City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us

17819

October 15, 2001

PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
October 15, 2001

The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in the council chambers in City Hall on Monday, October 15, 2001 at the hour of 7:00 o’clock p.m. with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Bjerke (telephone conference), Stevens, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 13; absent: none.

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

Mayor Brown stated that given the events that are happening in the United States and around the world, especially in relation to the threats of anthrax, would urge everyone to first and foremost remain calm, but continue to be alert and vigilant, and to remember these facts: the City is alert and the City agencies are ready to respond to any threats, public panic and hysteria only help those who send out threats. Only two people in the United States are actually diagnosed as being ill from anthrax and they are being treated and if an anthrax exposure does occur, our city agencies will respond quickly to move to contain it. He stated it’s important that we can’t let terrorists or threats of bad events cause us to panic or stop our life if we do that, the terrorists win.

COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE REPORTED PRESENT

Mayor Brown stated he would like to congratulate the State Soccer/Bocce attendees for the Special Olympics - the participants, their families, the volunteers who made that event a success.

Mayor Brown congratulated the elementary students whose art was selected for the tiles in the ArtWise Competition at the Town Square - good job!

The city auditor stated that he had placed a letter on the council members’ desks from the U.S. Department of Agriculture - that they were going through some complex special assessment information and have very good staff people, Dale Sailer and Emily Fossen, working on it; and the letter states that during the last several days they have had the opportunity to speak with Emily concerning the flood protection project assessments for the USDA Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center and that she has been very helpful and courteous and appreciate all the help she has given them. The city auditor stated that the staff has put in a lot of time on this project, very time consuming, and nice to see that we are treating the people very well.

HEAR APPEALS AND CERTIFY ASSESSMENTS ON FLOOD
PROTECTION PROJECT - PROJECT No. 4704, DISTRICT NO. 14
AND CONTINUE TO OCTOBER 22, 2001

The city auditor reported that this item is on the agenda tonight but the public hearing has been continued to October 22, 2001 as a special city council meeting, but would need to open the hearing this evening and if there is anyone here who can’t make next week, should be allowed to speak.

The city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the Special Assessment Commission and
the approval and confirmation of these assessments by the Commission on Project No. 4704, Flood Protection District No. 14, in the amount of $20,357,500.00, and reported that the legal notice to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been filed with the auditor’s office.

Mayor Brown asked if there was anyone in the audience who had comments to make on these assessments.

Ellie Mercil, 5066 Coppergate Drive, stated if the council approves the assessments, it will raise rental for every single person that lives in Gateway Terrace $30/month, which makes their payments on lot rent more than their house payment, and that it is coming to a point where young families can’t live there anymore because of all the expenses they pay in this town make it too expensive.

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Klave to continue the public hearing on the flood protection assessments until the special city council meeting on Monday, October 22, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

APPROVE ASSESSMENTS, SEWER PROJECT NO. 4661,
DISTRICT NO. 391.1

The city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the special Assessment Commission and the approval and confirmation of these assessments by the Commission on Project No. 4661, Sewer District No. 391.1, in the amount of $18,241.90, and reported that the legal notice to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been filed with the auditor’s office.

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

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Kreun that these assessments be and are hereby accepted and confirmed, and that they be levied against the property benefited in 13 annual installments of principal together with interest on the unpaid balance yearly, to be collected with other taxes by the proper authorities. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

APPROVE ASSESSMENTS, SEWER PROJECT NO. 5150,
DISTRICT NO. 409

The city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the Special Assessment Commission and the approval and confirmation of these assessments by the Commission on Project No. 5150, Sewer District No. 409, in the amount of $160,700.00, and reported that the legal notice to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been filed with the auditor’s office.

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

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Kreun that these assessments be and are hereby accepted and confirmed, and that they be levied against the property benefited in 15 annual installments of principal together with interest on the unpaid balance yearly, to be collected with other taxes by the proper authorities. Carried 14 votes affirmative.
APPROVE ASSESSMENTS, PAVING PROJECT NO. 4998,
DISTRICT NO. 576

The city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the Special Assessment Commission and the approval and confirmation of these assessments by the Commission on Project No. 4998, Paving District No. 576, in the amount of $0.00, and reported that the legal notice to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been filed with the auditor’s office.

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

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Kreun that these assessments be and are hereby accepted and confirmed, and that they be levied against the property benefited in 19 annual installments of principal together with interest on the unpaid balance yearly, to be collected with other taxes by the proper authorities. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

APPROVE ASSESSMENTS, PAVING PROJECT NO. 5003 ,
DISTRICT NO. 566

The city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the Special Assessment Commission and the approval and confirmation of these assessments by the Commission on Project No. 5003, Paving District No. 566, in the amount of $134,800.00, and reported that the legal notice to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been filed with the auditor’s office.

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

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Kreun that these assessments be and are hereby accepted and confirmed, and that they be levied against the property benefited in 19 annual installments of principal together with interest on the unpaid balance yearly, to be collected with other taxes by the proper authorities. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

APPROVE ASSESSMENTS, PAVING PROJECT NO. 5005,
DISTRICT NO. 567

The city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the Special Assessment Commission and the approval and confirmation of these assessments by the Commission on Project No. 5005, Paving District No. 5005, in the amount of $135,600.00, and reported that the legal notice to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been filed with the auditor’s office.

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

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Kreun that these assessments be and are hereby accepted and confirmed, and that they be levied against the property benefited in 19 annual installments of principal together with interest on the unpaid balance yearly, to be collected with other taxes by the proper authorities. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

APPROVE ASSESSMENTS, PAVING PROJECT NO. 5126,
DISTRICT NO. 580

The city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the Special Assessment Commission and the approval and confirmation of these assessments by the Commission on Project No. 5126, Paving District No. 580, in the amount of $610,600.00, and reported that the legal notice to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been filed with the auditor’s office.

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

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Kreun that these assessments be and are hereby accepted and confirmed, and that they be levied against the property benefited in 19 annual installments of principal together with interest on the unpaid balance yearly, to be collected with other taxes by the proper authorities. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

APPROVE ASSESSMENTS, STREET LIGHTING PROJECT
NO. 5008, DISTRICT NO. 129

The city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the Special Assessment Commission and the approval and confirmation of these assessments by the Commission on Project No. 5008, Street Lighting District No. 129, in the amount of $17,100.00, and reported that the legal notice to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been filed with the auditor’s office.

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

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Kreun that these assessments be and are hereby accepted and confirmed, and that they be levied against the property benefited in 10 annual installments of principal together with interest on the unpaid balance yearly, to be collected with other taxes by the proper authorities. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

APPROVE ASSESSMENTS, STREET LIGHTING PROJECT
NO. 5024, DISTRICT NO. 132

The city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the Special Assessment Commission and the approval and confirmation of these assessments by the Commission on Project No. 5024, Street Lighting District No. 132, in the amount of $11,300.00, and reported that the legal notice to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been filed with the auditor’s office.

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

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Kreun that these assessments be and are hereby accepted and confirmed, and that they be levied against the property benefited in 10 annual installments of principal together with interest on the unpaid balance yearly, to be collected with other taxes by the proper authorities. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

APPROVE ASSESSMENTS, STREET LIGHTING PROJECT
NO. 5154, DISTRICT NO. 133

The city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the Special Assessment Commission and the approval and confirmation of these assessments by the Commission on Project No. 5154, Street Lighting District No. 133, in the amount of $20,700.00, and reported that the legal notice to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been filed with the auditor’s office.

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

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Kreun that these assessments be and are hereby accepted and confirmed, and that they be levied against the property benefited in 10 annual installments of principal together with interest on the unpaid balance yearly, to be collected with other taxes by the proper authorities. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

APPROVE ASSESSMENTS, STREET LIGHTING PROJECT
NO. 5155, DISTRICT NO. 134

The city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the Special Assessment Commission and the approval and confirmation of these assessments by the Commission on Project No. 5155, Street Lighting District No. 134, in the amount of $8,800.00, and reported that the legal notice to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been filed with the auditor’s office.

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

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Kreun that these assessments be and are hereby accepted and confirmed, and that they be levied against the property benefited in 10 annual installments of principal together with interest on the unpaid balance yearly, to be collected with other taxes by the proper authorities. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

APPROVE ASSESSMENTS, STREET LIGHTING PROJECT
NO. 5156, DISTRICT NO. 135

The city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the Special Assessment Commission and the approval and confirmation of these assessments by the Commission on Project No. 5156, Street Lighting District No. 135, in the amount of $143,500.00, and reported that the legal notice to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been filed with the auditor’s office.

Mayor Brown asked if there was anyone in the audience who had comments to make on these assessments. There were none.
It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Kreun that these assessments be and are hereby accepted and confirmed, and that they be levied against the property benefited in 10 annual installments of principal together with interest on the unpaid balance yearly, to be collected with other taxes by the proper authorities. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

APPROVE ASSESSMENTS, PAVING PROJECT NO. 5048,
DISTRICT NO. 563

The city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the Special Assessment Commission and the approval and confirmation of these assessments by the Commission on Project No. 5048, Paving District No. 563, in the amount of $3,009,804.00, and reported that the legal notice to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been filed with the auditor’s office.

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

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Kreun that these assessments be and are hereby accepted and confirmed, and that they be levied against the property benefited in 19 annual installments of principal together with interest on the unpaid balance yearly, to be collected with other taxes by the proper authorities. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

APPROVE ASSESSMENTS, BUILDING DEMOLITION
PROJECT NO. 5267

The city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the Engineering Department and the approval and confirmation of these assessments by the Special Assessment Commission on Project No. 5267, Building Demolition, in the amount of $22,618.65, and reported that the legal notice to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been filed with the auditor’s office.

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

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Kreun that these assessments be and are hereby accepted and confirmed, and that they be levied against the property benefited in 5 annual installments of principal together with interest on the unpaid balance yearly, to be collected with other taxes by the proper authorities. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

APPROVE ASSESSMENTS, SEWER CONNECTION FEES,
PROJECT NO. 1101.1

The city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the city engineer and the approval and confirmation of these assessments by the engineer on Project No. 1011.1, sewer connection fees, in the amount of $6,827.08, and reported that the legal notice to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been filed with the auditor’s office.

Mayor Brown asked if there was anyone in the audience who had comments to make on these assessments. There were none.
It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Kreun that these assessments be and are hereby accepted and confirmed, and that they be levied against the property benefited in 13 annual installments of principal together with interest on the unpaid balance yearly, to be collected with other taxes by the proper authorities. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

APPROVE ASSESSMENTS, SIDEWALK PROJECT
NO. 5103.1

The city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the city engineer and the approval and confirmation of these assessments by the engineer on Project No. 5103.1, 2000 sidewalk construction, in the amount of $50,462.29, and reported that the legal notice to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been filed with the auditor’s office.

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

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Kreun that these assessments be and are hereby accepted and confirmed, and that they be levied against the property benefited in 4 annual installments of principal together with interest on the unpaid balance yearly, to be collected with other taxes by the proper authorities. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

APPROVE ASSESSMENTS, SIDEWALK PROJECT NO. 5196

The city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the city engineer and the approval and confirmation of these assessments by the city engineer on Project No. 5196, 2001 sidewalk construction, in the amount of $82,502.59, and reported that the legal notice to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been filed with the auditor’s office.

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

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Kreun that these assessments be and are hereby accepted and confirmed, and that they be levied against the property benefited in 5 annual installments of principal together with interest on the unpaid balance yearly, to be collected with other taxes by the proper authorities. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

APPROVE ASSESSMENTS, WEED CUTTING
PROJECT NO. 5208.0

The city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the city health department and/or city street department, and the approval and confirmation of these assessments by the supervising sanitarian and/or city street department, on Project No. 5208.0, weed cutting for 2001, in the amount of $7,860.00, and reported that the legal notice to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been filed with the auditor’s office.

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

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Kreun that these assessments be and are hereby accepted and confirmed, and that they be levied against the property benefited in 1 annual installment of principal, to be collected with other taxes by the proper authorities. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

APPROVE ASSESSMENTS, DELINQUENT WATER
BILLING, PROJECT NO. 9001.8

The city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the city auditor and the approval and confirmation of these assessments by the city auditor on Project No. 9001.8, delinquent water billings, in the amount of $16,114.36, and reported that the legal notice to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been filed with the auditor’s office.

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

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Kreun that these assessments be and are hereby accepted and confirmed, and that they be levied against the property benefited in 1 annual installment of principal, to be collected with other taxes by the proper authorities. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

APPROVE ASSESSMENTS, PAVING PROJECT NO. 5145,
DISTRICT NO. 579

The city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the Special Assessment Commission and the approval and confirmation of these assessments by the Commission on Project No. 5145, Paving District No. 579, in the amount of $1,514,400.00, and reported that the legal notice to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been filed with the auditor’s office.

Mayor Brown asked if there was anyone in the audience who had comments to make on these assessments. There were no comments from the audience.

Council Member Bjerke asked if any consideration was given to the information in Mr. Walker’s letter that the road was built heavier than for normal traffic and that it was built for City use (for baling facility).

Mark Walker, project engineer, reported they reviewed the project, that the street was built for extra heavy duty traffic due to the baling facility, and came up with some costs for a typical street, that the total construction cost of the project was about $1.5 million, and calculated if it was constructed in a more typical street that the costs would be approximately $863,000.00. He stated for their consideration they could go with the assessments as were proposed originally, reduce it to a cap of $863,000 or another option would be for the City (Sanitation Department) to absorb all the special assessments.

Council Member Bjerke moved to cap the special assessments for the project at $863,000; the motion was seconded by Council Member Brooks.

The funding source for the uncovered portion (difference between the $1.5 million and the $863,000) would be the baling facility project, which would be the sanitation fund.

Council Member Christensen asked if the special assessments or city-share that the City would pick up under this motion would be paid out of general tax revenues. The city auditor stated city-share is paid out of general tax levy unless it is related to a utility fund, as in this project which is the sanitation fund. Mr. Walker stated that if there were no development and property not annexed, the City would not collect any special assessments and would be default funding source; and that there are no proposals for development in the area. Council Member Christensen suggested that Council Member Bjerke’s motion be for the total special assessments to be paid out of the sanitation fund, as there is a reserve in that fund of about $3 or $4 million as a cash carryover rather than tap the general property tax. The city auditor reported that presently this entire amount is coming out of the sanitation fund, that is where it has been budgeted and the capping of the $863,000 is that if there is an annexation in the future that then those property owners would pay an equivalent assessment as any other property owner would.

Al Grasser, city engineer, reported that the project was scheduled to be funded and constructed with the baling facility so all funding was to come through the sanitation funds, that the council elected in the event that some development occurs out there within the next 20 years, we create a mechanism so we have the opportunity to collect some of those funds back; or can elect not to special assess it at all, and that might drive some interest in development out there because essentially they would have a watermain available as well as a free all weather road out there.

There was considerable discussion relative to any development in the area, and Council Member Kreun stated that we do not want to limit our ability to recoup some of those costs, granted not residential but a construction company might desire to build out there and require the use of that kind of road, and would limit ourselves under this motion to being able to just assess that amount of $863,000 when they would require the heavier duty road and if somebody would develop something out there that they do not require a heavy duty road, could then assess them for the usage they need, and if leave recommendation we have, that ability if a company would move out there to set the assessment at that time for the need of that particular company. Mr. Grasser stated they have had a chance to rethink that and a modified recommendation is probably better.

Council Member Christensen stated that the difference in total cost and recommendation is about $400,000, and the issue comes for the City in going forward is what’s our policy going to be on “tapping fees” because what’s been done in the past and if land isn’t developed or people don’t use the land for a period of time, the street depreciates, and suggested they rethink our tapping fee, and would rather see that if any property is annexed that they get a special assessment for 15 years. Mr. Grasser stated they are proposing a future assessment district which is different than the tapping fee, it identifies an area essentially in which the council can set an actual assessment district at some point in time in the future; and different than tapping fee which is collected based on a building permit. Mr. Swanson stated that the major distinction between a tapping fee and a future special assessment is that the future special assessment does depreciate based upon the projected life of the project; a tapping fee is a set amount that does not alter during the course of the life, not based upon a depreciation schedule.

Council Member Christensen asked if this has to be done today, or if they could develop a policy as to a future special assessment district. The city auditor stated they would like council to tell staff what they would like to cap this out at in the future, and could decide in the future whether it will be a tapping or an assessment fee, and reason is for certifying to the County by November 1.

Council Member Kreun stated this is future special assessments and is depreciated amount that if somebody would build out there in 10 or 15 years, they would have a depreciated amount left on that particular assessment. Mr. Swanson stated if there were an annexation at some time in the future, that property would be assessed for remaining assessment based upon a depreciated amount that would be assessed at the time of annexation. He stated they wouldn’t depreciate the number of years over which the assessment is spread, what is depreciated is the amount spread or assessed against the property, if you have a 15 year assessment it will still be a 15 year assessment but the amount being assessed against the property would be depreciated down. He stated under tapping fee that amount is fully due at one time and no depreciation. Council Member Kreun stated this is separate from tapping fees, separate from a special assessment district where people already live and are in the city limits - this is a future special assessment district on a depreciated schedule.

The city auditor stated that in looking at the map and the district states that it is a tapping fee area and a tapping fee boundary and not a future special assessment, which would mean that the sanitation department is paying all the costs right now for the baling facility, and if wish to delay establishing how you’re going to handle this, you would have the ability to do that because we wouldn’t have to get this over to the County by the 1st of November and would give you some time to review it.

Mr. Swanson stated even if it were a future special assessment district, the council is not necessarily obligated to act upon that tonight insofar as there would be no assessment during the tax year of 2001 payable in 2002, and if the council wishes to fully examine that at a later date that would be within their prerogative.

After further discussion and upon call for the question to cap the special assessments at $863,000.00 and upon voice vote the motion carried.

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Kreun that these assessments be and are hereby accepted and confirmed, and that they be levied against the property benefited in 19 annual installments of principal together with interest on the unpaid balance yearly, to be collected with other taxes by the proper authorities. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

HOLD PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE FINAL ACTION ON
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 2001 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN

The staff report from the Office of Urban Development relating to public hearing and final action on proposed amendment to 2001 Annual Action Plan, request from Community Violence Intervention Center for transfer of $21,000 from previously approved 2001 CDBG funds (bricks and mortar) to public service grant for use as operational funds, with recommendation to close the 30-day public comment period, hold a public hearing, and take final action on the proposed amendment to the 2001 Annual Action Plan.

Mayor Brown opened the public hearing, there were no comments and the public hearing was closed.

It was moved by Council Members Glassheim and Brooks that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative; Council Member Bjerke voted against the motion.

ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3900, AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE
OF REVENUE BONDS PAYABLE FROM SALES AND USE TAX
PROCEEDS TO FINANCE COSTS OF FLOOD CONTROL
PROJECTS AND ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES
An ordinance entitled “An ordinance authorizing the issuance of revenue bonds payable from sales and use tax proceeds to finance the costs of flood control projects and establishing procedures therefor”, which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on October 1, 2001, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.

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

Upon call for the question and approval of the ordinance by Council Members Hamerlik and Gershman and upon roll call vote, the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 14; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the ordinance adopted.

APPROVE APPLICATION FOR MOVING PERMIT TO
MOVE HOUSE FROM 93 GRASSY HILLS TO LOT 5,
BLOCK 2, SHADYRIDGE ESTATES 6TH

The staff report from Inspections relating to the public hearing for moving permit application to move the house from 93 Grassy Hills to Lot 5, Block 2, Shadyridge Estates 6th , with recommendation to approve the moving permit to move a house from 93 Grassy Hills Lane.

Council Member Lunak asked if it was unusual to go from the wet side of the dike to the wet side of the dike; Ms. Collings, Inspections, stated that the house can legally be placed on the wet side of the permanent protection project as long as it is correctly placed as far as flood proofing regulations. She stated that in the properties the City acquired they have some restrictions on some of those properties, that this is privately owned property that was purchased and there are no restrictive covenants by the City; and this property is within the city limits. Mr. Swanson stated that the recommendation from the Special Assessment Commission is that they have assessed no benefit to anybody located on the wet side of the flood control project.

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Hamerlik to approve the application for moving permit. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE TO
AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO INCLUDE WITHIN VILLAGE
PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVEOP-
MENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 3, ALL OF VILLAGE RE-
SUBDIVISION NO. 2 AND ALL OF VILLAGE RESUBDIVISION
NO. 3, TO NOVEMBER 19, 2001

An ordinance entitled “An ordinance to amend the Zoning Map of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, to rezone and exclude from the Village PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment no. 2 and to include within the Village PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 3, all of Village Resubdivision No. 2 and all of Village Resubdivision No. 3, Grand Forks, North Dakota”, which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on August 20, 2001, and upon which public hearing had been continued until this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading. It was noted by Mr. Potter that the proposed developer has not finalized purchase of the property.
It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Hamerlik to approve the recommendation and to continue the public hearing and second reading of the ordinance to November 19, 2001. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3901, AMENDING THE COMPRE-
HENSIVE PLAN, SECTION 18-0802, ELEMENTS OF THE
GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED, PERTAINING
TO THE GRAND FORKS-EAST GRAND FORKS 2022 TRANS-
PORTATION 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 l987, as amended, pertaining to the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks 2022 Transportation Plan Update (2001 Bikeway, 1999 Pedestrian Element; 2000 Transit Element, 2000 Street and Highway Element, and 2000 Metropolitan Intelligent Transportation Systems Comprehensive Plan Element”, which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on September 17, 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 in his office.

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

The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to matter of request from the Grand Forks Planning and Zoning Department for final approval of 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, (2001 Bikeway Element, 1999 Pedestrian Element, 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 final approval of an ordinance and plan text amending the Street and Highway Element of the Transportation Plan, recommend to the city council to give final approval to the ordinance amending the Street and Highway Element of the Transportation Plan.

Council Member Martinson expressed some concern relating to the language in the ordinance of possibly a bridge over the Red River, and asked if it had been determined where that bridge might be. Mr. Potter reported that there are two separate bridge issues that are involved in the long range transportation plan, the Merrifield Road bridge is the truck by-pass bridge and we are supporting that as a City, that the intercity bridge which he is referring to from the City’s standpoint has not been settled, that the city council has not adopted an intercity bridge location.

Council Member Klave stated that in the past we have had some concern as some of these bridges are approved but that it takes a long time before something develops, and it was recommended some years ago that if we start placing a bridge in a location that we want to use, that the area be signed so that any individuals are aware, whether for future development in that area, that a bridge is scheduled for that area. MPO stated that is the City’s responsibility if that were to be done.

Upon call for the question and approval of the ordinance by Council Members Gershman and Kerian and upon roll call vote, the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 14; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the ordinance adopted.

APPROVE FINAL PLAT; AND ADOPT ORDINANCE
NO. 3902, AMENDING THE STREET AND HIGHWAY PLAN
TO INCLUDE PUBLIC R/W SHOWN AS DEDICATED ON
THE PLAT OF CONCRETE, INC 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 plat of Concrete Inc. Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota”, which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on September 17, 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 upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none.

The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to the request from Webster, Foster and Weston Consulting Engineers on behalf of Concrete, Inc. for final approval of the plat of Concrete, Inc. Addition, located at 5000 DeMers Avenue, with recommendation for final approval of the plat of Concrete Inc. Addition, Block 1, Lots 1 and 2, to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota (located at 5000 DeMers Avenue) subject to the conditions shown on or attached to the review copy, and for the city council to give final approval to the plat.

It was moved by Council Member Kreun that this recommendation be and is hereby approved, and to give final approval to the ordinance to amend the Street and Highway Plan to the city of Grand Forks to include the public rights of way shown as dedicated on the plat of Concrete, Inc. Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota. The motion was seconded by Council Member Klave.

Council Member Burke stated that according the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes the owner of the property had objected based on the fact that he was not asking that all of the property be annexed, and questioned why. Mr. Potter reported that the owners of the property desired only to have the portion where the new building will be located annexed into the city, and given the fact that they own that property and if we were to try to annex all of it, they would have the legal right to protest it and probably be successful in sustaining the protest and not have the last portion of the building annexed into the city, and it was recommendation of both staff and Planning Commission that we recognize that request and annex only the part that would include the new building. Mr. Potter also noted that the property owner annexed at the request of the City, they asked that the property annexed when they rezone, that was discussed with the Planning Office and they asked that only the portion to be annexed is where the new building will be, and negotiated over the issue of how much and was agreed.

Upon call for the question on the motion and upon roll call on the ordinance the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 14; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the ordinance adopted.

ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3903, AMENDING ZONING
MAP TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE I-2 (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL)
DISTRICT, THE SOUTHERLY 210 FEET OF LOT 1 AND
ALL OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CONCRETE INC. ADDITION

An ordinance entitled “An ordinance to amend the Zoning Map of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, to rezone and exclude from the A-1 (Limited Development) District and include within the I-2 (Heavy Industrial) District, the southerly 210 feet of Lot 1 and all of Lots 2, Block 1, Concrete Inc. Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota”, which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on September 17, 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 upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none.

The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to the request from Webster, Foster and Weston Consulting Engineers on behalf of Concrete, Inc. for final approval to rezone and exclude from the A-1 (Limited Development) District and to include within the I-2 (Heavy Industrial) District, the southerly 210 feet of Lot 1 and all of Lot 2, Block 1, Concrete, Inc. Addition (located at 5000 DeMers Avenue), with recommendation for final approval of the ordinance, and for the city council to give final approval to the ordinance.

Upon call for the question and approval of the ordinance by Council Members Lunak and Klave and upon roll call vote, the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 14; voting “nay”:
none. Mayor Brown declared the ordinance adopted.

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE RELATING TO LOT SIZE
REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR NON-
FARM SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS

The staff report from the Planning Department relating to the matter of final approval of an ordinance and to amend the text of the Land Development Code: Chapter XVIII, Article 2 Zoning, Section 18-0207, A-2 (Agricultural Reserve) District (6) Required Lot Area, Width, and Depth, (11) Special Conditions (B) Non-Farm Single Family Dwelling relating to non-conforming parcels…Density Requirements for those parcels of less than twenty (20) acres shall be at least at a ratio of one (1) unit per two and one-half acres relating to lot sizes, with recommendation tabling final approval of ordinance until the November 7, 2001 meeting and recommend to the city council to table final approval of the ordinance until November 19, 2001.

Dennis Potter, city planner, reported that the last time this matter was before the city council, it was referred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and that motion did not include preliminary approval or introduction of the ordinance, and Council Member Kreun has a substitute motion to rectify that problem.

Council Member Kreun moved to recommend the city council give preliminary approval and introduce the ordinance for first reading and to set the public hearing for November 19, 2001. Council Member Klave seconded the motion. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

Council Member Kreun introduced an ordinance entitled “An ordinance amending specific sections of Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code relating to lot size requirements and special conditions for non-farm single-family dwellings”, which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE RELATING TO CIVIL
SERVICE CODE

A report from the city attorney and human resources relating to the classified/non-classified civil service ordinance amendments, with recommendation to approve redrafted ordinance.

Council Member Hamerlik stated he has in the past talked about temporary appointments and we have gotten into this difficulty because of temporary appointments, reappointments and city council refusing to add staff, perhaps for justifiable reasons, money available and staff added and continually contrary to Code, were reappointed - that in parts 1) and 2), Section 6-0524, the question he has is that it states “…and for a period” (length of time) and if this follows style of Code or if there is a reason for those words being included in those two sections. Mr. Swanson stated it could be as a drafting style. Council Member Hamerlik asked if it would be better to drop those four words and just say “..during the existence and not to exceed ninety (90) days.” and in subsection 2) not to exceed 180 days; or to put a maximum time of periods, as he can see people being reappointed for number of periods. and have temporary people for a number of years; concerned about getting rid of what we have rather than continuing it. Mr. Swanson stated his recommendation would be not to change that language in an attempt to make that point, but rather expressly include a prohibition of subsequent appointments, so there is no question and not open to interpretation and is stated clearly. Council Member Hamerlik moved the adoption of the redrafted ordinance but to include those words as stated by the city attorney in Section 6-0524 under 1) and under 2). Council Member Brooks seconded the motion.

Mr. Swanson stated he would lobby him not to include that under subsection 2) as that subsection contemplates that you are simply moving a classified employee from one position which may be within a different department for a short term assignment to a place where you have a need, that may reoccur depending upon your department, where not adding any more employees but keeping it wholly within the classified. Council Members Hamerlik and Brooks agreed that the motion would not include part 2) of 6-0524, the 180 days, but only included in 1) after the 90 days. Mr. Swanson stated subsection 1) would apply to a non-classified employee, subsection 2) applies to a classified employee.

Council Member Christensen stated that in the same section 2), 6-0524, that the mayor should report the temporary reassignments to the civil service commission and to the council, then will be aware of what is happening, and moved to amend 6-0524 (2) to include that the mayor shall report those temporary reassignments to the civil service commission, the director of human resources and the city council. Council Members Hamerlik and Brooks agreed to include that as a part of their motion.

COUNCIL MEMBER MARTINSON EXCUSED

Council Member Christensen stated that on page 4, paragraph 30 of the proposed ordinance, questioned why the under the terms of “and an enforceable contract” between the City and the employee, and would imagine any contract between the City and the employee is enforceable. Mr. Swanson stated there have been occasions that they have come across department heads that have attempted to execute agreements without concurrence of either the mayor or council, that perhaps a little bit conservative but anticipating the situation where you could run into circumstances where a debate as to whether the contract had been approved or authorized, and if they think it is superfluous. Council Member Christensen stated that would be grounds for immediate termination by the mayor, and suggested deleting in paragraph (30) (deleting the terms of an enforceable contract). Council Member Lunak seconded the motion. Upon voice vote the motion failed.

Council Member Christensen stated that on page 5, paragraph (38), that this is a matter of style - that after the word “weekly” insert the words “up to” so it is up to 40 hours. Council Member Klave seconded the motion.

Mr. Swanson stated he would disagree with that - that 40 hours is a standard work week and the pro-ration is based upon the standard work week of 40 hours, and if have an employee working 30 hours, they would be eligible for 30 over 40; and if say up to 40 hours, we don’t have an established denominator to make that proportion work, and have to establish it as a set item.

COUNCIL MEMBER MARTINSON REPORTED BACK

Council Members Christensen and Klave withdrew their motion.

Council Member Christensen stated that on Scope and Application, Section 6-0103, that this is a matter of style, that the deleted language stated that all offices and positions of the city are divided, and perhaps want to add under paragraph (1) all offices and positions of employment within the city. Council Member Klave seconded the motion. It was noted that Mr. Swanson stated “Employment with the City shall be designated as employment into classified positions or non-classified positions.” Mr. Swanson stated he didn’t have any comments, but was trying to get away from the phrase “classified service” or “non-classified service” and refer to positions. Council Member Christensen stated he had the same questions under paragraph (2)(B) and that there are times in this ordinance where the word “service” appears rather than “position” and thinks it should be classified positions and non-classified positions and expunge the word “service” as many times as it appears (when service appears after the word classified or non-classified). Council Member Christensen moved to amend the proposed ordinance as drafted to expunge the word “service” where it appears after the words classified or non-classified, so have consistency. Council Member Brooks seconded the motion. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

Council Member Burke stated that in Section 6-0524 with regard to temporary appointments, what is the language that we have accepted that is part of the original motion. Mr. Swanson stated that under subsection 1) we are adding a restriction after the phrase 90 days, limiting no subsequent reappointments, but limiting to one appointment. Council Member Burke stated he would like to amend that paragraph and if the original mover would like to have it as a friendly amendment he would agree - that 90 consecutive days and also to add the word consecutive after 180 in paragraph (2) - that the clock is running from the time of the appointment including weekends and that the appointment cannot be subdivided into smaller periods (measuring days and 7 days per week). Council Member Hamerlik did not agree to include that as part of his motion, complicates that for bookkeeping). Council Member Burke moved the motion as an amendment to the ordinance; the motion died for lack of a second.

Council Member Burke asked that in that same paragraph, that be reported to the city council within 14 days of the appointment. Council Members Hamerlik and Brooks accepted that as a friendly amendment to the motion.

Council Member Burke asked that the same period be applied to paragraph (2); Council Members Hamerlik and Brooks accepted that as a friendly amendment to the motion.

Council Member Burke stated that on Section 6-0514, paragraph (1)(B)2. Re-employment Register- that in the last sentence “The duration of such an employee’s name on a reemployment register shall be for a period of one (1) year from the date of recuperation/rehabilitation unless otherwise extended as provided by section 6-0515.” - that once on the reemployment register, you’re on the register for one year and don’t need to figure out when the recuperation or rehabilitation actually occurred, they have the opportunity to get on the register and moved that they strike the words “from the date of recuperation/rehabilitation” from the paragraph. The motion died for lack of a second.

Council Member Burke stated that on section 6-0514, paragraph (1)(B)3., it says that “The ranking of all individuals on a reemployment register shall be in the order of the length of service with the city…” - that sometimes we have more than one person on a reemployment register, why would they not want to have the ranking based on the employment reviews of that person while they were in the employ of the city, rather than simply how long they worked for the city. Mr. Swanson stated they made no change to this provision, it wasn’t relevant to their concern of classified or non-classified employees, so didn’t address it at all, it is purely a question of seniority - the determination as to whether or not you go on a reemployment register has to be made by agreement between a department head and the mayor, that would indicate that the decision as to whether or not that employee is a valuable employee or should be allowed back probably has already been addressed, but if wanted to change that on the reemployment register to some type of hiring criteria, could drop that, but will do then will have to reestablish a process of evaluation in ranking that would be left to the civil service commission to do, that they presently don’t do right now on a reemployment register.

Council Member rose to a point of order, that isn’t pertinent to the motion on the floor, the motion on the floor has to do with the changes of the ordinance, and that isn’t within the motion, so those items should be taken up after the vote on that.

Mr. Swanson stated there is no change to that particular subpart, and can get into argument whether that is germane or not, but left it to the chair to rule.

Mayor Brown allowed the discussion.
Council Member Burke stated in the definition section (32) Overtime means all hours worked in excess of the employee’s standard work week or work period, including any hours worked in excess of four (4) hours beyond a scheduled workday or shift; and asked if that was not a change from our previous situation. but asked if it was common practice to pay overtime for part-time workers before they reach 8 hours a day. Council Member Hamerlik stated they establish a work week, but there also are some callbacks. Council Member Lunak stated that the overtime, i.e., police, fire or water departments get callbacks they get overtime, but for anybody else to get overtime they have to work 40 hours during that week before you get any overtime, there are some people who put in for overtime after 8 hours in a single day, but that’s wrong. Mr. Swanson stated that was not changed, that they incorporated the definition right out of the Fair Labor Standards Act, that the Fair Labor Standards Act does not use an 8-hour workday in any regard with respect to overtime, it is limited solely to 40 hours per week. The callback issue is a different issue, there are specific provisions on callback but would like to have an opportunity to review that and will report back.

Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 14 votes affirmative.

Council Member Hamerlik introduced an ordinance entitled “An ordinance amending sections of the Grand Forks City Code relating to the Civil Service Code”, which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.

Mr. Swanson stated that as this was the first reading and introduction of the ordinance, and that he would invite any comments, suggestions, criticisms in the drafting whether it be from city employees, civil service commission, department heads or council members, and would like to make sure they have done as well as they can.

APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS

The staff report from the health department relating to budget amendment (Health, $1,260, 9/26/01, new 2001 revenue, with recommendation to approve budget amendment of $1,260, new 2001 revenue.

The staff report from the health department relating to budget amendment for health subdepartment HL70 ($13,595, 9/26/01, new 2001 revenue), with recommendation to approve budget amendment of $13,595.

The staff report from the health department relating to budget amendment for health department ($5,374, 9/26/01, new 2001 revenue), with recommendation to approve budget amendment of $5,374.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Brooks that these recom-mendations be and are hereby approved. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

ACCEPT BIDS FOR SALT AND SAND FOR STREET
DEPARTMENT

The staff report from the public works department for street department salt and sand bids, with recommendation to approve salt and sand bids as follows: washed sand: Bradshaw Gravel, $6.90/ton or $38,640.00 total cost; and rock salt: Kayway Industries, Inc. at $36.90/ton or $12,915.00 total cost.

It was moved by Council Member Klave 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, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 14; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT, WASTEWATER
DEPARTMENT

The staff report from the public works department relating to wastewater department budget amendment ($150,000), with recommendation to approve wastewater department budget amendment in the amount of $150,000.00 to forcemain rehabilitation account 5200 100 5235 6750.0010.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Brooks that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

ACCEPT BID FOR FRONT LOAD CONTAINERS

The staff report from the public works department relating to FY 2001/2002 sanitation front load container bids, with recommendation to approve bid of Wastequip/Rayfo for 2 yd., 4 yd., 6 yd., 8 yd. front end containers as per bid tabulation.

It was moved by Council Member Klave 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, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 14; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN
OF AN APPLICATION WITH NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH FOR A LOAN UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT

The staff report from the engineering department relating to resolution of city council of Grand Forks to authorize the filing of an application with North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) for a loan under the Clean Water Act, with recommendation of approval of the resolution, which would authorize the City of Grand Forks to file an application for obtaining a Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loan for three phases of the Water Reclamation Facility Improvements Interim Residuals Management Plan, represented as 4948.3 - Residuals Force Main Phase 3, 4948.4 - Grand Forks Water Treatment Plant Site Improvements, and 4948.5 - Residuals Storage Ponds. Document No. 8114 - Resolution.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Brooks that this recom-mendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO ENGINEERING AGREE-
MENT FOR PROJECT NO. 4530, WATER DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM STUDY

The staff report from the engineering department relating to Amendment No. 2 to engineering agreement with Webster, Foster & Weston for Project No. 4530, Water Distribution System Study, with recommendation to approve Amendment No. 2 (which authorizes completion of remaining work at the 2001 rate schedule in an amount not to exceed $98,422.00, unless an increase is mutually agreed to by the parties to the agreement).
It was moved by Council Member Klave 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, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 14; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

AWARD CONTRACT FOR PUMP STATION TELEMETRY
UPGRADE, PROJECT NO. 5230

The staff report from the engineering department relating to contract with Instrument Control Systems for Pump Station Telemetry Upgrade, Project No. 5230, with recommendation to award contract to Industrial Contract Services in the amount of $465,337.95, with $261,162.76 authorized for construction at this time.

It was moved by Council Member Klave 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, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 14; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO ANNEX ALL OF SHADY
RIDGE ESTATES 6TH ADDITION, NOT PREVIOUSLY ANNEXED

The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to the matter of the request from Lavonne Adams for approval of an ordinance to annex all of Shady Ridge Estates 6th Addition not previously annexed by resolution of annexation filed with the Grand Forks County Recorder as Document No. 5259080 and filed on September 9, 1996, with recommendation for preliminary approval of an ordinance to annex all of Shady Ridge Estates 6th Addition not previously annexed by resolution of annexation filed with the Grand Forks County Recorder as Document No. 525980 and filed on September 9, 1996; and to recommend that the city council give preliminary approval and introduce the ordinance and set a public hearing date for November 19, 2001.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Brooks that this recom-mendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

Council Member Brooks introduced an ordinance entitled “An ordinance to annex to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, all of Shady Ridge Estates 6th Addition not previously annexed by resolution of annexation filed with the Grand Forks County Recorder as Document No. 525980 and filed on September 9, 1996”, which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.

APPROVE FINAL PLAT OF REPLAT OF LOTS 57 AND
58, BLOCK 3, BLAIR-SATROM-BAUKOL ADDITION

The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to the request from James Smith for final approval (fast track) of the Replat of Lots 57 and 58, Block 3, Blair-Satrom-Baukol Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota (located at 2102 and 2106 Summerset Court (formerly 22nd Rider Circle), with recommendation for final approval subject to conditions shown on or attached to the review copy.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Brooks that this recom-mendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT
RADIO AND TELEVISION TRANSMISSION TOWER IN
NW QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH 55TH
STREET EXTENDED AND 17TH AVENUE SOUTH

The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to the request from Jack.W. Anderson on behalf of Prairie Public Broadcasting, Inc. for approval of a conditional use permit to construct a radio and television tower (microwave relay) as permitted in the A-2 (Limited Development) District, Chapter 18-0206; subsection (3)(B) (located in the SE Quarter of the SE Quarter of Section 12, T151N (Brenna Twp.) R51W (the NW quadrant of the intersection of South 55h Street extended (BNSF R/W) and 17th Avenue South, with recommendation for final approval of the Conditional Use Permit.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Brooks that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND ZONDING MAP
TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE B-3 (GENERAL BUSINESS)
DISTRICT LOT B, BLOCK 2, ENDRES-RYDELL ADDITION

The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to the request from Saturn Development on behalf of Rydell Chevrolet GMC for preliminary approval of an ordinance to rezone and exclude from the A-1 (Limited Development) District and to include within the B-3 (General Business) District, Lot B, Block 2, Endres-Rydell Addition (being a replat of Lot 2 of the replat of Block 1 and all of Block 2, Endres-Rydell Addition), more specifically described as the westerly 209 feet of said Lot B (located at 2700 South Washington Street, Grand Forks, North Dakota), with recommendation for preliminary approval and introduction of the ordinance, recommend the city council give preliminary approval and introduce the ordinance and set a city council public hearing for November 19, 2001.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Brooks that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

Council Member Klave introduced an ordinance entitled “An ordinance to amend the Zoning Map of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, to rezone and exclude from the A-1 (Limited Development) District and to include within the B-3 (General Business) District, Lot B, Block 2, Endres-Rydell Addition (being a Replat of Lot 2 of the Replat of Block 1 and all of Block 2, Endres-Rydell Addition, more specifically described as the westerly 209 feet of said Lot B (located at 2700 South Washington Street, Grand Forks, North Dakota), which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.

APPROVE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SHADY RIDGE
ESTATES FIFTH RESUBDIVISION

The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to the request from Pribula Engineering and Surveying on behalf of Lavonne Adams for preliminary approval of Shady Ridge Estates Fifth Resubdivision to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota (This plat replaces and supercedes that certain plat of the same name approved by the city council on June 17, 1996) (located between Adams Drive and the Coulee and between Shady Ridge Court and 62nd Avenue South), with recommendation for preliminary approval of plat, subject to the conditions shown on or attached to the review copy.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Brooks that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

ADOPT RESOLUTION DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO
DEPARTMENT HEADS FOR EXTENSION OF EXISTING
GRANT AGREEMENTS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR
APPROVAL OF ATTENDING BUDGET AMENDMENTS

The report from the city attorney relating to the resolution of the city of Grand Forks city council delegating authority to department heads for extension of existing grant agreements and authorization for approval of attending budget amendments, with recommendation to approve resolution: Document No. 8115 - Resolution.

Council Member Burke moved adoption of the resolution as presented with the deletion of the words in Section I “…either……or requires only in-kind matches.” and in Section II. Council Member Bjerke seconded the motion.

Council Member Burke stated the concern that some of the council members have when they receive these back is that the in-kind matches in fact require cash outlays for positions and there is an actual expenditure of local funds involved and if we are doing that, would like a chance to see it and vote on it. The city auditor stated that an in-kind match is taken from the current appropriated budget of that department and is not an additional amount added to come out of city funds, it’s as budgeted.

Council Member Glassheim moved to amend the motion by restoring the language removed; Council Member Gershman seconded the motion.

There was some discussion as to in-kind matches for grants; Don Shields, health department, stated that an in-kind match is something that has already been approved as a part of their standard budget and not an increase. Mr. Swanson stated that if the language referring to in-kind matches is removed, it leaves open the question as to whether or not the department head has the authority to either approve the grant extension or a following budget amendment if there is some type of in-kind match, whether that be rental space or equipment usage, etc. and would probably rule specifically with the motion and discussion that if it did require an in-kind match that the department head would not have the authority and would have to come back to council.

Council Member Gershman stated that a number of council members have taken the position that they want staff to write more grants, that it’s generally beneficial to us, especially when talking about the public health department; and would hope that Mr. Shields would write more grants and be creative on how he works within his budget; and doesn’t want to put restrictions on staff.

Council Member Burke stated that if a department head writes a new grant, it will come to the city
council, only talking about extensions of existing grants, and the issue is and has been where it states new money and matching with some hours or portions of a position as our part of the match - he stated his question is not with the infrastructure and supplies, but with bodies and if we have bodies that are there to match, why on salary already. Mr. Shields stated most of his salary is not used to match but when receive additional need to match, will use a portion of his salary which is already in the budget, and is not costing any additional money if where additional revenue can come in at a match and that’s how they can increase the grants, yet not increase what they’ve already approved within the budget; that a portion of his salary is used for match (25%), and if get another grant can use a portion of his salary or a portion of another person’s salary.

Upon call for the question on the amendment and upon voice vote, the motion carried 10 votes to 4, with Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens and Burke voting against the motion.

Upon call for the question on the original motion, as amended, and upon voice vote, the motion carried 10 votes to 4, with Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens and Burke voting against the motion.

ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND
AWARDING THE SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC
BUILDING REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2001C, CREATING A
SINKING FUND THEREFOR, AND LEVYING TAXES FOR
THEIR PAYMENT

The staff report from the finance department relating to the General Obligation Public Building Re-funding Bonds, Series 2001C - award sale, with recommendation to award sale of 2001C Refunding Bonds.

Al Erickson, Springsted. reported they took bids on this issue this morning in their offices for a refunding of the 1991C General Obligation Public Building Bonds, and received absolutely outstanding rates this morning, and the low bid came in from Morgan Stanley, Inc. with syndicate members PaineWebber, Salomon Smith Barney and CIBC World Markets at a true interest rate of 3.3187%, this is the lowest interest rate you’ve paid on debt in the last 20 years that he can find, and first time Morgan Stanley has bought city debt, coming out of their Chicago office, another entrant into the market in the bidding; and results of this since this is a refunding allow the City to save on a future value basis nearly $98,000, and recommend that you accept the bid.

The city auditor presented an affidavit showing publication in the official newspaper of the City of the Official Terms of Offering of $1,235,000 General Obligation Public Building Refunding Bonds, Series 2001C (the “Bonds”) of the City, bids for which were to be considered at this meeting as provided by resolution adopted October 7, 2001. The affidavit was examined and approved and ordered placed on file.

The city auditor reported that 4 sealed bids for the purchase of the Bonds had been received from the following institutions at or before the time stated in the Official Term of Offering, and the bids were then opened and publicly read and considered, and were all found to conform to the Official Terms of Offering and to be accompanied by the required security, and the purchase price, interest rates and net interest cost under the terms of each bid were found to be as follows: Document No. 8116 - Bids.

Council Member Kreun introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, which motion was seconded by Council Member Martinson: Document No. 8117 - Resolution Authorizing, Selling and Establishing the Terms of $1,235,000 General Obligation Public Building Refunding Bonds, Series 2001C, Creating a Sinking Fund Therefor, and Levying Taxes for their Payment.

Upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 14; and the following voted against the same: none; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.

Council Member Burke asked what the cost of the rate issue and if the cost of the rate issues is included in the future savings; Mr. Erickson stated it was $26,000 and that number has already been factored in.

APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT

The staff report from the Health Department relating to budget amendment for Women’s Way Cancer Prevention and Control Grant ($3,575, HL35, 9/26/01, new revenue), with recommendation to approve the $3,575 Women’s Way budget amendment.

It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this recom-mendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative; Council Member Burke voting against the motion.

ESTABLISH DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION
BY WESTERN POLYMER CORPORATION FOR FIVE-YEAR
PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION

The staff report from the city assessor relating to establishing date for public hearing to consider a property tax exemption pursuant to NDCC Chapter 40-57.1 (new business) by Western Polymer Corporation, 2250 Mill Road, for November 5, 2001, with recommendation to establish date for public hearing on November 5, 2001, 7:00 p.m.

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

Council Member Glassheim stated we are concerned over the property tax base over the next couple years, and asked if we could accomplish something by not using the declining balance 100%, 80%, 60%, 40%, 20%, but if we could offer the property tax exemption at 50% straight across for 5 years, which would build us up in the earlier stages and would bring more money back into the general property tax fund, they would save more in the out years, that he is not sure how significant the early year savings are for them as they do project fewer profits in the first couple years but not so that it would significantly affect them.

Mr. Swanson stated the issue before the council is a request to call for a public hearing, and suggested that the debate may be appropriate, that you not take any final action until you decide to have a public hearing and if have one, after you receive whatever comment would occur at the public hearing.

Council Member Brooks stated what he has generally seen is what we have laid out here as the 100, 80, 60, 40 and 20%, and concerned about not having guidelines as to not just what the percentage breakout will be but criteria as to who gets exemption, etc.

Council Member Bakken stated that normally new businesses need their money upfront compared to the end of the term, need breaks upfront.
Council Member Christensen stated he had discussed our current policy with the city assessor, and that the statute that we are operating under has been amended and it is a policy that we have in our packet is outdated and has some concern with the application in light of the provision of the North Dakota Century Code 40-57.1-04 which provides that no property tax exemption shall be granted under this chapter unless the application for it is granted as provided prior to the commencement of construction for the project or prior to the occupancy by the project operator if the project is an existing building - that this is a new structure and not an existing building, and not sure what do in light of that statute which is State law, the public hearing that is being suggested in light of the State law is we only have to establish a public hearing if the council finds that the applicant may be competitive to an existing business, but if we find that the potential project operator would not be competitive then we don’t have to schedule a public hearing; that the statute as it currently exists provides that if we do this, we have to invite the other taxing entities to the hearing.

Council Member Glassheim stated that the rules of the policy stated that each application will be reviewed and the applicant should address the following criteria - the need for an exemption, the quality and quantity of jobs being created for the council to have in front of them to consider and have that information by the time of the public information.

Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 13 votes affirmative; Council Member Bjerke voted against the motion.

APPROVE AGREEMENT RE. MITIGATION OF GRANITOID
PAVEMENT AFFECTED BY PROJECTS NOS. 4648.3 AND
4948.2, TRANSMISSION PIPELINES AND RESIDUALS
FORCEMAIN, PHASE 2

The staff report from the engineering department relating to agreement regarding mitigation of granitoid pavement adversely affected by City Projects Nos. 4648.3 and 4948.2, Transmission Pipelines and Residuals Forcemain, Phase 1, South 34th Street to Water Treatment Plant, with recommendation to approve entering into an agreement with the State Historical Society of North Dakota.

Council Member Burke asked where we have granitoid that is covered in this designation on the Historic Register and that the cost share is 50-50 and that any additional cost that we have to bear with regard to mitigating the granitoid is going to be borne 50% locally and there is a cost to preserving this, and if all of the existing granitoid in the city on the Historic Register or what portion is on the Register; and any work that the City would do to disturb that would require mitigation. Mr. Grasser stated there is approximately 38 or 40 blocks in the city and all of it is on the Historic Register, and would require mitigation and each project will need to be mitigated - that the Corps of Engineers is doing their own mitigation work for the Corps project and City doing its own with EPA money. He stated that most of the granitoid pavement areas are north of 4th Avenue South and south of DeMers Avenue, and another along Lewis Blvd.; and noted that in this particular project there are crossings of granitoid streets. Council Member Burke questioned cost of savings if we did not have to mitigate the granitoid; Mr. Grasser stated approx. $40,000 for stamping of the granitoid and documentation and storing of the material (replacing with a facsimile) and Historical Society is asking the City to preserve that, and they are trying to determine techniques of saving and/or maintaining the granitoid pavement, and this is one of the opportunities they have to do something with it. He stated that Lonnie Winrich brought an issue to the City some time ago, where he recognized that some of this pavement is slowly deteriorating due to traffic and his proposal was to take the better granitoid pavement which is off some of the main streets and make a good effort to preserve it and let some of the other go.

Council Member Burke stated he would like to relist the granitoid and remove a sizeable section of the real granitoid and find a place where they can put it and have some kind of interpretive structure there where people will see it as opposed to down these streets with nothing commemorating it and no one knows anything about that street, and in many cases the worst part of the street but if able to find a place downtown on the wet side where having that park and have a paved square there, and could mark it and have map showing where it existed originally and do a service with regard to having future generations know what was significant about this rather than trying to preserve a piece of road. He asked if there was time sensitiveness about this or if we can table this to see if we can proceed with a delisting of this and finding another way to note the historical nature of this pavement.

Mr. Grasser stated dealing with granitoid is slow cumbersome project, and in his opinion didn’t have time to deal with that issue as it relates to this particular project - he stated he thinks one of the goals would be to try to put historical paving someplace where it can be preserved; to date they haven’t had a lot of success but this is probably one of the first steps because before you move it you have to be able to study what you’re moving and haven’t been allowed to touch this to study it - this will give them an opportunity to take the pieces apart, try some different techniques as to how you might move it, if you can move it, and what you have to do to put it back; that granitoid is a very thin veneer of real high quality concrete with a base of 6 to 8 inches of low quality aggregate/cement added and not a brick. Informationally this is going to be one of the first steps to accomplish what Mr. Burke is talking about doing. He stated they are talking about a multi-million dollar project, the mitigation efforts are required as part of accessing the EPA money. Council Member Burke stated that we never deal with this until it is too late to do anything about it, and would like to direct engineering or staff to come up with a plan so we can do a commemorative of this someplace and get the remainder of the granitoid delisted so we don’t have to deal with this in the future.

Mr. Swanson stated that in Mayor Polovitz’ first term of office the issue of granitoid came up and it was a very contentious issue between the City of Grand Forks and the State Historical Society, and went so far as deteriorating relationships with that agency, that there is a long history with granitoid and there was a great deal of sentiment, particularly with the State Historical Society on preserving and protecting it - in fact getting to the point of what blocks are designated now took major issues, and it would be an arduous task unless there’s been major changes in the policy or attitude in Bismarck.

Council Member Gershman stated so that the engineering department doesn’t spend a lot of time on this because this project is really important to get done, that he talked to Urban Development, and there is a small infill lot in Cottonwood area and one of the reasons we are retaining that lot is to do an interpretive piece of the granitoid, and that Urban Development is doing it.

Council Member Glassheim stated he spent several hours with the State Historical Society Board, that the legislature did what they could and they have the power under federal and state laws to do what they are doing and Lonnie Winrich, City Historic Preservation Comm., proposed this to the State as a reasonable idea and that didn’t receive consideration.

It was moved by Council Member Bakken to approve the recommendation to enter into an agreement with the State Historical Society of North Dakota; Council Member Kreun seconded the motion. Carried 13 votes affirmative; Council Member Bjerke voted against the motion.
APPROVE EXTENDING NIGHT BUS SERVICE UNTIL
NOVEMBER 30, 2001

The staff recommendation from the Night Bus Task Force relating to modifying the existing night bus route and extending the night bus service, with recommendation to approve the extension of the night bus service until the end of November to gather more pertinent ridership data.

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Martinson to extend the night bus service to 11:59 p.m. on November 30, 2001 in order to gather more reliable information.

Todd Feland, director of public works, stated they are having another task force meeting tomorrow evening chaired by Council Member Bjerke, that at the last meeting they had a lot of discussion about alternative ways that they could run the system with one of their taxi providers or at least look at a cost if senior transportation system run that service, and at the meeting they will be prepared to discuss those items and explore other alternatives.

Chris Frost, 601 Princeton Street, stated he was representing not only the students at the University of North Dakota, but also on the Task Force, and urged the council to grant the extension, that the task force has only met one time and with one meeting can’t come up with adequate planning and research to come forth with a solid plan, that there are many students who use the service and urged granting of the extension.

Petra Clemens, 401 South 5th Street, asked for an extension for the night bus service as they didn’t have much time to see what the numbers are, have two weeks with a changed route, not much time to advertise; and that she is also a member of the disability community, an independent living specialist and works for Options and very concerned that with the cessation of the night bus service, this is a question of accessibility and urged council to grant the issue.

Mary Weaver, member of the task force, requested the extension of the night bus service for one month, and if granted the extension they will be continuing the efforts to promote the night service on its new route, find ways to pare down the budget, which includes working with the taxi companies to get fixed bids for the dial-a-ride service and seeking out supplementary sources of funding, such as foundation support. She stated that the night bus service, and dial-a-ride, are invaluable parts of our total city bus system - out system well regarded among other communities that Fargo and Bismarck have approached our transportation department to get information about how our system runs because they want to pattern their systems after ours. The council requested ridership numbers from earlier years and had prepared charts showing those numbers. She stated the goal on the task force is to look for a night service that offers the best and most complete service that they can at the most reasonable budget that they can work out, obviously there would be alternative ways to provide a night service, some more economical but at the cost of severely limiting service. She stated the month’s grace period they are requesting would give them the time to work out a more complete picture of alternatives and possibilities to present at a future date and give them the time to work on increasing ridership; better promotion of the night service will serve to increase ridership, and are trying to be proactive and yet practical, that they need time to accomplish their goals and asked they grant them the extension.

Council Member Burke asked if the task force at its meeting tomorrow were to define a threshold at which they thought they would like to see this ridership get to, and asked they understand the cost for the City to provide this service and small number of people served, and if they could define what kinds of increase in service would warrant maintaining it, that if it stays the same, this service is not warranted in the form that it is right now, and would make an amendment to the motion contingent on their doing that, to extend it for the period that they want, and if didn’t set that criteria, that the motion would be that the service would end at the end of this month. To extend the service as described in the main motion, provided that the task force sets a criteria of what level of ridership increase they think would be sufficient to warrant the continuation of night bus service, and if that criteria not set after tomorrow’s meeting, that the service end the end of October. Council Member Kerian seconded the motion.

After further discussion Council Member Kerian withdrew her second to the amendment, and Council Member Burke’s motion died for lack of a second.

Council Member Stevens called for the question, carried 14 votes affirmative.

Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian - 7; voting “nay”: Council Members Bjerke, Stevens, Burke, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson, Brooks - 7. Mayor Brown voted because of the tie vote, voted in favor of the motion which carried.

APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 2, PROJECT NO. 4901

The staff report from the engineering department relating to the change order No. 2 for Project No. 4901, English Coulee Bikepath Lighting, with recommendation to approve Project No. 4901, change order No. 2, for Moorhead Electric in the amount of $3,165.00.

It was moved and seconded by Council Members Lunak and Klave that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 13; voting “nay”: Council Member Bjerke - 1. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE , ZONING, B-2 (SHOPPING CENTER) DISTRICT,
USES PERMITTED

The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to the request for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended; Chapter XVIII, Land Development Code; Article 2, Zoning; Section 18-0215, B-2 (Shopping Center) District, subsection (2) Uses Permitted, by adding (ZZZ) Tattoo Shops and (AAAA) Body Piercing Studio, with recommendation to grant preliminary approval of the ordinance; recommend the council give preliminary approval and introduce the ordinance and set a public hearing date for November 19, 2001.

It was moved by Council Member Lunak and seconded by Council Member Klave that this recommenda-tion be and is hereby approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative; Council Member Bjerke voted against the motion.

Council Member Klave introduced an ordinance entitled “An ordinance amending the Grand Forks City Code of 1987 as amended; Chapter XVIII, Land Development Code; Article 2, Zoning; Section 18-0215, B-2 (Shopping Center) District, subsection (2) Uses Permitted”, which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.
APPROVE MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 2001

Typewritten copies of the minutes of the regular council meeting held on Monday, October 1, 2001, were presented and read. It was moved by Council Member Bjerke and seconded by Council Member Lunak that these minutes be approved as read. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

APPROVE BILL LISTING

Vendor Payment Listing No. 01-20, dated October 15, 2001 and totaling $1,830,025.59, was presented and read.

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Kreun 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, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 14; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried and the bills ordered paid

RECEIVE AND FILE PORTFOLIO SLUMMARY

A copy of the Portfolio Summary ending September 30, 2001, was presented and read. It was moved by Council Member Lunak and seconded by Council Member Klave to receive and file the report. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Gershman stated that they received the list of disaster loans and number in default, and his concern is that there are a number of individuals and businesses that owe the City money and are not returning phone calls and would like staff to do some work on possibly turning that over to a collection agency. Council Member Hamerlik stated that some time ago he requested some information and that he and Council Member Brooks went over some of the issues with Mr. Hanson, that staff is also seeking legal help from our attorney and they are turning them over (that some in bankruptcy and some other provisions there) and that he was well satisfied that staff was pushing as much as they could. Mr. Hanson stated they do spend some time keeping contact with all of the loan customers, both those in default and those that are current, and they have been following the policy of not being too hard on any of the clients yet, depending on the individual circumstances and are in correspondence with the attorney’s office and advise them whether want to push a little harder or wait to see if work out an arrangement; that they have purposely been holding back from taking the next step of forcing collection or turning it over to a collection agency; but if it’s the desire of the council they will do that. Council Member Gershman stated some are moving farther away, etc. and thinks should get a .little more serious about that.

2) Council Member Gershman stated what happened in the city the last 8 days was incredible - that Grand Forks has become an event city - Friday, October 4, the opening of the Engelstad with close to 12,000 people; the next day at the Alerus Center had NDSU/UND football game with 13,500 people there; and a tennis tournament in town, that on Tuesday and Wednesday nights (October 9 and 10) had the Broadway show Stomp at the Fritz Auditorium and were sold out, with an additional 5,000 people, then the Engelstad Arena this weekend with hockey and sold out 11,547 people each night; and that this city is an event city. He stated he is hearing from some people considering building a home in Grand Forks, moving to Grand Forks because of all of the activities that are going on and also the way the city looks, and congratulated everybody and welcome to an event city.

3) Council Member Hamerlik stated he would like the city coordinator to report to council in the next two to four weeks on the status of visitor parking at City Hall and/or any other parking concerns with City Hall.. Mr. Duquette, administrative coordinator, stated he spoke to Public Information within the last few days and will be putting in 5 spots along the front for access to the front doors.

4) Council Member Brooks stated that when he and Council Member Hamerlik went through the listing of loans and process with Mr. Hanson, he was very impressed with the way staff is handling it, and they are doing everything possible to deal with the people; and are turning them over to the city attorney or collections if not getting any response and have procedure in place to work with these people, and suggested letting staff continue.

5) Council Member Brooks stated he was discussing with a former member of their task force on economic development that was formed after the Amazon dealings, and he brought up the fact that one of the recommendations that came out of that task force is that we get monthly reports from Economic Development Corporation, and asked that they follow through with the recommendations.

6) Council Member Bakken stated relative to disaster loans that with bad debt, the longer it continues the less likely you are to collect it. He also stated that he just got back to town today and been to other parts of the country and noticed that other places in the country there are more flags being flown in residential areas than in Grand Forks, and less going on here than in other parts of the country and hope that we pick up the pace here.

7) Council Member Lunak stated that some businesses are having tough times and that probably be more because of the dike assessments, etc. and thinks that Urban Development staff doing a good job and would like to see it stay as it is.

9) Mayor Brown stated he would echo what Mr. Gershman stated, that we are an event city and was proud that we hosted the Special Olympics State Soccer/Bocce tournament this Saturday and proud to dedicate the ArtWise Tile to the elementary students and this is city we are proud to live in and want to keep it that way.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Lunak and seconded by Council Member Martinson that we do now adjourn. Carried 14 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Schmisek
City Auditor

Approved:
____________________________________
Michael R. Brown, Mayor