooks, his office undertook a significant amount of research and have drafted a code of ethics if any are interested in reviewing, the handout he provided the council last summer consisted of a number of materials but the most pertinent one is an attorney general’s opinion involving the City of Fargo and one of the commissioners, and the Attorney General cites very explicable statutes which require under ND law a direct pecuniary gain or interest in any matter voted upon. He stated that the council, as a Home Rule city, have ability to identify conflict of interest rules which are greater or more difficult than what the State has if you would choose to do so; he stated they will provide information on conflict of interest. Council Member Burke stated he would be interested in seeing the code of ethics draft and perhaps have the council work on that in the next couple months.

8) Council Member Burke asked if someone from the billing department, that it seems that they had itemized on the utility bills the $2.00+ charge for recycling pickup, and that is no longer itemized. It was noted by both Todd Feland, public works and the deputy city auditor that was never itemized on the bills.

9) Council Member Hamerlik presented concern relative to council members asking staff for information requiring quite a bit of work and time, and suggested voting on whether to do that. Mayor Brown stated he had that discussion with staff, and felt that if the council needs that information to do their job, will gladly provide that information.

10) Council Member Hamerlik stated that last Sunday morning the Campus Crusade for Christ did most of the cleanup at University Park, and also about a block in each direction. He also stated that Mr. Gershman made a request about duplication of envelopes where direct billing, and that is supposedly under control as about 8 or 10 weeks ago he talked with the city auditor because several people who were receiving envelopes and suggested that we not supply them and utility billing is working on that, and perhaps Mr. Duquette follow up on that.

11) Council Member Stevens stated he would like to encourage the city council, Mayor’s Office and Chief of Police and Fire Department and also Mr. Staley, Park District, to meet and consider drafting an ordinance to ban liquor from our parks except through permits.

12) Council Member Bjerke stated there is an expense in the bill listing for a Base Retention trip that cost about $3500, and would like to start seeing some report about what doing on Base Retention; Mayor Brown stated he had Mr. Marshall present written reports on those trips to his office and will make them available to the council; and stated that he felt that money is well spent when look at $180 million yr. AFB that we need to keep in this city, in the State and if not active with our delegation, we may lose that because there’s going to be another round of base closures and if not pro-active we will be reacting.

13) Council Member Bjerke stated that when we get ready for the trolley, would like some information comparing that as far as fuel efficiency and repairs, etc.

14) Council Member Kreun asked if they could receive their packets on Thursday during summer.

15) Council Member Bakken asked for a small version of the information on the code of ethics . Mr. Swanson stated he will provide the council with a general memo - that he doesn’t have an individual document that will summarize the types of things and put something together and provide different conflict of interest opinions and will re-circulate those.

16) Council Member Bakken stated that on the matter of council members requesting information on various items, thinks mayor’s position good, but if request is for information on items that won’t be considered, may be time spend for no apparent reason and that we’re asking staff to try to save money, cut back on personnel and work more efficiently, that Mayor should have some latitude in deciding whether staff should do this; Mayor Brown stated requests are to go through his office. Council Member Bjerke stated that he knows that some of the information he asks for is not going to pass, but the public will get that information whether this council chooses to vote or not, and make sure public has all the facts and a different point of view.

17) Council Member Bakken stated that we need to look at recycling, to decide if want it in the 2002 budget or only have collection points.

18) Council Member Klave asked whether we are placing a committee of the whole agenda in the newspaper. Council Member Hamerlik stated there will be an agenda for next week’s meeting of committee of the whole, that they are working on that.

19) Council Member Christensen presented the matter of process of budgeting at the next committee of the whole, that Mr. Duquette could give us his timelines and if have some issues of which items they would like to discuss.

20) Council Member Christensen stated they have been doing committee of the whole since February, and hope stay the course for the balance of this year and perhaps into next year to see how it works, and if doesn’t work, then modify it and perhaps reason for a task force, and would hope at working session on Monday bring some of these issues up - on budgeting process and how proceed.

21) Council Member Brooks stated he received a copy of Mr. Swanson’s response to Council Member Bjerke, but that he thought it was going to be a request to the Attorney General for an opinion (public transportation mill levy), and whether he as a council member can request an Attorney General’s opinion. Council Member Christensen stated that any elected official can request an Attorney General’s opinion. Mr. Swanson disagreed, that he believes that you will find that the Attorney General will respond to an elected official’s request by not a formal opinion. Council Member Brooks stated he will send the request. Mr. Swanson stated he was not aware that they were requesting an Attorney General’s opinion, that he understood Council Member Bjerke asked him to provide an opinion and he relied on information provided by State Tax Commissioner and has no problem if council wants a formal opinion, will make that request. He stated he didn’t recall if that was distributed to all council members, it is an opinion as to whether or not the mill levy of the public transportation department since 1980 is within or exceeds the allowable mill levy; that the Tax Commissioner’s Office provided him information that from approximately 1980 to 1995 there were accumulative increases of percentages each year that ultimately allowed a .89% increase in the value of a mill - in fact the information provided him by the Tax Commissioner’s Office caused him to change an original opinion or thought that he had, but if they wish for his office to get an Attorney General’s opinion, that opinion would authored by Robert Works, who is an assistant attorney general, who provided him with some of the information that underlies his opinion. Council Member Burke stated as a Home Rule City, we can levy what we wish, but his concern is that we collect on behalf of the Airport Authority some mills, and under the opinion he has given, they were entitled to have as much as they are collecting right now, but are we the conduit or do we have any authority with regard to mill levies that we collect; and that he doesn’t understand our relationship with the Airport Authority that we include their millage within our total, and why it’s not a separate line item on the tax bill. Mr. Swanson stated that the Airport Authority does not have individual taxing authority, they have the ability to create their budget which is a pass-through through the City’s mills, the city council has no discretion on the review of their budget provided that they are within their total mill levies that are allocated under State Statute.

22) Council Member Brooks stated there’s been discussion on conflict of interest, and requested clarification that as elected officials need to make that decision ourselves, but need to bear in mind that we’re elected, it’s the perception of conflict of interest, you’re elected by the citizenry and if they perceive you to have a conflict of interest, you need to yield to them - it’s the ethics and integrity of the city council that’s the most important issue.

23) Mayor Brown stated he needs to form a Relocation Appeal Board, a Burlington Northern/Santa Fe and Amtrak Task Force and a Wage Negotiations Task Force, and asked for 3 volunteers to serve on these task forces, and asked that they call his office tomorrow or Wednesday so that he can make the appointments. Mr. Swanson stated with respect to the approval of the various bodies, the Wage Negotiations Task Force and Relocation Appeals Board would require council approval; that the BN/Santa Fe Amtrak would not appear to necessitate council approval, but not addressed by State law nor local law.

APPROVE MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 23 AND 30, 2001

Typewritten copies of the minutes of the city council meetings held on Monday, April 16, and special meetings held on April 23 and April 30, 2001, were presented and read. It was moved by Council Member Bjerke and seconded by Council Member Klave that the minutes be approved. Carried 12 votes affirmative.

APPROVE BILLS AND ESTIMATES

Vendor Payment Listing No.01-09, dated May 7, 2001, totaling $1,385,651.09; and Flood Estimate Summary totaling $244,009.14, and Regular Estimates totaling $2,631,891.23, were presented and read.

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Bakken that these bills and estimates be allowed and that the city auditor be authorized to issue warrants in payment of the same. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun - 12; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried and the bills ordered paid.
ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Kreun that we do now adjourn. Carried 12 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,

Saroj Jerath
Deputy City Auditor

Approved:
_______________________________
Michael R. Brown, Mayor