City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us

17909
December 17, 2001

PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
December 17, 2001

The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in the council chambers in City Hall on Monday, December 17, 2001 at the hour of 7:00 o’clock p.m. with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian (teleconference), Bakken, Kreun - 13; absent: Council Member Martinson - 1.

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

AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS

Mayor Brown reported that the employees of the Public Transportation Department have been presented a plaque from the Grand Forks Police Department, recognizing their contributions and support of the GREAT Program, which is sponsored by the Grand Forks Police Department and is a program that assists the youth of Grand Forks, the Public Transportation employees helped set up bus routes and schedules which allowed all the youth involved in the GREAT Program transportation to and from activities, and congratulated employees of the Public Transportation Department for a job well done. Carol Diamond and Dale Bergman accepted the plaque.

Mayor Brown welcomed two students from Schroeder Middle School who were present at tonight’s meeting.

Mayor Brown commended all the agencies and individuals responsible for the way they handled the situation last week which involved the report of a suspicious substance in a letter received by a Grand Forks woman; the fire department, police department, public health department and public information center all worked together in a professional manner to get the letter tested, contained areas that may have been contaminated and kept the public informed about the situation. He stated that the tests showed no hazardous substance in the letter, but the incident proved beyond a shadow of doubt that we do have an effective plan for dealing with hazardous substances in the city, and shows that those responsible for carrying out such a plan are exceptionally well trained and responsive.

Daryl Hovland, Human Resources, reported that our employees have been dedicated and committed to safety from the very start, and recently completed our Workers Comp inspection and on behalf of the employees of the city of Grand Forks presented our dividend refund on our premium for $43,970.19.

MAYOR’S CITIZEN SURVEY REPORT

Cordell Fontaine, UND Social Science Research Institute, presented a summary of the highlights of the 2001 Citizen Survey Report. He noted that the purpose of this survey was to determine public attitudes about the quality of life in Grand Forks as well as the attitudes of our local government and also perceptions about taxes and city service with the conclusion that 68% majority believe the City of Grand Forks is moving in the right direction, that most residents rate the quality of life in Grand Forks very highly; and two-thirds of residents rate the activities and agree with the way the City government is running. He stated from the report that the residents feel that the city of Grand Forks is moving in the right direction, citizens are satisfied with the way city government is running, satisfied with the leadership from the mayor to the city council and the quality of city services; and government is moderately perceived as showing wisdom in spending its tax dollars and most residents believe that the benefits they receive for their taxes are reasonable. City government does a quality job providing citizens with opportunities to offer input on important issues and providing information about programs and services; almost all citizens agree that its important for the city to have a five-year city wide integrated plan; there were some indicators for improvement. He stated that the citizen survey is one tool to assist this body in planning in resource allocation and to offer direction on current issues. Mayor Brown stated that the role of government is to protect and serve and that can be interpreted differently by individuals and would like to see citizen priorities as a poster so can see it as they perform the function of government to see what their priorities should be and what they are. Report filed December 17, 2001.

PRESENTATION BY RED RIVER BASIN BOARD

Lance Yohe, Executive Director of Red River Basin Board with offices in Moorhead and in Winnipeg, made a brief presentation to the council informing them about the Red River Basin Board and what they are doing. He stated the organization has been in existence since 1996, the Board grew out of an organization effort by the International Coalition and issues around the basin and out of this came the need for the Red River Basin Board which would move the discussion and the consensus building process into a position of trying to find solutions to some of the problems. He stated the geographic area starts in the Sisseton area and go past Winnipeg to Selkirk and those are the three states and province they are working with. He stated the Board mission statement is to facilitate comprehensive water management in that area and trying to get the political jurisdictions thinking and moving in the same direction to find solutions that benefit everybody. The vision for the organization is that they would have quality water supplies, protection from flooding and from droughts. He stated they are in the process of talking with other organizations about the structure and possible new structures, that the Board was to try to deal with the local government, state and federal agencies that are involved in the basin as stakeholder groups, representing the people who are affected by floods and the people who have ability to make changes.

He stated several things that would impact Grand Forks is the International Red River Basin Board - that this Board is set up by the federal government through the State Department in Washington and External Affairs in Canada and they have been given directives to look at certain pieces of the Red River and to try to give feedback to Washington and Ottawa on things that need to be done. One of the studies underway is the Eco-System Health Study looking at the whole watershed and trying to determine the health of that watershed and also trying to do a hydrology study where trying to establish what the normal flows in the Red River area so we can measure highs and lows against that normal flow. He stated between the United States and Canada there is a 1909 boundary water treaty but relates only to water quality issues. The Army Corps Reconnaissance Study is going on right now and the Army Corps is in the process of looking at the system in three areas and trying to determine those pieces and add others to see if way to do all at once and what that would involve.

He stated there is an annual conference in Fargo on January 16-18, and should have received mailings. He stated they have a current newsletter that’s coming out and have an interactive web site. He also noted that the Red River Basin Board has been set up to enable them to do lobbying and to carry that message both to state governments and to federal government in the U.S.

Council Member Gershman stated that back in September of this year the council passed a resolution supporting the waffle plan study as proposed by the EERC at the University of North Dakota and if the Board has taken a position on that. Mr. Yohe stated they have not been asked to, talked about it today at their meeting re. funding; what they would like to see on the waffle is the phase that’s being funded through the current fiscal year to have that piece finished and other parts that follow that, start to show how those pieces can link - two issues - one is technical issue of whether it works or not and the economic impact of that and how you actually implement it on a large enough scale to make the kind of difference that needs to be done - another phase would like to be in a position to say to Washington to fund that. Council Member Gershman stated that a copy of the resolution supporting the waffle plan be sent to the Red River Basin Board. Mayor Brown stated they would do that.

CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING
OF ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE , USES
PERMITTED BY ADDING TATTOO SHOPS AND BODY
PIERCING STUDIO TO B-2 DISTRICTS

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 had been introduced and passed on its first reading on October 15, 2001 and upon which public hearing had been continued until this evening, was presented and read for consideration.

Mayor Brown called for the public hearing on this ordinance.

Dennis Potter, city planner, asked the council to extend the public hearing to January 7, 2002, as the Planning Commission wanted to see the establishment of regulations via the department of health with regard to health care issues associated with this type of work, the draft is done on that and will be before council at their committee of the whole meeting on January 2 and before council on January 7 and fulfill the request of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Kreun to table the public hearing and second reading of the ordinance to January 7, 2002. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

HOLD PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED USE OF 2002
CDBG FUNDS, AND TAKE FINAL ACTION ON THE 2002
ANNUAL ACTION PLAN

It was reported that the city council had opened a 30-day public comment period on Monday, November 5, 2001 on the proposed use of the 2002 CDBG funds and to take final action on the 2002 Annual Action Plan, which includes the funding recommendations.

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

Terry Hanson, Acting Director, Urban Development Office, reported that a memo had been sent to the council members regarding the 2001 program income and indicated that they have $61,000 of program income that is unobligated and before approving the final annual action plan would like the council to give consideration as to how to utilize these funds, that several alternatives were listed in the memo: 1) continuation of dropping into the second tier of the 2001 projects and funding two of the projects - the Listen Center for $10,000 and Development Homes for $50,000. He stated if the council were to do this, it would free up $35,000 in the 2002 funding round as they were approved from $10,000 and $25,000 respectively and would be providing that in 2001. He stated the other alternative would be to carry the funds over into 2002 and use the $61,000 to increase other projects that have been recommended by the committee or to drop into the second tier of the 2002 projects. He stated in addition to this they have one of the projects they were recommending for approval and that the committee recommended for funding was that of the downtown Griffith’s building owned by LTD Properties, that there were some contingencies placed on that which were not accepted by the owners (primary contingency was that they requested a grant and would like a grant rather than a loan. He stated in discussing this issue with the owners and with staff and would like to ask the council to reconsider the recommendation of the committee and rather than require a loan, to make the request from LTD Properties a grant of $73,188 and perhaps to even increase the amount up to $100,000 if the owners would agree to not only renovate the first floor of the building on the exterior but to go so far in 2002 to remove all of the façade that is on the exterior of the building and not to repair the exterior but to cover it up or temporarily try to make it attractive to the community (not to replace the windows but to paint the windows that are there so all one color and don’t have an appearance of being in disrepair. He stated he would like to advise the council that they have talked to the owners of LTD and they do plan to renovate the entire exterior of the building over a short period of time (2 or 3 years) if their funding is available and have requested that the City consider a longer term project with them on an annual basis, and would believe they would be coming back next year during this funding cycle and asking for additional funding to continue to help them with the renovation of the exterior of that building. He stated they have the $61,000 that are unobligated from 2001 and can either put them in the second tier project of the 2001 funding year or carry the $61,000 over to 2002 and put it into other projects.

Council Member Bjerke moved to take the $61,000 and the $73,188 from the LTD project and put that towards the mill and overlay project on University Avenue from 21st to North 42nd Street considering the price increase even though they can’t do 21st through 23rd, the rest of the roads are in the LMI area and could spend all of that approximate $134,000+ the $15,000 already designated or about $149,000 out of $168,000 which is the total cost of the project, that road conditions were mentioned and if we did this then Highway Users money could be spent on another road so that we could get two roads fixed for the price of one; could do public projects with public money. The motion was seconded by Council Member Stevens.

Council Member Hamerlik stated he would like to split the motion and divide the question as there are two important issues - excess or left over money and taking from one project that was designated to go to a different project. The mover and second agreed.

Mr. Hansen stated they would have to check to make sure that blocks 2100 through 2300 were not funded and that they have enough project funds required to expend all of the funds available.

Council Member Klave asked if the funds have to be obligated in 2001 or carried over to 2002; Mr. Hanson stated that the $61,000 can be carried over. He stated that the second tier projects that could be funded for 2001 and which they are recommending are Listen, which is in tier 2 of the second tier for 2001 and the committee allocated $25,000 in 2001 and Development Homes was funded in the second tier for $50,000. Development Homes is building a complex on South Columbia Road and we would use these funds to buy kitchen equipment or equipment for the facility, cost of the project is estimated to be approx. $1 million and the Listen project is to landscape a piece of property next to their facility. Council Member Burke reported that the committee put programs in the second tier and didn’t really expect that they would be funded. He also noted that Listen does great things the money that would be given to them was not intrinsic to their mission of serving the developmentally disadvantaged in the community but rather enhancing a small pocket park.
Council Member Christensen stated that this year they allocated $25,000 to Development Homes to meet their needs and that is a $2.3 million project of which they have $1.3 million from various sources and have private funding in the form of a mortgage for about $1 million, and made up the difference by giving them the $25,000 out of the 2002 monies. He also noted that we have a building in the downtown that needs a lot of fixup, its in a primary traffic area of this community and can see allocating some additional money of the carryover to the mill and overlay project but not in favor of excluding the money from the granting process to eliminate the fixing up of the old Griffith’s building.

Council Member Bakken stated if we use the $61,000 for the mill and overlay and it goes into an LMI area and that if we don’t assess them that is how we can use that money. Mr. Hansen stated that when you use these funds it is the alternative to special assessments if you don’t have other resources, and if it’s not a low and moderate area we have to assess only the families in the low and moderate because this area is a designated census tract low and moderate area, we can do the project with the area and be eligible and meet a national objective. Mr. Hanson stated for regulation purposes there is no reason that they shouldn’t use the monies, and that is this council’s decision to make; that he is not personally against using CDBG funds for these types of projects if it can free up other funds, but historically the City has not used these funds for infrastructure projects and the needs of the infrastructure within the city of Grand Forks is quite large, and if start the precedence we could use up all our CDBG funds and not get to the specific needs of the non-profits or other entities that are being funded tonight.

The city auditor noted for a point of clarification, the mill and overlay was anticipated to come out of Highway Users so there is no anticipation of a special assessment. Mr. Hanson stated that there is a regulation that these funds cannot be used to replace local dollars but in cases like infrastructure, it’s not replacing local dollars. It was also noted that if they use CDBG monies for overlay it would free up Highway Users monies.

The city auditor reported that the first part of the motion is to use the $61,000 of excess to fund a portion of the mill and overlay on University Avenue. The second part of the motion is to use the $73,188 towards the mill and overlay project on University Avenue.

It was also noted that the City has used CDBG monies for infrastructure and not setting a precedent for using some of this money for infrastructure. Mr. Hanson stated that prior to the supplemental funds that the City received in 1997 as a result of the flood, there were some minimal infrastructure projects funded having to do with sewer separation in the downtown area, but generally have not funded infrastructure. Council Member Hamerlik stated that we are considering an overlay because of the flood and there are a lot of other things that could have caused this and that we have used lots of money since 1997 from CDBG and from that standpoint it is not a precedent.

Council Members Klave and Brooks called for the question on the first motion, which carried.

The city auditor read the motion which is to allocate $61,000 of the excess program income this year to the mill and overlay on University Avenue. Upon voice vote the motion carried 12 votes affirmative, with Council Member Kreun voting against the motion.

The city auditor read the second issue before the council is to allocate $73,188 of the program income to the mill and overlay on University Avenue.

Mr. Hanson reported that the project that LTD Properties is proposing is a total cost of $180,000 which is to rehab the first floor exterior of the former Griffith’s building, all new windows, etc. and they will have to come up with the balance over and above and be completed in 2002. It was noted that LTD has not received any grants from the City since they purchased the building and it was noted they have not received any funds.

There was some discussion about the total building and total cost for renovation of the outside of the building; Mr. Hanson stated that the construction estimate of the entire exterior is approx. $900,000, and plan for finishing that is two to three years, and Mr. Hanson stated they would take this year’s project, subtract it from the total and then they could come back the following years and ask for half of dollar for dollar match, and about $120,000 to $130,000 per year. It was also noted that there was no assurance that the building would be finished - that this is a privately owned building, that we can work with these individuals to make this building look better and more appealing for the community, one of the conditions is that we should have a commitment on the complete project, bond or guarantee that the remainder of this project is going to be completed and how much is the owner going to be putting into this project., whether there would be additional requests for funding or loan, and would need to have completion date and amounts are, where funds coming from and should have a more complete project brought forth before doing anything on the project.

Council Member Burke stated he was disappointed that we are dealing with this issue with no information before us, that we didn’t get it at the committee of the whole and being asked to make a decision on this, and asked to table this matter, that we have asked for more guarantees for tax abatements through the renaissance zone on buildings than here for a grant of $73,188, which apparently opens the door for several hundred thousand dollars of grants in the future, and would like to see something that lays out a plan for our investment of City dollars in that building and a plan or agreement that we actually take title to that building if the plan is not completed by a date certain so that we can deal with the building and make it an attractive part of our downtown in several years. He moved to table this motion until we have more definitive plan on how we can deal with the Griffith’s building. The motion died for lack of a second.

Mr. Hanson reported that the applicant made the presentation to the committee and at the second meeting they discussed the recommendations with the committee and that is where the committee formed the recommendations - that when they opened the public hearing and discussed with the committee members that regarding this project that LTD came back and said they didn’t want a loan, but wanted a grant, and were advised by the committee to go back to the owners and discuss with them options that they would have in negotiating to replace for a grant, that in discussing this with the owners he stated the options that LTD has to come back to us with a plan and asked for the plan by the week of December 10, and that he met with one of the owners last week. He stated what he presented to council is more than what the plan was when LTD formally presented to him; and that rather than having this project throw any problems into the rest of the CDBG funding, if it was the request of the committee to fund this project based on their recommendations of a loan rather than a grant and that he would discuss with them future plans for the entire building and if they were not coming with those future plans, perhaps that is what this body should consider is whether or not they should fund the project with the plan that he has presented, which is the plan that they presented to him, that they were asked to provide him with a plan for the building. He apologized that this was not before the committee of the whole last week but it was before the council the end of last month when they opened the public hearing, and as far as the program income, the $61,000, have actually had that increase since November 30 and after that date did not have the opportunity to put this on the committee of the whole meeting last week, and since this was the council meeting for the public hearing, thought this would be the appropriate time to discuss this. He also noted that we have to approve the CDBG funding tonight, deadline has passed for the approval of this.

Council Member Glassheim asked if the council could hold the $71,000 in contingency, which would then be allocated later. Mr. Hanson stated they could hold $71,000 in contingency or unobligated funds or could even approve this project subject to some additional conditions and restrictions and if not met then the funds would revert back. It was noted that there is no asbestos in the exterior of the building.

Council Member Kerian moved an amendment to approve the funding recommendations as listed with the exception of LTD Properties award which would have some additional conditions which would be set by December 31, 2001.

Council Member Klave stated we have a motion on the floor and need to call the question on that and then move on to this entire list, and called the question. Council Member Christensen seconded the call for the question and the motion carried.

Upon roll call on the second question on the allocation of $73,188 to the mill and overlay on University Avenue, the following voted “aye”: Council Members Bjerke, Stevens, Burke - 3; voting “nay”: Council Members Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman - 10. Mayor Brown declared the motion failed.

Council Member Hamerlik moved that we approve all the projects as recommended except the LTD Properties, the $73,188 and that be put into contingency and that Urban Development come in with other information before the end of January 2002, that may be advisable for us to act on the $73,188.00; seconded by Council Member Kerian. Upon voice vote the motion carried 12 votes affirmative, with Council Member Bjerke voting against the motion.

APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT

The staff report from the finance department relating to budget amendment, Department of Finance and Administrative Services, with recommendation to approve budget amendment for use of cash carryover for $5,611.00.

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

APPROVE SIDEWALK WARRANT BIDS

The staff report from the finance department relating to sidewalk warrant bids, with recommendation to accept recommendation to award 2001 sidewalk warrants to Community National Bank.

It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Klave that we accept the recommendation to award 2002 sidewalk warrants to Community National Bank in the amount of $140,000 at a bid price of 98% of par to a maximum of $137,200, a coupon interest rate of 3.8% and a net interest cost and rate of $29,4000 at 4.2%. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun - 13; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS, POLICE DEPARTMENT

A staff report from the police department relating to a budget amendment in the amount of $33,414.25, with recommendation for approval of the amendment.

A staff report from the police department relating to a budget amendment in the amount of $14,956.34, with recommendation for approval of the amendment.

A staff report from the police department relating to a budget amendment in the amount of $82,463.00, with recommendation for approval of the amendment.

It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Klave that these recommendations for budget amendments be approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT, PUBLIC WORKS

A staff report from the director of public works relating to budget amendment in the amount of $9,768.00, with recommendation to approve the budget amendment from the public works director budget cash carryover.

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

AUTHORIZE CITY TO PROVIDE INERT LANDFILL
APPLICATION TO ND HEALTH DEPARTMENT

The staff report from the director of public works relating to matter of inert landfill application for the city of Grand Forks, with recommendation to approve the City of Grand Forks providing the North Dakota Health Department (NDHD) an inert landfill application.

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

APPROVE PROJECT CONCEPT REPORT FOR PROJECT
NO. 5245, UNIVERSITY AVENUE OVERLAY, SUBJECT
TO APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER

The staff report from the engineering department relating to project concept report for City Project No. 5245, University Avenue overlay, with recommendation to approve project concept report, utilizing the bituminous overlay and diamond grinding alternative, for Project No. 5245, University Avenue overlay, subject to approval of city engineer.

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

APPROVE ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR
PROJECT NO. 5315, VIKING ELEVATED TOWER RE-
CONDITIONING
The staff report from the engineering department relating to engineering services agreement for City Project No. 5315, Viking Elevated Tower Reconditioning, with recommendation to approve agreement with Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc., consultant for design, bidding and construction administration engineering services in the amount of $121,529.

It was moved by Council member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Klave 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 - 13; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

AUTHORIZE ENTERING INTO AGREEMENT WITH
BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILROAD FOR
PERMANENT UTILITY AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENTS FOR PROJECT NOS. 4648.3 AND 4948.2

The staff report from the engineering department relating to Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad easement for City Project Nos. 4648.3 and 4948.2, transmission pipelines and residuals forcemain, Phase 2, South 34th Street to WTP, with recommendation to approve entering into an agreement with Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad in the amount of $300,000 for permanent utility and temporary construction easements across their property along the north side of DeMers Avenue from South 19th Street to South Washington Street, approval shall be contingent upon review of the agreement by the city attorney.

It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Klave 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 - 13; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS, OFFICE OF URBAN
DEVELOPMENT

The staff report from the office of urban development relating to budget amendment request in the amount of $61,193.00, with recommendation to approve the budget amendment.

The staff report from the office of urban development relating to budget amendment request in the amount of $500,000, with recommendation to approve the budget amendment.

The staff report from the office of urban development relating to budget amendment request in the amount of $791,799.00, with recommendation to approve the budget amendment.

The staff report from the office of urban development relating to budget amendment request in the amount of $263,707.00, with recommendation to approve the budget amendment.

The staff report from the office of urban development relating to budget amendment request in the amount of $359,867.00, with recommendation to approve the budget amendment.

It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Klave that these recommendations be and are hereby approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative.
SALES TAX INFORMATION

The staff report from the finance department relating to sales tax collections as of November collections - information only.

COUNCIL MEMBER HAMERLIK EXCUSED

AUTHORIZE RELEASE OF 2001 UND SEED MONEY

The staff report from the finance department relating to release of 2001 UND seed money, carried over from 1999, excess sales tax dollars, with recommendation to approve the release of $60,000 of UND seed money and approve a budget amendment using excess sales tax carryover.

Council Member Burke asked for clarification as to where the monies were coming from, that he thought the monies for this year was carryover from the previous year. The city auditor reported that there were two different dollar amounts that were carried over, there was a dollar amount that we allocated earlier this year from the regular sales tax account, and there was a dollar amount allocated in 1999 out of excess sales tax which is this $60,000 and in order to use carryover dollars, you still need to amend the budget to access those dollar amounts.

It was moved by Council Member Lunak and seconded by Council Member Bakken to approve the recommendation. Carried 11 votes affirmative, Council Member Bjerke voted against the motion.

APPROVE APPLICATION FOR CLASS 7, GOLF COURSE
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE FOR EAGLES CREST
GRILL, 5301 SOUTH COLUMBIA ROAD

The staff report from the finance department relating to application for Class 7, golf course alcoholic beverage license by L R & R, Inc. dba Eagles Crest Grill, 5301 South Columbia Road. with recommendation to approve issuance of the license contingent upon the approval of the city attorney and sign off by appropriate departments (police, fire, health and inspections).

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

Council Member Gershman asked to be excused from voting on this matter, and it was so moved by Council Member Bjerke and seconded by Council Member Brooks. Carried 11 votes affirmative.

Upon call for the question and upon voice vote the motion carried 10 votes affirmative, Council Member Bjerke voting against the motion, and Council Member Gershman abstaining.

APPROVE APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF CLASS 2
(OFF SALE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE) LICENSE AT 1950
32ND AVENUE SOUTH TO 2 DOGS, INC. DBA COLUMBIA
LIQUORS

The staff report from the finance department relating to the application for transfer of Class 2 (Off Sale Alcoholic Beverage) license at 1950 32nd Avenue South to 2 Dogs, Inc. dba Columbia Liquors, with recommendation for approval of the transfer of license contingent upon the approval of the city attorney and/or various city departments (police, inspections, fire and health).

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

Council Member Gershman asked to be excused from voting on this matter, and it was so moved by Council Member Bjerke and seconded by Council Member Brooks. Carried 11 votes affirmative.

Upon call for the question and upon voice vote the motion carried 10 votes affirmative, Council Member Bjerke voting against the motion, and Council Member Gershman abstaining.

COUNCIL MEMBER HAMERLIK REPORTED BACK

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE RELATING TO REDISTRICTING
OF WARDS

The staff report from the Redistricting Study Committee relating to redistricting of the city of Grand Forks, with recommendation that alternatives 1 and 5 be brought forward to council for consideration, and with city council to draw letters corresponding to map wards, first four will be odd number, last three will be even numbers.

It was moved by Council Member Christensen and seconded by Council Member Klave that we pass Alternative No. 5.

Council Member Hamerlik stated he would like to amend that motion that the wards be numbered as currently numbered with greatest number of those that are already in there remain the same. The mover and second agreed to the friendly amendment.

Upon call for the question and upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Member Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak - 9; voting “nay”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Burke - 4. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

Council Member Christensen introduced an ordinance entitled “An ordinance repealing and re-enacting Section 4-0102 relating to ward maps”, which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.

COUNCIL MEMBER KLAVE EXCUSED

APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR INSURANCE
PROCEEDS FOR CITY HALL WATERMAIN BREAK

The staff report from the finance department relating to a $16,551.00 budget amendment for insurance proceeds for City Hall watermain break, with recommendation to approve budget amendment for $16,551.00, increasing insurance revenue and also increasing maintenance and equipment expense in the City Hall budget for repairs and replacement costs.

The city auditor reported that they will be asking the council to amend the budget amendment to approve the total amount that only amends the budget for the office supply, the Maintenance of Buildings and Grounds and office equipment, in error the categories of permanent and temporary wages were included but we were reimbursed in total for even the regular time of some of our current employees and those dollar amounts that we were reimbursed will simply go into the cash carryover of the general fund rather than amending those two portions of the budget. He stated they will find some of the ones in the police department with some of those grants, but the deputy city auditor will discuss those. He stated they will only be amending the revenue stream and the expense side for the $296 in office supplies, $4,424 in Maintenance/Buildings/Grounds and $11,439 for office equipment, and balance as cash received over and above and go into cash carryover.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Bakken that this budget amendment be and is hereby approved. Carried 12 votes affirmative.

COUNCIL MEMBER KLAVE REPORTED BACK

APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS, POLICE DEPARTMENT

The staff report from the police department relating to budget amendment request in the amount of $48,663.12, with recommendation for approval of the amendment.

The staff report from the police department relating to budget amendment request in the amount of $39,867.11, with recommendation for approval of the amendment.

The staff report from the police department relating to budget amendment request in the amount of $25,401.24, with recommendation for approval of the amendment.

Council Member Brooks asked for clarification where have permanent wages and dealing with grant dollars related to those positions. Ms. Jerath, deputy city auditor, stated they would be making correction to the budget amendment for police department for permanent wages, that permanent wages are already budgeted and the only thing that we didn’t know at that time was that we will be getting these police grants, and that part of the wages for those police officers will be covered by the grants rather than the mill levy.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Lunak that these recommendations be and are hereby approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT, STREET DEPARTMENT

The staff report from the director of public works relating to street department budget amendment in the amount of $109,176.00, with recommendation to approve street department budget amendment for $109,176.00 from cash carryover.

Mr. Feland reported this relates to the year 2000, that in August switched over to a Vehicle Maint. system and when billed outside labor and parts, it went into the Central Garage but the program didn’t bill the appropriate department and this pays back the Central Garage for expenses that were not reimbursed in 2000. The city auditor reported that the reason they would handle it this way is that when looking at the total scope of this area, it’s immaterial to the total budget and we looked at that with our audit firm.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Lunak that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 11 votes affirmative; Council Brooks and Bjerke voted against the motion.

APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT, SANITATION
DEPARTMENT

The staff report from the director of public works relating to sanitation department budget amendment in the amount of $847,967.00, with recommendation to approve sanitation department budget amendment for $847,967.00 from the sanitation department cash carryover and damage to vehicles accounts.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that as a matter of explanation that almost 70% of our budget has to do with personnel dollars, that can’t be carried over or any portion of it, and talking about 30%.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Kreun that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 10 votes affirmative; Council Members Bjerke, Stevens and Burke voted against the motion.

CONCUR WITH NDDOT IN AWARD OF CONTRACT
TO LOW BIDDER FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECT
NO. 5242, WASHINGTON STREET OVERLAY FROM
HAMMERLING AVENUE TO 8TH AVENUE NORTH

The staff report from the engineering department relating to consideration of bids for construction of City Project No. 5242, Washington Street overlay from Hammerling to 8th Avenue North, with recommendation to concur with the North Dakota Department of Transportation award of contract to low bidder, Strata Corporation, in the amount of $774,577.80.

Council Member Christensen questioned the 10% for engineering and if the City is doing the engineering or contracted outside the city department. Mr. Grasser reported that Washington is on the regional program which the State is the primary entity and we are participating in 10% of the project cost, the State hired CPS, Ltd. to do the concept report, that he doesn’t have a breakdown on the $28,000 for engineering but is apparently for some work that is outside of the DOT’s overlay project, and probably has to do with some underground watermains or sewers that may need repair and that have been identified through this report and that we want to do before they do the overlay work, and may also involve some work on the actual intersection because the report we received from the insurance company that identified some safety hazards at the intersection of Washington and DeMers and we incorporated some of that in this project. Council Member Christensen asked if there was a fee charged by the City for engineering that’s laid on top of the project. Mr. Grasser stated that if this were a special assessment type project, there is a fee of 8% for engineering design services, 8% for administration, 6 or 7% for interim financing and some for contingencies and legal work. Mr. Grasser reported percentage rate for consultants depends on rate schedule and on what services you’re using - different rates for different personnel assigning to the project.

It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Bakken 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, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun - 13; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.
ADOPT RESOLUTION TO ANNEX ALL OF LOTS 1 AND
2, BLOCK 1; LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 2, COLUMBIA PARK
26TH ADDITION AND ADJACENT RIGHTS OF WAY EXCEPT
THAT PORTION PREVIOUSLY ANNEXED

The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to the matter of the request from Steve Adams on behalf of Art Greenberg for approval of a resolution to annex all of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Columbia Park 26th Addition and adjacent rights of way except that portion previously annexed, with recommendation for final approval of the resolution and recommend to city council final approval of the resolution and to set a public hearing date.

Council Member Christensen stated that Tracts 3 and 4 are owned by someone other than Mr. Greenberg, and asked if the gentlemen who owns this has been in contact with the Planning Office concerning his wishes as to whether or not he wants Tracts 3 and 4 included or excluded as part of this annexation.

Dennis Potter, city planner, reported that he has not talked with the property owners since the meeting on Monday; and it was noted that the public hearing will be set this evening.

It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Christensen that this recommendation be and is hereby approved and that the public hearing be set for Tuesday, January 22, 2002. Carried 12 votes affirmative; Council Bjerke voted against the motion.

Council Member Christensen introduced the following resolution of annexation, which was presented and read: Document No. 8121 - Resolution.

It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Christensen that this resolution be and is hereby adopted. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun - 12; voting “nay”: Council Member Bjerke - 1. Mayor Brown declared the resolution adopted.

ACCEPT PETITION TO VACATE SIDEWALK
DESIGNATION OF SIDEWALK AND UTILITY
EASEMENT LYING ON EACH SIDE OF LOT LINE COMMON
TO LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 1, SOUTH PINES ADDITION

The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission related to the matter of a petition from Tim Crary on behalf of Crary Development, Inc. for approval to vacate the “sidewalk” designation of a 2-foot wide “sidewalk and utility easement” lying 10 feet on each side of the lot line common to Lots 6 and 7, Block 1, South Pines Addition to the city of Grand Forks, connecting South Pines Court with 49th Avenue South, with recommendation for final approval of the petition to vacate the “sidewalk” designation of a 2-foot wide “sidewalk and utility easement” lying 10 feet on each side of the lot line common to Lots 6 and 7, Block 1, South Pines Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, connecting South Pines Court with 49th Avenue South, and recommend the city council set a public hearing date and approve the petition.

Council Member Christensen stated at the last meeting it was noted that if we were to approve this that Planning Office wanted the owner to remove the sidewalk, and if the owner was aware of this; Mr. Potter stated that his office will let the owner know.
It was moved by Council Member Christensen and seconded by Council Member Lunak that this recommendation be and is hereby approved, that the petition filed is in proper form and contains the requisite signatures, that it be filed with the city auditor, that a notice of public hearing be published as required and the public hearing be set for Tuesday, January 22, 2002. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

APPROVE MEMBERS TO WAGE STUDY COMMITTEE

The staff report from the mayor’s office relating to additional members to the Wage Study Committee - city council (1) and employee reps. (2), with no recommendation.

Council Member Stevens stated that he had asked to be on this committee and would respectfully withdraw his name, getting too many people on that committee, and the way the mayor arranged it the first is the right way, and moved that we accept it that way. Council Member Christensen seconded the motion.

Roger Pohlman, employee representative president, stated he had sent a letter to the mayor and to Mr. Duquettes’s office asking for equal representation on the committee - three employee representatives, one department head and 3 council members so that have equal representation and gives impression and appearance of a fair process, and would be more likely accepted by the employees. He stated that the department head may be represented by the employee representatives, however, they sit more in a management position and sometimes management might have conflict of interest with the interest of an employee.

Council Member Glassheim asked what the committee is charged with doing, making final decisions or involved in helping design the study and talk to the consultant or what needing people to do. Daryl Hovland, interim director of Human Resources, this committee will be charged with looking at the proposals, making recommendations to this body, conducting interviews with the consultants and helping set the scope and make sure scope is followed by the consultants. The consultant will make recommendation to the committee and make a presentation to the full council.

Council Member Christensen called for the question, seconded by Council Member Brooks. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

The city auditor read the motion - to accept the wage study committee composition as previously established by the mayor, which would consist of 3 city council members, 2 employee representatives and 1 department head. Mayor Brown noted that Council Members Gershman, Christensen and Kerian volunteered to serve on the committee.

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

CONSIDER FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PRESENTED BY THE POPULATION GROWTH TASK FORCE

Council Member Glassheim reported he would like to introduce a series of 10 motions so that they can look at each one separately, that we lost 5,000 people in the age category from 18 to 35 in the last decade, some of those from the Air Base, and it seemed to him that we needed to do something positive to create an atmosphere or take action that would do whatever we could do to reverse that trend, that they’ve already seen in the school district having meetings on how to downsize schools, people in that age group not having children, there will be impacts 10, 15, 20 years down the road for our city. He thanked the people who served on the committee from that age group, they worked many hours on this and had some good suggestions. He stated in the survey they got, that 57% felt that we were falling short in stimulating population growth, so that the public does understand that this is something that we need to do more work on; and surprised to see that 84% said that this is something the city should be involved with.

Motion 1: Council Member Glassheim moved that the city council request the Grand Forks Region Economic Development Corporation to consider whether and how means can be devised to achieve the following goals related to primary sector small business start-ups, expansions and new entrepreneurial ventures, and to report its findings and recommendations by the end of April, 2002:
A. Increase the amount of private and public risk and seed capital available;
B. Secure 15 out of the 100 Statewide New Economy Initiative (NEI) businesses in the next 3 years;
C. Focus economic development efforts to create 100 new jobs each year through expansion or start-ups with wages at or above $10/hour;
D. Establish a process to better coordinate state and local financial resources;
E. Increase assistance to UND-related (faculty and student) entrepreneurial ventures; and
F. Establish or support business mentoring programs between established local business people and young entrepreneurs. Council Member Hamerlik seconded the motion.

Council Member Hamerlik and Council Member Klave called for the question. Carried 12 votes affirmative, Council Member Glassheim voted against the motion.

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

Motion 2: Council Member Glassheim moved that the Grand Forks city council request the mayor to call quarterly joint meetings between itself, the Economic Development Corporation and the Growth Fund, to review plans, goals and strategies for short and long range economic development initiatives, and to monitor program towards achieving them. Council Member Klave seconded the motion.

Council Member Gershman stated that at the EDC meeting last week it was suggested that the EDC give quarterly reports to the city council and were very excited to approach the mayor on that and those reports will be helpful in this process. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

Motion 3: Council Member Glassheim moved that the city council endorse the continued development of the current bikeway plan and that the mayor designate a lead person or department to be responsible for overseeing appropriate maintenance, signage and promotion of a complete loop, or series of loops, in the bike-path system. Council Member Kerian seconded the motion.

Council Member Hamerlik asked if the maintenance of the bikepath in certain areas is taken care of by the University and the Park District, and asked how that plays out with the City overseeing maintenance when not responsible for it. Council Member Glassheim stated that the thought is that one person who wouldn’t necessarily do the work or telling people what to do, but be responsible for taking complaints and distributing potential jobs wherever it is appropriate, engineering does some parts of things, University does some, Park District does some - but for the City on city property, maybe should be amended to say on city property. Mayor Brown stated that sounds like a coordinating function which could be done in City Hall and would be happy to coordinate that. Todd Feland stated that the street department maintains the city-owned bikepaths along the major arterials, the Park District has certain areas, along with the University.

Council Member Christensen stated that the city council is asking the mayor to do something about this, but we’re going to have a lot of bikepaths once we get our dike system completed and have bikepaths there, and would be appropriate to ask for a report from Mr. Feland as to who is responsible for maintaining what bikepaths, maintenance plan and cost to finish the balance of the bike system that we haven’t completed, source of funds, and get a report to us so that we can let the citizens and youth know that we are committed to a bikepath and the continued maintenance; and if its going to cost us more money to maintain, that we know that and move on this and make it a matter of policy that we’re committed to it and when we want to get it completed as part of our budgeting and part of our CPI; would like the rest of that added and get a report in six weeks.

Council Member Kreun stated that this is a little premature because we’ve been dealing with some of these funding issues and Urban Development been part of the maintenance along the existing bikepaths, that along with the coordination of the four major components, there might be some volunteer groups involved and might need more time to coordinate this, esp. where some of the funding is coming from.

Council Member Kerian asked if it would be helpful to change the word “overseeing” to “coordinating” in the motion. Council Member Glassheim agreed.

After some discussion and upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 10 votes affirmative, with Council Members Brooks, Bjerke and Stevens voting against the motion.

Motion 4: Council Member Glassheim moved that the city council reaffirm its support for the recreation features of the Greenway plan and betterments as currently approved by the city council. Council Member Christensen seconded the motion.

Council Member Christensen stated in light of the $9 million overage, not committed to funding part of the greenway, but to say that he’s not sure the city council has approved as far as what would be in the greenway; that they have approved a park by the bridge, that there is money in the budget for different amenities as they come up, but council will have to prioritize how they pay the $9 million, if there’s extra funds that has been suggested by the city auditor, and would request that withdraw this motion in light of the issues in favor of the city, too broad at this point. The city auditor stated in reviewing the current budget for the greenway, etc., there is within the Corps project some recreational dollars in the amount of approx. $2.25 million and within our original budget for the total greenway and flood control we had about $5 million in betterment within the greenway, that through the park area and greenway cleanup, etc. about $2 million of that, with $3 million balance in the betterment area.

Council Member Bakken stated he had some concerns with the motion, and that if they changed the word “currently” and if reworded that and did that according to what budgeting can take, but not sure that we can spend what we have approved right now. Council Member Christensen suggested “..as funds are available to be approved by the city council.” and that reaffirms our commitment to the concept of the greenway but not saying we’re going to approve the plan in August. Council Member Glassheim agreed to that.

Council Members Bjerke and Burke called for the question. Carried 13 votes affirmative.
Upon call for the motion with the removal of the word “currently”. Carried 11 votes affirmative, Council Members Bjerke and Stevens voted against the motion.

Motion 5: Council Member Glassheim moved that the city council request that the mayor ask the greenway coordinator to add young adults in the community to the groups receiving information about and being asked for input into planned and potential greenway recreational amenities. Council Member Gershman seconded the motion. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

Motion 6: Council Member Glassheim moved that the city council budget up to $15,000 from funds committed to the Growth Fund to match, dollar for dollar, funds from the Kauffman Internship Program and private businesses for student internships. Council Member Kerian seconded the motion.

Council Member Gershman explained that the Center for Innovation administers that, and that in the newspaper this weekend the Knight Foundation announced that they will give the Center for Innovation at UND a $10,500 grant to plan and to begin developing a community of entrepreneurs, investors and advisors to support new business ideas and not sure this plays into the same type of thing, because Mr. Gjovig would certainly leverage this with the Knight Foundation money.

Darrel Sayles, 703 South 9th Street, works for the Center for Innovation and familiar with the grant and the Knight Foundation and the Knight Foundation point of contact, that particular grant is addressed to provide capital for young entrepreneurs starting companies, and not necessarily internships, which is what this one addresses, this is opportunity for UND students to work in local businesses which meet certain criteria and this internship program has strict guidelines, there has to be close association and a working relationship between the student intern and the entrepreneur so the internship program as sponsored by the Kauffman Foundation has very well defined guidelines but it doesn’t help UND students start businesses, the Knight Foundation money is specifically targeted to provide working capital to start businesses or expand them. There are two separate objectives, two pots of money, two different organizations.

Council Member Christensen stated he would like to get a report back so they would know what their progress is and concerned if it’s a good idea that there be matching funds (Kauffman is matching) but doesn’t know if the private sector is going to match the funds, that may be something for the EDC in one of their quarterly meetings and this should be more than one time deal, maybe a three-year commitment so that the people and the students that making application for these internships so there’s a sense of continuity rather than one shot. We have about $2.3 million in our Growth Fund now and perhaps should expand this idea, and moved to amend the motion for a three-year period at $15,000. Council Member Bakken seconded the motion. Council Member Christensen stated we have the money and could fund it out of this year’s Growth Fund monies rather than carryover which would give them the money for the year 2002 and commit it right now.

Council Member Gershman stated this is tied dollar for dollar with the Kauffman Fund and should tie it to the length of the Kauffman Fund, there is a time limit for the Kauffman Funds, and that would give the Center for Innovation some leverage with Kauffman to say that we have this money from the City so don’t give it up; and he and Council Member Christensen asked if he would accept a friendly amendment “..subject to the continuation of the availability of the funds from the Kauffman Foundation..”

Council Member Hamerlik asked if it was appropriate for the city council to commit the money for the Growth Fund. Mr. Swanson stated the council would have to convene as the Growth Fund, there are procedures for notice, etc. before you could act upon that, and would consider the motion they are making right now as a recommendation to the Growth Fund.

Terry Hanson, Office of Urban Development, stated that the Growth Fund when stated perhaps by the Task Force and most of the committee members is considered to be a line item in fund 2163, which is a fund of the City, the actual Growth Fund provides dollars to projects that is carried out by the JDA, but the Growth Fund is always considered that line item. Council Member Christensen stated we don’t have to go to the Growth Fund, that the Growth Fund is only if someone comes to the City and makes an application for money to assist them in their project, we have the ultimate control over the spending of the money and we can allocate today to set aside $45,000 of that money or wait and do it in two weeks. Mr. Swanson stated if you are acting as the Growth Fund, and he understands that the motion is to take from the Growth Fund, and line item would be a budget from the city council and not the Growth Fund, and with specific reference if you are acting as the Growth Fund, the Code requires you to publish a notice of public hearing for three days unless you find exigent circumstances and waive it with a vote of two-thirds of the members, but the recommendation as he reads it ties it to the Growth Fund.

Council Member Christensen asked Council Member Glassheim if he would amend his motion to exclude the reference to the Growth Fund and insert therein, that the city council commit the sum of $15,000 out of line item 2163. Council Member Glassheim agreed.

Council Member Brooks stated that the motion says up to $15,000 and perhaps the mover and second would agree to a friendly amendment to get rid of the “..up to..” and make it $15,000, if that is agreeable. Council Member Glassheim stated it has to do with matching and that is why it is up to $15,000, if Kauffman doesn’t come through with $15,000 or if there aren’t employers to do it, we’re not going to spend $15,000.

Upon call for the question on the amendment to approve the proposal up to three years subject to availability of the Kauffman Internship Program from line item 2163. Carried 11 votes affirmative; Council Members Bjerke and Burke voted against the motion.

Upon call for the question on the motion, as amended, and upon voice vote, the motion carried 11 votes affirmative; Council Members Bjerke and Burke voted against the motion.

Motion 7: Council Member Glassheim moved that the city council request the mayor to encourage the city departments to fully utilize and support various internship programs. The motion was seconded by Council Member Brooks. Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 13 votes affirmative

Motion 8: Council Member Glassheim moved that the city council request the mayor to convene quarterly meetings between representatives of city government and young adults for the purpose of exchanging information about concerns. The motion was seconded by Council Member Brooks.

Council Member Kerian stated she was concerned with limiting that to “..about concerns.”, and want their good ideas and suggestions, eliminating “..about concerns.” the mover and second agreed to a friendly amendment. Upon call for the question by Council Member Brooks and Council Member Kreun, the motion was carried 13 votes affirmative. Upon call for the question, as amended, and upon voice vote the motion carried 13 votes affirmative.
Motion 9: Council Member Glassheim moved that the city council request Town Square management encourage UND students and other young adults to use the Town Square as an entertainment venue. The motion was seconded by Council Member Gershman.

Council Member Gershman stated that the Knight Foundation has granted $110,000 to the Downtown Leadership Group for an executive director to promote the downtowns of Grand Forks and East Grand Forks, so there will be a position to do exactly what you want to do. Council Members Gershman and Klave called for the question, carried 13 votes affirmative. Upon call for the question on the motion and upon voice vote, the motion carried 13 votes affirmative.

Motion 10: Council Member Glassheim moved that the city council encourage the mayor to assign to appropriate staff responsibility for exploring private and public promotional strategies aimed at making the targeted 18 to 35 year old age group aware of the community’s cultural and natural resources. The motion was seconded by Council Member Kerian. Council Members Brooks and Klave called for the question. Carried 13 votes affirmative. Upon call for the question on the motion and upon voice vote, the motion carried 13 votes affirmative.

Mr. Sayles stated they are all in agreement that this has been an encouraging evening, that a number have been involved in this task force because they care and are at a point where deciding if make Grand Forks our future or not, inspiring to hear some of the dialogue and concerns because these are valid concerns, and sends a positive message and appreciates the participation of the number that came to the forums and this is a good first step.

Mayor Brown stated that his office needs a list on the wall of each of these things so they know who they’ve assigned and to follow through on their part.

APPROVE BILL LISTING

Vendor Payment Listing No. 01-24, dated December 17, 2001 and totaling $1,515,286.12, were presented and read.

It was moved by Council Member Lunak and seconded by Council Member Bakken that these bills be allowed and that the city auditor be authorized to issue warrants in payment of the same. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun - 13; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried and the bills ordered paid.

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR COMMENTS

Mr. Duquette reminded the council that they will not be having meetings for the next two Mondays because of holidays; and that January 2 is their next meeting of committee of the whole that will be televised and January 7 will be the city council meeting.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Gershman asked when they hire someone under the civil service system, if there is a probationary period. It was noted there is a probationary period of six months and up to one year depending upon the position.
2) Council Member Gershman stated that Mr. Ted Jellif and the City Band was at Parkwood Place with a performance for the residents of Parkwood Place and played some wonderful Christmas carols and great marches, and they are going around the city playing at all of the retirement homes, and learned that our city band is within the oldest 25 bands in America continually playing, it started in 1883 and really appreciated what they did for the people there.

3) Council Member Glassheim thanked council for their good comments and support.

4) Council Member Burke asked that two items be placed on the next committee of the whole agenda - to revisit the November 5, 2001 decision by this council to build 3 ft. on the floodwalls and also to revisit the November 5 decision by this council on the $50,000 betterment for the floodwall decorations; that he has had some discussions with council members about the changing cost estimates of the flood control project and that he listened to the tape of the October 1 meeting from the flood update report, and there is nothing in the minutes or on the tape about any new cost estimates from the Army Corps of Engineers, there is some discussion without any numbers attached about some of the bids coming in higher, there was concern expressed in the October 1 update by the engineer about the revised estimate for the floodwall height increase and that it might be $2 to $2.2 million higher than we had anticipated, but no discussion of any new cost estimate from the Army Corps of Engineers, which he believes was in the hands of city staff and the senior leadership group prior to that. He stated he understands that they have expressed their concern about us not having accurate information and that it might cause undue concern, but in the interim on November 5, we made those decisions about the floodwall and about the $50,000 in betterments for the floodwall decorations, without benefit of any additional new knowledge; and that he thinks there are some council members who said their votes might have been different had they had that information. He stated when they made the decision about the floodwall and about the $50,000 in betterments, the best information was the Army Corps estimates which no one liked but at least this council should have been trusted with that information to consider it.

There was some discussion relative to the senior leadership groups; Council Member Burk stated he understands there are two council members and the mayor that serve on this group and that the purpose of the senior leadership group is to make decisions in a timely manner because of the accelerated construction and planning schedule that we have engaged in to try to save the City money, and that they could make decisions without coming back to the council. Mayor Brown stated the senior leadershp groups was formed for partnering with the Corps, and that they cannot make any decisions without the approval of the funding body, which is the council; and that it has never been his place or the senior leadership’s place to make decisions, it is to partner and bring information to the council.

Council Member Hamerlik rose to a point of order, this is a matter for some comments, not debate or discussion, and if to be put on the committee of the whole agenda, requests that be done but any other comments not be debated at this time.

5) Council Member Burke stated on one question on housekeeping, as he was researching some of this, he was looking for some of the council minutes and on the city web site but did not find minutes from October 15 meeting; the city auditor stated they would research and correct that.

6) Council Member Hamerlik and Council Member Stevens extended Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to staff, council and citizens of Grand Forks.

7) Council Member Bjerke asked funding sources re. the the latest Corps information, and if going to pursue that. Mayor Brown stated on the 2nd of January, this will be presented and discussed.

8) Council Member Bjerke stated that there are many people who want the City to spend more on different things, and if the citizens of Grand Forks wanted to donate money to the City, could they write a check out to the City and request that it be spent in a specific area. If there are people who want these things, to donate funds.

9) Council Member Brooks stated there was a committee formed to work on the downsizing of the
council for next June and they will be meeting tomorrow night at 6:30 p.m. in Room #101 for those who wish to attend.

11) Council Member Brooks stated they put budgets together for a year and a financial plan for the year and difficult to keep on track with it, and when we talk about a budget for the flood protection which is four years at this point and still have four years to go, that’s a real difficult process that we’re going through and have to bear that in mind, but doesn’t want to over react with the initial amounts that come in after a first phase of budget, but to try to put that in perspective.

12) Council Member Brooks stated there are a couple things that are interesting in politics and one is that when pay raises come up, nobody wants to discuss it, just pass it out, and other thing they don’t want to discuss is redistricting, tonight have motion and question and a vote.

13) Council Member Kreun stated some comments made are in question and they should go back and be addressed at some point in time, now is not the time; certain things happen and people are not astute enough to pick up the information, and leave it at that.

14) Council Member Bakken stated we all received a letter from Leonard Bina on an ordinance and would like that followed up on and looked at, and brought back to a committee of the whole meeting.

15) Council Member Kerian stated there is a meeting on the reconstruction of Columbia Road and 32nd Avenue South project, December 19, 3:00 p.m. in Room A-101, and that she noticed that there were some people who asked when 17th Avenue and Columbia might be addressed - traffic coming from the west is handled there and that she will bring that issue up at that meeting.

16) Council Member Klave stated they had a couple more events at the Alerus Center, very enjoyable to have an event that was catered to the youth, extremely high class production, this shows diversity of what we’re getting into our community, and was an exciting weekend here (both Kenny Rogers and Sesame Street)

17) Council Member Christensen stated that the time has come for this council to be re-briefed by the city auditor as to the scope of the dike project, source of funds and what is City share and how we plan on paying the City’s share; that Mr. Burke has requested a couple items be readdressed and that’s a procedural issue we can talk about; and stated at the last committee of the whole meeting that we have to begin the process of identifying the source of funds that we have to tap or look to if and when this project comes in over budget - that when this project was adopted by the former council, the absolute rough best guestimate was $350 million, certain things were done based on that, but things have changed and we have to understand the source of funds and where the extra monies can be gotten; we also have to understand that if there’s some excess cash in cash carryovers, that is part of the policy of this council or next council, that the key is not to lay the tax burden on the citizens for the extra cost if we can find other sources available to pay for it now - the time has come to use the money that we have saved for something of this magnitude rather than just pass it on and let the next group of people deal with it - this is our time to make these decisions and we should do it.

18) Mayor Brown thanked the citizens who took the time to respond to the citizen survey and greatly appreciate the information that we received; and appointed the Special Events Grant Commission to be Council Members Hamerlik, Gershman, Burke and Glassheim.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Stevens and seconded by Council Member Brooks that we adjourn. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Schmisek
City Auditor

Approved:
_____________________________________
Michael R. Brown, Mayor