Print VersionStay Informed
17609
June 18, 2001
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
June 18, 2001

The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in the council chambers in City Hall on Monday, June 18, 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, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 9; absent: Council Members Glassheim, Lunak, Bakken, Martinson - 4.

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

SUMMARY PRESENTATION OF BUDGET FOR FY 2002

The city auditor presented an overview of the 2002 preliminary annual budget with guiding principles as provided by the Mayor and tax consequences of 2002 budget. He reviewed the General Fund with comparisons to 2001 along with general comments and future concerns.

COUNCIL MEMBER KLAVE REPORTED PRESENT

The city auditor reviewed Special Revenue Funds along with Enterprise Funds (Sanitation, Wastewater, Waterworks and Stormwater) and addressed average monthly utility bill; Alerus Events; Capital Projects and Special Requests. He stated under Special Requests are what some council members had termed as discretionary spending but are in the budget including Air Force Base and military spending, Humane Society. Grand Forks Historical Preservation Committee, UND Research and UND recruitment money; request for funding for the Arts, Special Events and Services for Special Events; Downtown Property Management, Beautification, and Economic Development Corporation ($165,000 unfunded and will see a recommendation from the Mayor).

He stated their overall concerns in the budget are the mill levy and using other funds to help offset the taxes; frozen capital in General Fund and if continue that too much longer that will come back and bite us; spending down some balances and will discuss in more detail in various areas to try to offset doing that; and that will be addressed later on as an overall city mission or vision.

He stated they have tried to achieve most of the goals in the budget and had a thought that would not increase starting any new city services but did add a fire marshall based on input from the fire chief, are funding the NRO’s and will try to maintain the fund balance of the General Fund at the 15% of expenditures; the departmental cash carry over was to fund capital and this is going to be a policy discussion for you, and we do need to adopt policies for all the operating funds as starting to spend down those areas and need to get a handle on that. He stated they continue to rethink the operational areas and will continue the performance measures and activity based costing. He stated the overall mill levy is frozen at last year’s rate according to the recommendation and are going to suggest that that not necessarily continue, that you look at that, but the recommendation may be to ask for a 4 to 5 mill increase to fund those operational costs and not have to transfer some of that $600,000 and will be suggesting a rate increase in the stormwater fund - that there is a cost to provide the services we provide and we do have to be able to fund those services. He stated they will have an opportunity to decide more on service levels as you go through the planning processes.

The city auditor reported that in the next two to three weeks they will receive a recommendation on temporary employees for your action, and a recommendation on the market analysis study for action that will have some impacts. He stated that in the next six months the mayor has suggested that we complete a sanitation cost of services study with emphasis on outside tipping charges and recycling; that we do a performance contracting study - that there are vendors who will come in and do a survey of buildings for energy cost savings and guarantee a certain amount of energy cost savings that you can use to retrofit and make buildings more energy efficient. He stated they will look at a central grounds and buildings feasibility and recommendation for that, and there will be a review of the central garage operation and recommendation on that. Council Member Hamerlik asked when they review the temporary employees and market analysis, that all committee members be notified.

The city auditor thanked the departments for holding increases down, personnel in finance department, esp. Michelle Cooke and Maureen Storstad, who worked very hard to get this information to the council members, and mayor and council who know we need some resources in order to provide the services, and the citizens for their input throughout the year. He noted the next steps in the process starting June 27 for general fund, enterprise fund budget issues will be on July 11, Special Revenue, etc. on July 18 and try for August dates for preliminary and final adoption of the budget, and after that the Mayor and Mr. Duquette are looking at a planning process for council to look to the future. He stated if they had any general questions, otherwise go to detailed questions when have the budget meetings.

Council Member Hamerlik stated there might be some people who might be interested in their comments that have been listening to the presentation overview and questioned who they should direct comments to - to the Mayor’s Office through Mr. Duquette.

Council Member Bjerke stated he wanted to address the CDBG funding, that he thought we should look at policy of funding non-profits and benefiting a certain select group vs. not benefiting the entire city and using money in a different way; and would like Mr. Hanson to meet with City department heads and look to see if can spend this money on capital projects that would benefit the city: ADA on city buildings, construction equipment on solid waste disposal facilities, fire protection equipment (thermal images), ADA curb cuts (spending $50,000 from Highway Users Fund) to increase funds for curb cuts to get project done faster and use Hwy Users funds on roadwork), used for crime prevention - to see if this could be used to fund the NRO’s or other things in the police department. He noted he would give questions/information to Mr. Duquette. Mayor Brown stated that Human Needs dollars are very important part of the budget and lot of times leveraged two for one or on match, and see what we would give up if we don’t do that.

CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING
OF ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER XVIII OF THE
CITY CODE, AMENDING ARTICLE 8, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,,
PERTAINING TO GRAND FORKS-EAST GRAND FORKS 2022
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE

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 had been introduced and passed on its first reading on May 7, 2001, and upon which public hearing had been continued until this evening, was presented and read for consideration.
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter.

Dennis Potter, city planner, asked that the public hearing be continued until July 16 to allow the public works personnel and bus people to continue their research on this issue.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Kreun to continue the public hearing to July 16, 2001. Carried 10 affirmative. Mayor Brown noted that this item will be discussed at the committee of the whole meeting on July 9.

ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3892, RELATING TO AN
EXCISE TAX ON TELEPHONE ACCESS LINES

An ordinance entitled “An ordinance adopting Article IV, Chapter 22 of the Grand Forks City Code relating to an excise tax on telephone access lines”, which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on June 4, 2001, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.

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

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

Council Member Bjerke questioned the effect of cell phones, that this is for land lines, and the policy for cell phones.

Allen Morken, PSAP Director, reported this matter is being looked at state-wide, whether a surcharge will be put on cell phones; that they are on a short time basis and that is why requesting the fifty-cent surcharge for the hard line.

Council Member Bjerke asked as Grand Forks is a home rule city, whether we can do something with cell phones or wait for the State to initiate it. Howard Swanson, city attorney, stated Grand Forks as a home rule city would have the authority to impose certain fees upon cell phones; there are some difficulties with cell phones and also there is some federal legislation that comes into play; and at this ;point their office has not undertaking sufficient research to determine what role or position you might want to take; that they have had some communication with the Legislative Counsel’s Office on what the State is looking at. Mr. Morken stated that the State 911 organization is looking at coordinating throughout the State of North Dakota this process so would be uniform throughout the entire state. Mayor Brown closed the public hearing.

Upon call for the question and upon roll call vote, the following voted “aye”: Council Member Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Kreun - 10; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the ordinance adopted.

APPROVE FINAL PLAT; AND ADOPT ORDINANCE
NO. 3893, AMENDING STREET AND HIGHWAY PLAN
TO INCLUDE PUBLIC R/W SHOWN AS DEDICATED ON
THE REPLAT OF BLOCK 1, O.J.’S ADDITION
An ordinance entitled “An ordinance to amend the Street and Highway Plan of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, to include the public rights of way shown as dedicated on the Replat of Lots C through 1 and Lots K and L, Block 1 of the Replat of Lot 1, Block 1, O.J.’s Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota”, which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on May 21, 2001, and upon which public hearing had been scheduled for this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.

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

Mayor Brown called for the public hearing. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed.

The city auditor presented and read the report from the Planning and Zoning Commission that they had considered the matter of the request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Lenthe Investments for final approval of a replat of Lots C through I and Lots K and L, Block 1, O.J.’s Addition, with recommendation for final approval of the Replat of O.J.’s Addition, subject to conditions shown on or attached to the review copy, and to approve the ordinance amending the Street and Highway Plan. It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Kreun that this recommendation be approved. Carried 10 votes affirmative.

Upon call for the question and upon roll call vote, the following voted “aye”: Council Member Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Kreun - 10; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the ordinance adopted.

APPROVE APPOINTMENTS TO BOARD OF ZONING
ADJUSTMENTS

The recommendation from Mayor Brown announced the following appointments: Board of Zoning Adjustments: Lynn Vreeland to a three-year term; and Jim Galloway to fill the unexpired term of Mark Hoffman. Mayor Brown asked for concurrence.

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Brooks that these appointments be approved. Carried 10 votes affirmative.

APPROVE APPOINTMENTS TO BOARD OF APPEALS

The recommendation from Mayor Brown announced the following appointments, with request for concurrence: Board of Appeals: Myron Denbrook, Gordon Rosby, Ron Apanian, Larry Johnson, James Glick, George Hastings, Gene Youngdahl, and Council Member Klave for three-year terms.

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Brooks that these appointments be approved. Carried 10 votes affirmative.

CONSIDER BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR
PROJECT NO. 5252, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FROM
ALMONTE NURSING HOME

The staff recommendation from the engineering department relating to consideration of bids for City Project No. 5252, asbestos abatement and hazardous materials removal from the former Almonte Nursing Home, with recommendation to approve award of a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Building Systems Corporation in the amount of $38,970.00.

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Brooks that this recommendation be and is hereby approved to award the contract to Building Systems Corporation in the amount of $38,970.00. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Kreun - 10; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

MATTER OF APPLICATION FOR MOVING PERMIT
TO MOVE HOUSE FROM 4619 LOAMY HILLS DRIVE

The staff recommendation from the Inspections Department relating to moving permit application to move house from 4619 Loamy Hills Drive to 2449 South 38th Street, with recommendation to hold the public hearing on the issue of moving the house. It was noted that this building has not yet been bid for sale.

DECLARE CERTAIN PROPERTIES AS SURPLUS AND
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO ISSUE RFP FOR PRIVATE SALE
AND REHABILITATION

The staff recommendation from Urban Development Office relating to RFP for sale/rehab of historic homes, with recommendation to declare surplus the historic homes at 102 Chestnut Street, 102 Conklin Avenue and 115 Conklin Avenue, and authorize staff to issue RFP for private sale and rehabilitation.

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Brooks to declare as surplus the historic homes at 102 Chestnut, 102 Conklin and 115 Conklin and authorize staff to issue RFP for private sale and rehabilitation. Carried 10 votes affirmative.

ADOPT RESOLUTION CREATING ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT, STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.
5256, DISTRICT NO. 88

The staff recommendation from the engineering department relating to special assessment district for City Project no. 5256, District No. 88, street improvements for 24th Avenue North, with recommendation to approve engineer’s report, create special assessment district, direct engineering department to prepare plans and specifications and advertise for construction bids for Project No. 5256, District No. 88 (and that we declare intent to sell bonds to finance these improvements.)

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Brooks that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 10 votes affirmative.

Council Member Gershman introduced the following resolution creating the assessment district, which was presented and read: Document No. 8076 - Resolution.

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Brooks that this resolution be and is hereby adopted. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Kreun - 10; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the resolution adopted.

ACCEPT ENGINEER’S REPORT, STREET IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 5256, DISTRICT NO. 88

The city auditor presented and read the engineer’s report on Street Improvement Project No. 5256, District No. 88: Document No. 8077 - Report.

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Brooks that this report be and is hereby approved. Carried 10 votes affirmative.

ADOPT RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY, STREET IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 5256, DISTRICT NO. 88

Council Member Gershman introduced the following resolution of necessity, which was presented and read: Document No. 8078 - Resolution.

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Brooks that this resolution be and is hereby adopted. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Kreun - 10; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the resolution adopted.

AWARD BIDS FOR PROJECT NO. 5140, UPGRADE
LIFT STATION 24

The staff recommendation from the engineering department relating to matter of bids for Project No. 5140, Upgrade Lift Station 24, with recommendation to reject incomplete bid submitted by Ron’s Electric, Inc., and to award unit price contract to Robert Gibb & Sons, Inc. in the amount of $108,785.00.

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Brooks that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Kreun - 10; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 2, PROJECT NO. 5200,
2001 FLOOD PREPARATION

The staff recommendation from the engineering department relating to consideration of Change Order No. 2, City Project No. 5200, 2001 Flood Preparation, with recommendation to approve Change Order No. 2 to City Project No. 5200, Flood Preparation contract in the amount of $223,000 with Gowan Construction, Inc.

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Brooks that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Kreun - 10; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

APPROVE FINAL PLAT OF REPLAT OF LOTS 3, 4 AND
5, BLOCK 1, BUTLER’S ADDITION

The staff recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to the matter of the request from L & G Partnership on behalf of DMG Investments for final approval (fast track) of a Replat of Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 1, Butler’s Addition, with recommendation for final approval to the replat of Butler’s Addition subject to conditions shown on or attached to the review copy, and recommend the city council to approve the plat.

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Brooks that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 10 votes affirmative.

ACCEPT PETITION FOR VACATION OF PORTION OF
ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT LYING IN BLOCK 1,
COLUMBIA PARK 27TH ADDITION

The staff recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to the matter of the petition from Art Greenberg, Jr. and Oppidan for approval to vacate all that portion of an access and utility easement lying in Lots 2 and 6, Block 1, Columbia Park 27th Addition to the city of Grand Forks, ND (located in the southeast quadrant or the intersection of 32nd Avenue South and I-29 and as shown on the map which is by reference made a part hereof, with recommendation to schedule a public hearing and final approval of vacation.

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Brooks that this recommendation be and is hereby approved, that the petition filed is in proper form and contains the required signatures, that it be filed with the city auditor, and that a notice of public hearing be published as required with the public hearing to be scheduled as August 6, 2001. Carried 10 votes affirmative.

APPROVE FINAL PLAT OF A REPLAT OF LOTS 1-6,
BLOCK 1, COLUMBIA PARK 27TH ADDITION, INCLUDING
VARIANCE TO DEFINITION OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION
FROM A MAXIMUM OF FIVE LOTS TO SIX LOTS AND
DEDICATION OF SOME ACCCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENTS

The staff recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to the matter of the request from Steven Adams on behalf of Art Greenberg and Oppidan for final approval (fast track) of the Replat of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, Block 1, Columbia Park 27th Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, including a variance to the definition of a minor subdivision from a maximum of five lots to six lots and the dedication of some access and utility easements (located at 32nd Avenue South and I-29), and recommended final approval of the plat.

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Brooks that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 10 votes affirmative.


ACCEPT PETITION TO VACATE ALL THAT PORTION
OF A STREET TURN-AROUND OR CUL-DE-SAC AND
ALL THAT PORTION OF AN ADJOINING 10-FOOT WIDE
UTILITY EASEMENT IN BLOCK 1, VERN’S ADDITION

The staff recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission reported having considered the matter of the request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Vernon and Judy Gornowicz for approval to vacate all that portion of a street turn-around or cul-de-sac having an 80 foot radius and to vacate all that portion of an adjoining 10 foot wide utility easement lying northerly of the westerly extension of the northerly line of 16th Avenue North and lying westerly of the northerly extension of the westerly line of North 73rd Street Circle as platted in Vern’s Addition, Grand Forks, North Dakota and as shown on the attached map which is, by reference, made a part hereof.

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Brooks that this recommendation be and is hereby approved, that the petition filed is in proper form and contains the required signatures, that it be filed with the city auditor, and that a notice of public hearing be published as required with the public hearing to be scheduled as August 6, 2001. Carried 10 votes affirmative.

APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 17 TO ENGINEERING
AGREEMENT FOR PROJECT NOS. 4814.1, 4815.1 AND
4816.2, PHASE II UTILITY RELOCATIONS

The staff recommendation from the engineering department relating to engineering agreement for Project Nos. 4814.1, 4815.1 and 4816.2 Phase II Utility Relocations, GFEG Amendment No. 17, with recommendation to approve Amendment No. 17 to the Greater Forks Engineering Group agreement in the amount of $102,175.44.

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Brooks that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Kreun - 10; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

DIRECT THAT PROCEDURES FOR COMMITTEE OF
WHOLE MEETINGS BE LEFT AS ARE

The staff recommendation from the Mayor’s Office relating to committee of the whole procedures, with recommendation to discuss options and procedural recommendations regarding the committee of the whole process.

It was moved by Council Member Bjerke and seconded by Council Member Christensen to leave the procedures for the committee of the whole process as is.

Council Member Hamerlik stated there was one concern that was not discussed, that at the committee of the whole they have many minutes on some of the discussion and that it comes to the city council and we have the same discussion, that sometimes there is some new information which should be brought up, sometimes somebody in the audience, but sometimes it is somebody who is absent and we start to rehash it, and suggested that we give some thought in the future on how we might limit the amount of reoccurring statements which really prolong the meetings, that he understands there has to be some, and suggesting that we not rehash the items again.

Council Member Hamerlik called for the question; Council Member Brooks seconded the motion. Carried 10 votes affirmative.

Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 10 votes affirmative.

CONSIDER APPLICATION FOR MOVING PERMIT TO
MOVE HOUSE FROM 1515 10TH AVENUE NORTH TO 1315
7TH AVENUE NORTH AND DIRECT THAT HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY PRESENT PROPOSAL TO ADJOINING PROPERTY
OWNERS FOR AGREEMENT

The staff recommendation from the Inspections Division relating to moving permit application to move the house from 1515 10th Avenue North to 1315 7th Avenue North to hold the public hearing on the issue of moving the house.

Council Member Kerian stated she had received several calls to the question of how well this property fits in the location it would be moved to.

Barb Brown, 1402 7th Avenue North, reported they received a letter last year stating that Habitat for Humanity purchased the lot at 1315 7th Avenue North and that they were going to be building a house on that lot, they sent plans of the house (2-bedroom approximately 900 sq.ft.) which fits in the neighborhood; that this year they received a letter stating they were not going to be building this house but moving a house in, that the house they are moving in is a 480 sq.ft. house, which is much too small for the neighborhood, doesn’t fit in with the rest of the houses, and her concern is that it will possibly lower property values.

Council Member Burke stated that the house that was proposed to be moved had been donated to Habitat for Humanity and came after the Urban Development Committee and city council had earlier made the decision to give that lot to Habitat for Humanity, and representations were made to the neighbors last fall and they don’t have a problem with Habitat being on that lot, but to the size of the house and appropriateness to that block and that we should honor that; there could be a much better use for that lot, and moved that the application for moving permit be denied. Council Member Christensen seconded the motion.

Mayor Brown reported a written comment had been received from Todd and Gina Cummings, 1323 8th Avenue North, expressing concerns about the house being proposed to be moved to 1300 block of 7th Avenue North, that they feel that the house would decrease the value of their house, that they understand that the house is in good condition but that it is only 480 sq. ft., that they believe Habitat for Humanity is a great organization but concerns lie with the fact that a house of that size will decrease the value of their homes and asked the council to take this into consideration. Mayor Brown asked that the council be aware that this house may be destroyed if not moved.

Donna Stumph, president of Red River Habitat for Humanity, stated originally she understood that the neighborhood was concerned and did not want this house in their neighborhood and had nothing to do with the size, the reason they accepted the house and wanted to move it onto that lot is because it is only 3 streets away and would make the move a lot easier, that after talking to Ms. Collings, Inspections Division, they will be building a full size basement underneath it, it will be raised and they are willing to do an addition to the left side of the house to make it approx. 700 to 800 sq. for one level and would be between 1400 and 1600 sq. ft. for the entire house, and that would fit onto the lot.

Ms. Collings stated the only concern she presented last week was the size, but not sure how much authority we have to do anything about size, that it is a well kept up house, but the Code states that it will not cause undue or serious depreciation of other properties in the neighborhood, and did find other properties that were in the 700 sq. ft. range in that 2 block area, but nothing as small as this.

Council Member Christensen withdrew his second to the motion; there was no second to the motion and the motion died for lack of a second.

Council Member Christensen moved that before this application be brought back to the council, that if the Habitat for Humanity proposes to move this building onto this lot or proposes any additions to the building, that plans for any addition to the building be drawn and presented to the neighbors in the area for their input. Council Member Gershman seconded the motion. Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 9 votes affirmative; Council Member Bjerke voting against the motion.

TERMINATE THE CITY’S HOUSE INSPECTION SERVICE
AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2001; AND INTRODUCE ORDINANCE
TO AMEND TEXT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, RE-
LATING TO THE ADOPTION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING
CODE, BY REFERENCE, AND SPECIFICALLY RELATED
TO CHANGING PERMIT FEES

The staff recommendation from the Inspections Division relating to their request for preliminary approval and first reading of an ordinance to amend the text of the Land Development Code, Chapter XIX of the Grand Forks City Code Section 19-0101 related to the adoption of the Uniform Building Code adopted by reference, amended, and specifically related to changing permit fees, with recommendation to approve first reading of the ordinance to change the fees as submitted.

Council Member Bjerke moved to terminate the City’s house for sale inspection fee as of September 30, 2001. Council Member Burke seconded the motion.

After some discussion Mr. Swanson stated the motion would require a change in an ordinance, that implications of that motion are broad reaching, involves the Fire Code, Uniform Building Code, Mechanical Code, Electrical Code, in addition to Planning and Zoning Land Development Code. Council Member Bjerke stated he didn’t want the City going into people’s houses to inspect it because it is up for sale, there is a private sector to do that. Mr. Swanson stated he may have misunderstood the motion, that he interpreted the motion to discontinue all inspection service; and with that explanation that may not require an amendment to the Codes, and understands that Mr. Bjerke is saying that he intends that the inspections would stop not as a result of a building permit but as a result of a request for inspections. Mr. Swanson stated his prior comments about affecting various Codes would not be applicable, those inspections which are generated by building permits, etc. would not be affected by the intent of this motion.

Council Member Brooks called for the question; there was no second to the call.
Council Member Christensen stated that the motion is to amend specific sections of the City Code to change the permit fees, that the council can amend certain sections of the Uniform Building Code, that he didn’t think that the Building Code has any provisions relating to city inspection fee before a house is sold, and should eliminate this portion from the staff recommendations, amend the fees as requested, and then discuss whether the City should be in the business of privately inspecting homes; that in other cities this is left to the private sector, and that the city attorney could give us an opinion as to what type of liability the City might incur if we inspected and missed something because now in a proprietary issue for which generating fees which leaves us open for a claim

Ms. Collings stated this is not tied to an ordinance and is totally on a request basis that was established years ago, request from citizens to provide this service, that from the department’s standpoint, they do like to go into homes and catch hazards, and if they inspect a house and find a code restriction or deficiency, don’t required that they meet Code unless hazard to the owner. She reported they do approx. 100 per year on an average.

Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 10 votes affirmative.

Council Member Bjerke moved to continue to keep the residential building permit fees as is; the motion died for lack of a second.

Council Member Christensen moved to approve the staff recommendation approving the recommended changes in the fee schedule and approve first reading of the ordinance; Council Member Hamerlik seconded the motion. Carried 9 votes affirmative; Council Member Bjerke voted against the motion.

Council Member Christensen introduced an ordinance entitled “An ordinance amending specific sections of Chapter XIX of the Grand Forks City Code”, which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.

APPROVE REQUEST FROM VALLEY MEMORIAL
HOMES RELATING TO EXTENDING BRIDGE LOAN

The staff recommendation from the Office of Urban Development relating to matter of request from Valley Memorial Homes -

Terry Hanson, Urban Development, reported that he had discussions with Garth Rydland of Valley Memorial Homes today and they have agreed that a demand note with a 30-day notice to Valley Memorial would be appropriate, and requested that the council approve an extension of the note utilizing a demand note with a 30-day notice to Valley Memorial Homes. He noted that the note comes due the end of June.

It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Klave to approve the extension of the note utilizing a demand note with a 30-day notice to Valley Memorial Homes. Carried 10 votes affirmative.

REJECT BIDS FOR RELOCATION OF HISTORIC HOME
AT 1205 LINCOLN DRIVE AND REBID THE PROJECT

The staff recommendation from Office of Urban Development relating to award of contract for relocation of historic home at 1205 Lincoln Drive, with recommendation to award project to low bidder and authorize staff to proceed with a contract.

Mr. Hanson requested the council to reject both bids received and to include this structure and project in a latter bidding process.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Kerian to approve the request by Mr. Hanson to reject the bids received and to include this structure and project in a latter bidding process. Carried 10 votes affirmative.

APPROVE CHANGE ORDER FOR PROJECT NO. 4901,
ENGLISH COULEE BIKEPATH LIGHTING

The staff recommendation from the Engineering Department relating to Change Order #1 for Project No. 4901, English Coulee Bikepath Lighting, with recommendation to approve Project No. 4901 change order for Moorhead Electric in the amount of $6,500.00.

It was moved by Council Member Kerian and seconded by Council Member Kreun that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Kreun - 7; voting “nay”: Council Members Bjerke, Stevens, Burke - 3. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

REJECT BIDS ON PROJECT NO. 4371, WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT - PROCESS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT

The staff recommendation from the engineering department relating to bids for Project No. 4371, Grand Forks Wastewater Treatment Plant, Bid Package #7, process mechanical equipment, with recommendation that they do not recognize writing on Lunseth’s bid envelope as a legitimate bid modification and award contract to ICS, Inc. in the amount of $2,717,000.00.

Evan Whipps, sales manager at Vulcan Industries, stated they bid the screens on the wastewater treatment plant project and were made aware that some inaccurate statements were made during last week’s meeting and has come tonight to respond to any questions that the council may have about their equipment and its performance and in the maintenance aspects of that equipment. There were no questions or comments.

Mr. Swanson reported he had received a FAX from Attorney Dean Thomson on behalf of ICS and had distributed copies to their desks and provided to the city clerk to include it in the record.

Council Member Hamerlik questioned why attorney’s statement that staff had to open this bid when there was a technicality on the bid. Mr. Swanson stated the issues referred to previously have to deal with whether the outer bond envelope contained the requirements including addenda, etc. that are required in the exterior envelope, and in this case all mandatory requirements in the exterior bid envelope were met, staff had no discretion at that point but to proceed to open the entire envelope, the issue here is not whether or not the submittals were in error but whether or not you will accept handwritten notes on the exterior of the envelope as an amendment to the bid submittal, not to any of the jurisdictional or underlined requirements such as bidder’s bond, license requirement and qualifications. He also noted that timeliness of submittals is another item that staff does not have discretion.

Council Member Gershman stated that the writing on the outside of the Lunseth envelope was not signed nor dated and yet it was opened, and intent that is inherent in law or common sense that Lunseth did submit that bid, that once opened and not protested at the time, that is a valid bid, and moved that we waive the minor irregularity and approve Lunseth’s bid for this contract, and to award the bid to Lunseth’s; Council Member Christensen seconded the motion.

Council Member Kreun stated we’re looking to staff as to which piece of equipment is recommended, that several weeks ago it was brought to our attention that there was going to be two different pieces of equipment and asked for recommendation from staff which is more compatible with the existing equipment that we have. Mark Walker, project engineer, explained that at the bid opening he did make comments as to the writing on the outside of the envelope, and did make note at the bid opening that he was unsure whether it could be accepted; that later they looked at the specifications and read specs. that an amendment to the bid must be done in a manner similar to which the bid was executed and in their opinion at the bid opening they determined that they could not accept that deduct and that it would have to be brought to city council for determination. Gary Bridgeford, general manager of ICS, stated their representative who was at the bid opening asked the question of the staff if that was a reasonable deduct and if that was going to be accepted, that they questioned the validity of it at that time verbally.

Mr. Walker stated their recommendation is the same as in the staff report, that the writing on the exterior of the bid envelope not be recognized and that the award would be to ICS, Inc., because if they were to consider accepting the deduct on the outside of the bid an irregularity, they would prefer that they rebid the project rather than accepting that because in accepting a deduct you do open yourselves to litigation and could be spending more money than what trying to save and could be delaying the project more than what a second bid would cost. It was noted a rebid could be done with bid opening on July 16 and could with permission bring them directly to council for award that night and after reviewing with the consultant that would not cause a significant delay, and are looking at a completion date for running sewage through the plant of April, 2002. Any additional costs would be for advertising expenses, maybe increase for fuel costs as pushing farther into the winter, but fuel prices have come down since the project was bid. Mr. Grasser reported that staff and consultants have been meeting extensively with some of the representatives of the different equipment, and consensus of which one they prefer has narrowed, and WasteTech still ahead, and are still concerned about the bidding process.

After considerable discussion it was moved by Council Member Burke and seconded by Council Member Christensen to amend the motion and to reject bids and rebid the project.

Mr. Swanson stated he has some concern without modifying your bid specifications of taking a position tonight that staff can’t open a bid with extraneous writing, that we have seen bids with all kinds of information on the outside envelope - phone numbers, dates, names of people and no statutory requirement in North Dakota nor is there under our Code that you must protest the bid at the time of the bid opening; that if you want the safest route to protect the City from litigation or to protect you from questioning on bid process is very simple - don’t ever allow any irregularity to be approved, that if you stand firm on your bid specs. and the farther you go out on allowing bid waivers the more likely your contractors will continuously expand that envelope and ask for more latitude in deviations in their bidding, that the council as the owner makes the determination in a bid and should establish what you want. He also noted that there is not a single thing a purchasing office would have helped you on this, because nothing is within your control, it is the bidder who responds to that request for a bid, and if they don’t respond appropriately and if want bottom line security for the City, don’t waive any bid specs.; that what the law will say in this case, that this is one of discretion.

After further discussion and upon call for the question by Council Members Hamerlik and Christensen, the motion carried 10 votes affirmative.

Upon roll call on the amendment to the motion to reject the bids and rebid the project, the following voted “aye”: Council Members Burke, Christensen, Kreun, Brooks, Stevens - 5; voting “nay”: Council Members Hamerlik, Gershman, Klave, Kerian, Bjerke - 5. Mayor Brown declared the motion tied, voted in favor of the motion and declared the motion carried.

Upon call for the question on the original motion, as amended, and upon voice vote, the motion carried 9 votes affirmative, Council Member Bjerke voted against the motion.

DEFER APPROVAL OF SIDEWALK REPAIR LIST FOR
PROJECT NO. 5196, 2001 SIDEWALK REPAIRS

The staff recommendation from the engineering department relating to the location list for Project No. 5196, 2001 Sidewalk Repairs, with recommendation to approve 2001 Sidewalk Repair List.

Council Member Bjerke reported that one of the property owners on the repair list will be affected the most (2/3rds or 3/4th of the project on one side of the street) and will pass on in a rent increase, and moved to approve 2001 Sidewalk Repair List with the exception to defer building the sidewalk on the east side of North 51st Street for three (3) years. Council Member Christensen seconded the motion.

There was some discussion as to safety issues with trucks to and from businesses and kids using that sidewalk with truck traffic. Mr. Grasser stated that the City Code requires installation of sidewalks within one year of constructing a building and that period has expired on all of these areas, that 51st Street is a classified street and those are the ones they try to provide as much pedestrian access as we can.

After further discussion Council Member Klave suggested that having it deferred or more research done on the west side, there are concerns of safety - that many businesses owners have truck traffic, and one business owner contacted him, that it’s not a matter of dollars but making sure people are safe and if the sidewalk is put on the other side, they probably wouldn’t object to helping pay for the sidewalk so the property owner wasn’t stuck for the full bill; and perhaps staff should go out and meet with owners and perhaps have sidewalk on one side only and away from where heavy traffic is.

Council Member Bjerke requested to amend his motion to include requesting staff to meet with property owners in review for cost sharing of the sidewalk construction. Council Member Christensen agreed to the amendment to the motion.

After further discussion Council Member Christensen withdrew his second on the amendment; and Council Member Bjerke withdrew his motion on the amendment. Council Member Christensen withdrew his second on primary motion; and the motion died; and then moved that we defer approval of this project for 2 weeks and direct staff to meet with the property owners on the west side and on east side and try to develop a plan where the safety issues are dealt with by staff and to come back with report. Council Member Brooks seconded the motion. Carried 10 votes affirmative.
Council Member Klave stated that perhaps should be splitting listing as only wanting to defer portion of properties on the listing. Mr. Grasser stated he’s not sure they can meet the requested time table, and 90% of the sidewalk work is on 51st Street and pursue direction council is giving, and not sure how to come to consensus and not sure how develop policies for who is going to pay for it because this is new process and brings up number of other policy issues. He stated they will be bringing in another sidewalk list later and will include other properties on the next listing.

Council Member Hamerlik moved to reconsider the motion so can change timetable; Council Member Brooks seconded the motion. Carried 10 votes affirmative.

Council Member Hamerlik moved that we defer approval of this project and direct staff to meet with the property owners on the west side and on east side and try to develop a plan where the safety issues are dealt with by staff and to come back with report at the earliest possible time. Council Member Christensen seconded the motion. Carried 10 votes affirmative.

APPROVE PRELIMINARY PLAT; AND INTRODUCE
ORDINANCE TO AMEND STREET AND HIGHWAY PLAN
TO INCLUDE PUBLIC R/W SHOWN AS DEDICATED ON
THE PLAT OF SHADYRIDGE SIXTH ADDITION

The staff recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to the matter of request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Lavonne Adams for preliminary approval of the plat of Shadyridge Sixth Addition (located north and east of Desiree Drive, Grand Forks, ND), with recommendation to grant preliminary approval of the plat, subject to the conditions shown on or attached to the review copy; introduce the ordinance amending the Street and Highway Code and setting a public hearing for July 16, 2001.

Council Member Stevens reported that this property is on the wet side of the dike and asked if there were regulations to be able to get city utilities to the property because it is in the city limits. Mr. Potter stated that the Adams family is proposing to subdivide land which they will call Shadyridge Sixth Addition and it will lie outside the dike alignment, that they have not completed all of their technical review the issue raised will be one of those researched and addressed before coming back to the Planning Commission and the city council in July, and not sure can give a clear answer and asked to deal with that when they come back. Mr. Swanson reported that he and Mr. Potter met this morning and the recommendation he had was that in the technical comments to the plat that a note be included referencing the present location of the proposed plat being outside of any identified or approved flood protection plan. He stated they will have this back at a future date to take further action and has some concern with an outright disapproval of any platting or any development outside of your proposed dike line because that falls into a regulatory taking; insofar as the property owner is aware and to the best of the Planning Department’s ability in giving notices that would be the preferred course. Council Member Stevens asked if it would be advisable to put a caveat in the motion of approving this; Mr. Swanson stated the council can and that Mr. Potter had the intent of including that as a technical note on the plat.

Mr. Potter stated this is before the council as preliminary approval and that they need to be sure that the language discussed with the city attorney is written in the proper manner and proper form and when this comes back on July 16 will have a document for review.

Mr. Grasser stated he sees a number of issues: 1) that it potentially can be on the wet side of the dike, and 2) still are evaluating dike alignments and several go through these lots and could put the house on the dry side; 3) that we aren’t in a position now in the near term to extend city utilities there because to do so would require a lift station that the City has not committed to putting a lift station for sanitary sewer, 4) and if on the wet side and city utilities do end up out there, there maybe some additional costs incurred over and above normal type costs because if on the wet side would have to make sure that if those homes would become inundated, the water can’t come back through our utilities and would like those four comments on the plat.

Council Member Christensen stated that once you plat property and change the zoning, you have the potential of increasing the value, and if 2 or 3 of the dike alignments would go through some of these lots by platting this, we are increasing the value which will cost the citizens more when we take it.

It was moved by Council Member Stevens and seconded by Council Member Kreun to approve the staff recommendation. Carried 10 votes affirmative.

Council Member Stevens introduced an ordinance entitled “An ordinance to amend the Street and Highway Plan of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, to include the public rights of way shown as dedicated on the plat of Shady Ridge Sixth Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota”, which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.

CONSIDER MATTER OF “CHRISTMAS IN THE PARK”
EVENT IN THE GREENWAY

The staff recommendation from the interim greenway coordinator relating to the “Christmas in the Park” event in the greenway, with recommendation for approval of request for Grand Forks Lions Club to hold an annual “Christmas in the Park” event in the former Lincoln neighborhood and direct City staff to work on the provisions of an agreement between the City of Grand Forks and the Lions Club, with such agreement to allow the installation of electrical power to appropriate locations.

Council Member Bjerke stated he would like to see agreement before we approve this project, and moved that we authorize appropriate staff to meet with the Lions Club and come up with a long term plan and an agreement in writing before approving the project. The motion was seconded by Council Member Burke.

After some discussion a substitute motion was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Kreun that we state our intent to enter into an agreement with the Lions Club and that the staff draw up proper agreement before final approval.

Council Member Christensen called the question; seconded by Council Member Kreun. Carried 10 votes affirmative.

Upon call for the question on the amendment and upon voice vote, the motion carried 10 votes affirmative.

Upon call for the question on the motion as amended, and upon voice vote, the motion carried 10 votes affirmative.


AUTHORIZE CONTINUED STUDY OF GENERAL
CONCEPT FOR A NATURE CENTER

The staff recommendation from interim greenway coordinator relating to the potential nature center in Grand Forks, with recommendation to authorize staff to continue to study the general concept for a nature center, but not under Phase II Levee Design, with the understanding that the nature center may or may not be included in future levee phase design as city council may direct after further study.

Council Member Bjerke stated the nature center is a betterment and the citizens of Grand Forks are going to pay more in dike special assessment to build the nature center, we don’t have an estimate on operations cost, that the nature center is recreational and is a Park District function, that in North Dakota we have a separate taxing entity to take care of recreational activities, that this is not part of the City and not a base function of government. He moved a motion to delete the nature center from the CIP and instruct staff to cease all work and study on the nature center project. Council Member Burke seconded the motion.

Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Burke, Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens - 4; voting “nay”: Council Members Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Kreun, Hamerlik - 6. Mayor Brown declared the motion defeated.

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik that we approve the recommendation to authorize staff to continue to study the general concept for a Nature Center, but not under Phase II Levee Design, with the understanding that the Nature Center may or may not be included in future levee phase design as city council may direct after further study. The motion was seconded by Council Member Kerian. Upon voice vote, the motion carried 9 votes affirmative, Council Member Bjerke voted against the motion.

DEFEAT REQUEST FOR INCENTIVE COMPENSATION
FOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FINANCE

The staff recommendation from the Mayor’s Office relating to the incentive compensation for the assistant director of finance, with recommendation as provided in Grand Forks City Code 6-0404 authorize merit or incentive compensation for an hourly rate of $33.91, and the retroactive compensation of $25,431.36 to the assistant director of finance.

Council Member Gershman questioned why the assistant director of finance was not included in the overtime during post flood, if it was because she didn’t submit or because exempt employees did receive substantial amounts of money for overtime. The city auditor stated he believed it is because she chose not to submit, she was eligible as other employees, and had discussion after the fact and had no idea why she would not submit. Mayor Brown stated this is not a request for overtime, this is a request for adjustment based on discrepancy between wages. The city auditor stated that the request is to rectify the disparity between the finance director and assistant director pay, and retroactive pay for that back to 1999. Council Member Christensen stated he had talked with Ms. Jerath and she advised him that she was under the impression that she was not eligible for the overtime compensation because she was an exempt employee.

Council Member Hamerlik stated there was in Mayor Owens’ budget, $100,000 which received approval for incentive compensation, and there was an unofficial list with about 14-16 names, and when council reviewed that list, there became a concern and when list was submitted to the council for approval it was down to 8 or 9. He stated in addition to that there was about $40,000 already awarded out of the $100,000, leaving $60,000 available for those individuals; Mayor Owens decided who was to receive the money and how much, and finds it a bit contradictory that afterwards trying to add someone to the list but the money is gone. He stated we are going to have a job analysis report in the near future and that would take care of the discrepancies and maybe that is the way to do that, rather than singling out one individual while others also in line.

Council Member Christensen quoted portions of the City Code relative to salary ranges and stated that Ms. Jerath’s request is to eliminate the disparity between the department head and her pay, which is 26%, and other departments run from 12% to 14%, and supports changing this disparity and getting her within the 12 to 14% range, and if do it in next year’s budgeting process, that’s one thing, but is important to send a message to her that we appreciate her work and make this up to her as soon as can, and he would like to have this approved this evening and go forward and will be part of the mayor’s budget and so moved the recommendation . Council Member Brooks seconded the motion.

Council Member Burke states this moves the disparity further down the ladder, because larger gap for positions below that position, and throws away grade and step plan, that now have system based on grades and steps.

The city auditor stated that the motion is approving the recommendation as in the packet, which is to authorize the mayor to allow incentive compensation for an hourly rate of $33.91, and the retroactive compensation of $25,431.36 for the assistant director of finance. Council Member Bjerke questioned funding for the retroactive compensation. The city auditor reported that would come from the salary line item across the general fund where there are unfilled positions.

Council Member Kerian stated that both Human Resources and Civil Service did not take positions on this and her concern is that in civil service, there is an equity issue and perhaps making it worse again, because have precedence in the percentage rates but reluctant to pass this because making matter worse, not fair to Ms. Jerath but not fair to others either.

Council Member Klave stated we are not changing the pay level of this grade and in event this individual should leave this position, and rehire, would go back to the original pay scale.

Council Member Burke stated that what the director of finance received was an incentive to retain his services based on a particular set of conditions, the pay scale is there and maybe that needs to be adjusted
to deal with inequities, but shouldn’t do this to deal with an inequity for an incentive that the director of finance received.

Ed Grossbauer, employee rep. for the fire department and Officer Roger Pohlman, employee rep. for the police department, were present. Mr. Grossbauer stated they do not want to offend anyone, but feel they are setting a precedent, and that Human Resources advertising the engineering positions with incentive compensation already; that the market analysis was to be implemented in January of 2000 and nothing has been done yet, that there are some grave inequities, that we are on a step system and need to decide where we want to be with the market, that we hired a consultant at a rate of $40,000; that are 8% below market medians. Mr. Pohlman stated that fair and equitable treatment is what they are looking at for the employees - all employees.

Mr. Swanson stated that the payments that were made in prior years were under the provision dealing with incentive or merit benefits, that it would have to be determined to be an incentive benefit, and other Code sections are other avenues for which pay adjustments may be made, none of those appeared to fit either procedurally or substantively to the request before you, the only avenue which would be available under Civil Service Code would be what the mayor is requesting of you now.

After further discussion and upon roll call vote the following voted “aye”: Council Members Christensen, Brooks - 2; voting “nay”: Council Members Gershman, Klave, Kerian, Kreun, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke - 8. Mayor Brown declared the motion defeated.

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR COMMENTS

1) Mr. Duquette, interim coordinator, stated he recognized the difficulty of the decision on the last item, went through some of the same difficulties as they put this together, probably the larger question the council needs to consider as they move forward in the next budgeting year is having to do with incentive adjustments, whether to continue those items or make them a one-time event with these particular positions that you examine in the future. He stated he thinks they should be very careful about making them one-time events, because tends to make things off balance, that these incentive adjustments are one-time things and should look at them that way because as continue in the process it throws budgeting out of whack.

2) Mr. Duquette stated he wanted to be very clear about market analysis being put together, that he worked with several council members and made recommendation couple years ago that the employees on the whole in the city of Grand Forks are about 8% below median, and put together an implementation plan of trying to bump that a couple percent each year, that we’re behind on that and we’ve got to find a lot of money to deal with the market analysis - $200,000, and try to come out with the best bang for the buck on this when they get done - this won’t please everybody - one of the mistakes we’ve made in the city of Grand Forks is not planning for wage or job analyses on a 3 to 5 year phase - market analysis is not a job analysis - market analysis takes bench mark positions and compare to the region as far as pay and apply those results across the board - a job analysis is where we examine each individual position and find out where they should be paid, that’s what happened to the engineers, they are underpaid and we’re trying to compensate for that through the incentive adjustment - we should have a job study done, wage analysis, not a market analysis, and strongly recommend that and may want to accelerate that into next year, rather than waiting for another two years - thoughts for their consideration.

COUNCIL MEMBER AND MAYOR COMMENTS

1) Council Member Gershman stated they have been on the council for one year, that there are some issues that hang around and this is extremely important, that we continue having discussions with no resolution, and difficult to have pay and percentage being discussed in public for two/three years, and would like to see a resolution. Mr. Duquette stated they are 3 weeks out but wants to caution council that this is not going fix the larger issue; that we are 8% below median based upon the Fox/Lawson Study two years ago, that $200,000 not going to take care of it and need to apply in the most severe spots.

2) Council Member Bjerke asked for status on Mr. Feland’s contract of employment. Mr. Duquette stated he is dealing with contracts not signed, met with contracted department heads, standardized the contracts they are going to utilize and worked with Mr. Swanson on that, and now just down to numbers.

3) Council Member Bjerke stated the reason some of them want to have neighbors meet and talk about sidewalks is because he doesn’t believe that tax money is monopoly money, we just spend it all the time, and in no hurry for the sidewalk, but when some of the council members ran for office and said they wanted to do things differently, he plans on staying with that, wants some things done differently, why put in two sidewalks if one will do - that this is real people’s money and as council should treat that money with more respect.. He stated if he looked at the budget correctly, he saw a 5 mill increase and asked if that was correct. The city auditor stated there is the potential of that as being a recommendation, however, they are still reviewing other financing in revenue streams.

4) Council Member Brooks stated that the employees are the most important asset we have, this is service industry - that we don’t have a human resources director our key tie to the employees and the HR position has to be filled, but have to get a system in place.

5) Mayor Brown stated he was pleased to have the annual greenway bike day on Saturday, and to participate in that. He advised they are expediting the administrative coordinator and Human Resources director recruiting.

6) Mayor Brown reported that we have a request from the County asking the City of Grand Forks as the largest city in the county to select a person to sit on the County Redistricting Board, the Board is a statutory board created for the single purpose of determining what the county commission districts will look like for the next 10 years, the City’s obligation is indicated in NDCC Section 11.07.01(3), and we need to pick a representative for our body for the redistricting board, and asked council to submit recommendations to his office as their first meeting is June 21 at 3:00 p.m.

7) Mayor Brown reported on the clearwell funding, pleased by what Senator Dorgan did for us using the State Revolving Funds as a match for federal funds and that trip to Washington, D.C. in January for which they were questioned, has generated an opportunity to get funds that saves the City $5 million over the next 20 years.

APPROVE MINUTES JUNE 4 AND 11, 2001

Typewritten copies of the minutes of the city council meetings held on Monday, June 4, 2001 and Monday, June 11, 2001, were presented and read. It was moved by Council Member Bjerke and seconded by Council Member Kerian to approve the minutes as presented. Carried 10 votes affirmative.

APPROVE BILLS

Vendor Payment Listing No. 01-12, dated June 18, 2001 and totaling $917,712.98, were presented and read.

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Burke that these bills 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, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Kreun - 10; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried and the bills ordered paid.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Burke that we do now adjourn. Carried 10 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,



John M. Schmisek
City Auditor

Approved:
________________________________
Michael R. Brown, Mayor