City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us

MINUTES - CITY OF GRAND FORKS
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MONDAY, APRIL 9, 2001

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, April 9, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim (teleconference system), Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kreun, Martinson - 11; absent: Council Members Lunak, Bakken - 2; 1 seat vacant.

Mayor Brown announced that when addressing the committee to please come forward to use the micro-phone, and advised that the meeting is being televised for broadcast at a later date.

Mayor Brown welcomed Boy Scout Troop 16 to the committee of the whole meeting.

FLOOD REPORT

Al Grasser, city engineer, reported on flood related issues; that the National Weather Service rather than giving crest predictions and dates, give us exceedence probabilities in that forecast; that the exceedence probability is the percent chance you will exceed any certain number that they have in the probabilistic forecast - in Grand Forks they gave us a 50% chance of exceeding 43.8 ft., 40% chance of exceeding 44.3 ft.., 30% chance of exceeding 45.0 ft., 20% chance of exceeding 47.2 ft., and 10% chance of exceeding 48.8 ft. He stated that the number most resembling what we used to get was about that 50 percentile number and that’s what started with initial floodfighting strategies. He stated that last week they started building our flood elevations to raise top levees to 50 ft. for areas that were anything significantly below that 50 ft. level, that looked conservative at the time, given the fact that we’ve had the weekend rain event, and when look at the upstream rivers see many of those approaching and exceeding the 10% probabilities that they gave for individual tributaries. Last week-ends rains caused rate of rise in Grand Forks of about 5 feet in 24 hours and we are still going up at about a rate of 3 feet in 24 hours and we haven’t seen the ice jam that has busted loose in Crookston yet and that will be here in about 2 or 3 days; we also continue to be in a wet pattern, the system that is to hit us this week on saturated ground and with frost in the ground is almost all going to run off as did last week-end’s rain. Our most recent projection now shows us at 46 ft. on Thursday and holding high for several days, and this is not a crest prediction and does not include the precipitation event that they are projecting for this week. He stated this is driving us into areas of significant concerns, and are looking at needing to move 30,000 to 50,000 c.y. of clay. He stated that it doesn’t appear that we have the opportunity to wait for all of the information before start moving on a final dike elevation, and for this reason met with the Mayor and several other people this week-end and decided to take a conservative approach and get ahead of the game on the dike levels, feel primary responsibility is to protect the community from any effects of wide-spread flooding anywhere even approaching 1997, but nobody is predicting that type of water elevation at this time.

He stated that today they started on taking any property that is below the 51 ft. elevation or street, and decided to put in an emergency dike. He stated they have requested the Corps of Engineers assistance which they are evaluating and think will have more of a commitment tomorrow but decided we don’t have the luxury of time to wait so started that work right away. He stated this will cause a lot of inconvenience, messy, muddy; that now the gates are closed, one concern is that we have limited pumping availability - pumps will provide pumping for the storm sewer systems but they are a lot smaller than the pipes - have a 6 ft. pipe that trying to pump out with a 6” pump and if get significant precipitation that will cause some backup in the storm sewer system; he stated they want people consider plugging their basement drains, and particularly important after we start getting the rains and overtaxing our storm sewer - when overtax the storm sewer that water tends to migrate into the sanitary sewer system and causes problems - in addition people who are discharging sump pumps into the sanitary sewer system also
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/April 9, 2001 - Page 2

tend to overload that so asking everybody to please get their sump pumps disconnected from the sanitary sewer system. He stated they are planning to have daily news conferences at the EOC and try to keep everybody informed and up to date as to what they are doing - there are properties that are on wrong side of the clay dike protection that may go in - that at 51 ft. that is a break point where they are avoiding some of those properties - particularly in the Sunbeam area, addressing everything lower than that. He stated they think this is the proper approach to take.

There were several questions relating to estimated cost of what this will cost; Mr. Grasser stated that he didn’t know - that in 1999 costs came in at approx. three-quarters of a million and only dike built was on Belmont Road - not only the cost of installation but cost of removal and repair of damage that may occur in the process, and building some of the dikes on streets and in areas where haven’t built before - $3 million is just a guess but could be off significantly. Council Member Burke asked if this would be local funds or any opportunity for reimbursement from other sources. Mr. Grasser stated that if we get a presidential disaster declaration there may beopportunity of recouping some of those expenses through FEMA. The city auditor stated that if we do get a presidential declaration, normally that they have made that retroactive to point of when this started and hopefully a 75% FEMA reimbursement and a portion from the State also.

There was discussion whether there was ice on the river that poses a threat to us - and it was noted that when the river does get this high, ice even if it tends to jam up, doesn’t have as much impact on us as it would in Crookston, Fargo, etc. where the channel is smaller and not as deep - our ice has been grinding down pretty rapidly - there is ice on the river and we will get some ice flush down to us through the Red Lake River but typically doesn’t cause us the types of rises you could experience in Crookston, Fargo.

Mr. Grasser stated that our 5-day outlook shows us to be at 46’ on Thursday with a stay at that level and that’s not the crest - that he hasn’t heard any information on a crest date other than what was provided us last week which said the 18th or 19th, not sure if that has changed.

Council Member Burke asked if we coordinated our plans with East Grand Forks - Mr. Grasser stated coordination maybe too strong - have independent flood fights but have been sharing information with East Grand Forks.

There were some questions regarding the release of water from Lake Traverse which is controlled by the Corps of Engineers; Mr. Grasser stated that he has heard that they have been containing the water from Lake Traverse and the reservoirs are essentially full and if we get additional precipitation, don’t know if they will be able to hold that discharge down to zero - he stated he was sure they would make every opportunity to minimize that.

Council Member Brooks asked about the English Coulee - Mr. Grasser stated that the Coulee is flowing pretty hard from the week-end rain and is down a foot from where it was at, the Coulee reacts quicker because smaller basin - get crest within 24-36 hours and biggest problem from the Coulee is the backup - the Red River will control the English Coulee elevations.

There was some discussion relative to North Columbia Road which has been closed - Mr. Grasser noted that Columbia Road is good to 50 ft., and they are in the process of building that to 54 ft. It was also stated that Boyd Drive was a secondary line of defense - Mr. Grasser noted that is at the 51 ft. level, the
public street which would control the inundation into the city is at 51 ft. and would not address that now but the property owners with walk-out basements should be looking at sandbagging.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/April 9, 2001 - Page 3

Council Member Burke asked if the City has an emergency fund and what the balance is in that account. The city auditor stated that after the 1997 and the 1999 floods the balance is basically at zero, and has been expended down and anything that we would spend would have to look at perhaps taking from some of our reserve accounts.

Council Member Martinson asked for status on the lift stations. Mr. Grasser reported that the sanitary lift stations have been rebuilt, problem is we don’t have very many permanent storm lift stations along the river, have one in Lincoln Drive and one in Riverside and in the interim program we added one by DeMers Avenue, those in good shape but have many outfalls that don’t have any pumping; and that’s one of the things that makes the cost so high for the Corps of Engineers on the permanent flood protection project, is because they do those interconnects, put in piping, lift stations, and those are very expensive projects and that he’s very concerned about the rain event because when the gates are closed it all has to be pumped and we’re dealing with portable pumps and don’t have the capacity.

Mayor Brown stated that his office is arranging a bus trip of the dike preparation for the council, and will coordinate that with the council.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DISCUSSION ITEMS

Mayor Brown stated that they were removing item 2.18 from the agenda (disposition of wet-side Lincoln Drive area homes).

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Bjerke to suspend the agenda and discuss items 2.3 Engineering agreement for environmental Impact Statement at Turtle River Township Landfill Site and 2.15 Aspen Creek Park/Richard’s West Park Development Proposal. Carried 11 votes affirmative.

2.3 Engineering agreement for Environmental Impact Statement at Turtle River Township landfill site.
Jay Fiedler, attorney, reviewed background information - last year the City submitted an application for a conditional use permit to construct a new municipal solid waste landfill in Turtle River Twp. north of Manvel, that they met with the Twp Board of Supervisors on two occasions and after those meetings they issued a decision that they would not provide a public hearing for issuance of that permit until an environmental impact statement (EIS) that essentially complied with federal standards was provided. The basis for that decision was provided in the Township zoning ordinance; thereafter we had a handful of meetings with the council and committee whether to go forward with an EIS or to otherwise contest that requirement; the decision was made to proceed with the EIS. Initially they had plans to commission Burns & McDonnell, City’s landfill consultant, to perform that work, but in discussing that option with Burns & McDonnell as the matter progressed concerns developed whether that engineering firm would be perceived as having a conflict of interest because they are doing design work and may be involved with construction of the project, and it was decided that we should try to identify other capable firms to provide an EIS that did not have any stake whatsoever in the project. About the first of February he was directed by the council to negotiate with engineering firms to provide an EIS, after selecting three firms that seemed to be very appropriate, experienced and qualified, arranged to interview each of them and that at the committee’s suggestion they invited the Turtle River Twp. Board to participate in those interviews to have some input in the selection, the Board declined to participate in the selection process. He stated that he along with Todd Feland and Council Member Kreun, interviewed the firms and agreed that any of the firms was qualified to do the job and reached a consensus that an engineering firm from Fort Collins, CO, Water and & Earth Technology, was the most qualified and best able to provide to the service they were looking for. They interviewed the firms based on their qualifications, background, etc., basically to
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - April 9, 2001 - Page 4

the exclusion of financial considerations; all three of the firms were closely clustered in terms of cost proposals, but they selected Water & Earth Technology, consortium of specialists in environmental issues ranging from water quality, quantity, ground water, surface water, air quality, plants, animals, fisheries, etc. a number of different disciplines that go into EIS’s who had made a proposal to us. Most of the specialists have been very deeply involved in EIS’s previously, as well as environmental assessments which is a lower level of an EIS, they have demonstrated a lot of expertise in the area, particularly in the areas that seem to be of the most concern - ground water, surface water, etc.and Water & Earth Technology have in their budget at least 3 people who focus in that area and have in their budget that they’ve negotiated the largest portion of their attention to those issues. He stated he has drawn a contract for services, based on hourly compensation with an estimated budget of approx. $200,000, depending on whether they take advantage of some optional services that we could perform in house if we chose to do that. We cannot negotiate a flat fee agreement because of some things inherent in the EIS process - one of the first things that happen in the EIS process is that we are required to hold a scoping meeting where the public is invited to come and raise issues that they feel are pertinent, the engineering firm looks at those issues and determines whether and to what extent they should be incorporated into the EIS, there are some uncertainties about the parameters of the project although we have tried in the planning stages to anticipate all of the issues that are likely to be part of the EIS and think we have covered everything in terms of planning, and are here requesting that the council authorize the mayor to execute the contract with Water & Earth Technology to go ahead with the EIS, the timeline is roughly 14 months and would expect the scoping meetings to occur in May, expect the actual EIS plan to be developed in June with the actual work beginning in July. He stated they have tried to work as many cost controls in the contract aside from the budget, have required monthly reports, generally but with respect to each project within the project, so will know where the money is being spent as it is being spent and be alerted if looks like we’re going out of budget. The contract counsel has received about 99% of the contract would be executed, that he had a conversation this afternoon with Water & Earth Technology where trying to negotiate out some of the final points and the points left to finish are essentially non-substantive issues (drafting issues) and will be prepared next Monday with final draft of the contract. He stated he wasn’t sure if council received - that he sent over a packet of resumes of various professionals involved and highest hourly rate quite reasonable, $105/hour for consultant; and tends to be more a function of time than it does of hourly rates..

Council Member Burke stated that he understands we are not required to do an EIS but as a matter of good faith we have determined that we will to avoid questions further on. Mr. Fiedler stated that most correct to state that whether we are required to do an EIS is subject to debate, that his feeling has been and if this matter is ultimately litigated, which is as likely as not, that performing an EIS is the most prudent thing to do and the most likely way in which that landfill will be sited at the suggested location, if it turns out that it is environmentally sound which is what we want to know too.

Council Member Burke stated if we end up in court and judge says the EIS does not meet the requirements that he would have set, and we are doing an EIS that may not fully meet our needs. Mr. Fielder stated there’s lots of litigation over whether a particular EIS conforms with the law, what we’ve done to insure ourselves - the Twp. ordinance says they require an appropriate EIS compliant with federal law, and we have gone out and have found people who are very experienced in developing EIS’s and environmental assessments, who have been through it before and know the regulations and process, so that if that issue is ever raised, which it may be by the Twp. Board, we will be in a position to demonstrate that we have complied with the law, using people who know the law and have experience
with the law - that argument is always out there but thinks we’ve done everything we possibly can to minimize the effect - part of the services we have contracted for is an assurance that people who do the EIS are also people who are available to support the EIS if have to in court.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - April 9, 2001 - Page 5

Council Member Burke stated he would hope thre would be electronic versions of the reports so that we might be able to post it on our web site, and edible format we might find useful within City Hall, and if we have in format and it’s available on the web site perhaps reduce the large number of copies of the reports. Mr. Fielder stated one of the issues with the environmental impact statements and studies and the process is to make it as broad as we can in terms of public involvement, we invite comments and want to make it available for people to comment, so will see a lot of notices going out, a lot of copies of the report being made available but the point is well taken as far as the web site is concerned and electronic delivery of the material. Council Member Burke asked if this was a budgeted item; the city auditor stated it is not a budgeted item and see agenda item 2.3 budget amendment for funding.

Council Member Gershman stated that in the contract it states that they will develop a list of alternatives to the proposed action to be analyzed in detail in the EIS. Mr. Fielder stated they are talking about the primarily sites, actually the law that establishes an EIS requires as part of the statement that the project owner consider alternatives, and have to address it in the EIS, that these are the comments considered but not followed up on, etc., that the alternatives that will primarily be looked at here are the other sites that were identified in our original process, although that’s not to say that in the scoping process something else might come up that will be looked at - that under a more broad framework of alternatives also part of the EIS required by law is an identification of environmental issues and measures that can be undertaken to mitigate those issues, and when talk about alternatives can also be talking about mitigation efforts, although that’s not what the alternatives are being addressed - it’s alternative sites and methods (hauling things away, etc.) Council Member Gershman stated that the sense of the council with the meetings they did have with the people from the Twp. was that we would look hard at the alternatives; Mr. Fielder stated we have not only given that assurance but are required by law to do it. Council Member Gershman asked the reason why the Twp. has not participated in the process; Mr. Fielder stated what he has been told, a counsel for the Twp. has expressed to him the concern that by participating in the selection process, that there may come a point in time when the Twp. Board is called upon to judge the qualifications and the work of this engineering firm, that by involving itself in the selection process he feels the Board would put itself in an untenable conflict situation. Council Member Brooks thanked Mr. Fiedler for the Budget Monitoring System in the contract. Mr. Fielder stated that though they were selecting an engineer based on qualifications, he tried to make it as clear as possibly could that budget had to be considered, it’s reality, and tried to work in as many safeguards and checks as could so knew where the money was being spent and why.

2.4 Sanitation Department budget amendment for Environmental Impact Statement.
Todd Feland, acting director of public works, stated that when they created the budget last spring the idea had not crystallized that we would be doing an environmental impact statement, and knew we had a cash balance of $1.8 million, and rather than putting that into our budget, decided to wait to bring that into our account to pay for it. Council Member Brooks stated that the proposal shows the amount of $199,244.00 but that an additional $22,000 for the printing and distributing of documents, why didn’t include that in the budget amendment. Mr. Feland stated he thought they would use existing staff to do that and use some of our existing budget.

Council Member Kreun stated he, Mr. Fiedler and Mr. Feland spent over 3 hours interviewing these
particular companies, that this company had the most information, and were the most detailed and seemed to have the best understanding of the scope of the project and laid this out during the interview process -was a unanimous decision and would recommend that they pass this through on Monday night.

Mr. Fielder stated that as they’ve been planning for the EIS, they have been trying to incorporate as much objectivity into the process as can - that they want this to be an independent analysis, want it to be
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - April 9, 2001 - Page 6

objective, want it to be valid and over the course of time the thought developed that they should invite the Department of Health to participate to some degree in the process, at least to the extent of reviewing the proposals, reviewing the work and providing us with their comments on what we were doing so that we have another agency giving some thought to it, that he contacted the ND State Health Department, Mr. Schwindt, and asked if the Health Department would be willing to review our proposal, to consider the proposals and give us their comments and track with us the process as it goes along; the Health Department agreed to do that and one of the first things they did was to send them the proposal, sent both cost and technical proposals, and asked for their comments, they provided them, Water & Earth essentially had either considered them or put them into the contract and thinks significantly the Health Department also in looking at the proposal, concurred with us that this contractor is qualified to do the work and appears has already developed background information to start on the process. He stated they were trying to involve as many knowledgeable people as can to insure the objectivity of the process and quite pleased that the Health Department is willing to review the process for us as well.

Council Member Christensen asked Mr. Fiedler when reviewing the qualifications of Water & Earth Technology, if he got a resume of the law firms for whom they have worked and or cases, etc. and if they’ve testified in any cases. Mr. Fiedler stated he didn’t talk to any law firms with whom they’ve worked, was more interested in their experience in developing the EIS so conversations were more with engineering firms. He stated that they have testified in cases, and the lead engineer has testified in a number of contexts including project failures, and where the issue was where do you delineate the boundaries of a watershed, either surface water, ground water expert. Council Member Christensen stated that as we are spending $200,000 or perhaps more, thinks it would be prudent to interview or get a resume of cases in which they have testified.

2.15 Aspen Creek Park/Richard’s West Park development proposal.
Todd Barrett, 734 Horizon Circle, commented on the options proposed to the Park Board in regards to the Richard’s West/Aspen Creek idea and submitted based off references from several other residents a third option, that a decision has not even been made yet on whether or not the Park Board is going to take possession of the Aspen Creek Park which is currently City-owned land and the next question is who is going to develop this - that the Park Board does not own that land and it has been suggested that CDBG funds be made available to develop this park, one area with two park concept, and asked if CDBG funds were available for development at one or at both parks. He asked how they can decide what’s going to go into these parks when question is of who owns the land, who will run it, and if funds available should be made available for both parks. He stated that the parks are only 3 blocks apart and Park Board maintains Richard’s West Park.

John Staley, Park Board, reported that the Board met this afternoon and having worked with Council Members Brooks and Bjerke, staff and representatives, has agreed to maintain both sites but does not wish to see duplication, the thought that they would have is one park orientated towards hockey as well as other features of a neighborhood park and the other park orientated more towards sports field with soccer and baseball field, playground, and not duplicating but offering the services to the neighborhood, and Board passed a motion saying they would do that. He stated they will continue working with the neighborhood and council on determination of which activities go where.

Council Member Burke stated that the recommended motion did not address whether or not the Park District would take title to both pieces of land. Mr. Staley stated it did not and at the time weren’t really addressing the ownership issue and willing to leave that open to suggestion. Council Member Burke suggested they take both pieces; Mayor Brown stated then you take the specials, and assessments, etc.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - April 9, 2001 - Page 7

Council Member Hamerlik asked if there were other areas in the city where have such an arrangement, where one park divided into two separate units. Mr. Staley stated not to this extent, but Ben Franklin and Willmar parks are very close to each other. He stated that with growth out there thinks these two parks would be needed and are looking at neighborhood parks from 8 to 10 to 12 acres. Council Member Hamerlik stated that there is a clause with dedication of park area by the developer, and asked whether they would consider the City the developer and should be dedicating this (land and cost). Mr. Staley stated that Richard’s West was there and neighborhood population and flood changed dynamics and dealing with something that not with normal growth pattern, and moving along to get a good resolution.

Council Member Brooks stated that the initial concern was by the residents in Richard’s West area who thought they were going to lose their park, that the land was going to be swapped between the Park District and the City; at meetings at Richard’s West Park the idea was proposed and carried forward that a task force be appointed with people from the Park District, the city council, residents of Richard’s West and residents of Congressional II, that committee met and worked on what could do to resolve the situation; and noted that the City was the developer through Grand Forks Homes. He stated the residents did an excellent job of keeping the people in the area informed of meetings; and theme was one park in two locations and that in his proposal where the dollars would go, they’re used to complete Aspen Creek Park and also dollars for Richard’s West Park, and worked with Terry Hanson and he will be providing us with source of funding - the upkeep of the park will be the Park District’s obligation and they will proceed with that., and that’s the proposal before you. The City completing its obligation - that 197 houses were sold and put on tax rolls in that area and part of the sale of those homes was the development of the Aspen Creek park; and urged council to approve this.

Jim Carlson, 702 Horizon Circle, thanked all of the help they have received from the City, nearly every department has helped their group with information and worked with them. He stated Richard’s West Park was there and it was donated by the City and included in the Western Skies Subdivision. He stated that the two parks serve different needs with different features and worked very hard as a group to come to complete consensus, but couldn’t get 100% agreement but everyone in the area does agree that they would like to have the features that were suggested for Aspen Creek and they’ve supported Aspen Creek, and this solution to finish the Aspen Creek as quickly as possible; and appreciate consideration.

Council Member Burke stated that when it comes time to vote on this next week, will offer an amendment or draft a resolution in the interim in which they include the donation of the Aspen Creek park land to the Park District, perhaps tied to the City completing its funding of the development of the infrastructure with CDBG funds, and hope that don’t end up in a situation where have park land owned by the City regardless of who is maintaining it.

Council Member Christensen stated it is his understanding that the residents in Richard’s West are concerned that the land in their current park is land that be preserved and protected as a park, that it not be developed, and if going to deed the land (Aspen Park) to the Park District would like a caveat on that deed that it is theirs so long as it is continued to be used for a park, in the event it’s not used for a park, it would revert back to the City.

Mr. Hanson stated he had his staff review how they could fund $136,000 of infrastructure improvements to both Richard’s West Park and Aspen Creek’s Park with CDBG funds and with CDBG funds only, and have come up with the amount of dollars necessary to do that, and would have to de-obligate funds from two projects: 1) acquisition project granted to he Housing Authority in 1999 with a balance of $90,000, with the intent of moving two four-plexes that were gifted by HUD to the Housing Authority, that they determined after investigating the situation - could build new ones rather than move these and the
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - April 9, 2001 - Page 8

Housing Authority donated those apartments to another non-profit entity; 2) would de-obligate funds
from a development that they provided for downtown (Town Square development - downtown betterment project) and the reason those funds allocated in 1999 was that was a contingency fund for the development of the Town Square, knew that they had budgeted enough in the supplemental CDBG funds to cover the amount of contracts outstanding but did not budget enough to cover any contingencies that came along (such as sound system that was later installed - that sound system was purchased out of the entitlement CDBG funds but are able to close that account leaving enough in that project, $11,000, which is an amount to cover any contingencies that are yet outstanding - that project completed in November of last year, and want to have some money left over to cover any contingencies but can de-obligate $46,000 from that project and from a contingency line item of a few thousand dollars, and can come up with $136,000 to fund capital improvements. He stated he discussed with Mr. Brooks is that they would like to use City funds to fund any improvements at Aspen Creek Park only because they can respond to that development immediately because we do have an outstanding project set up with HUD for that development and would just have to increase the budget; the work at Aspen Creek Park is $111,000, and came up with $25,000 of money they can put in Richard’s West Park and willing to do that and want council and community to realize that they cannot get those funds into that park immediately, could get them in this construction season but would have to go through an amendment process for annual plan, and run the project by HUD and a 30-day comment period and not until that time can they actually call for bids. He stated what concerns him is if it goes into next season that area might not be considered a low or moderate income area according to the new 2000 census. Council Member Brooks stated that the $20,000 difference is capital monies that the Park District has now which would be directed to Richard’s West and that could be started, and then start in Aspen Creek with the dollars there and in interim the sooner they can approve this plan, Mr. Hanson can start on that paperwork.

Council Member Christensen stated that when they allocated the bricks and mortar this year, thought they might have some additional monies coming in and were going to fund $300,000 for other city projects, and thought could modify their existing 2001 bricks and mortar projects and take the $20,000 or $30,000 we need and short the existing city projects. Mr. Hanson stated as far as the Aspen Creek Park project the funds they are providing come out funding for 1999 and that’s the same funding year that the acquisition funds provided for the Grand Forks Housing Authority came from and that’s a benefit to having the funding source from the same program. He stated the $25,000 from Richard’s West Park, could easily
amend the 2001 Annual Plan and utilize something they currently have approved or hope they have that much additional program income to cover the project. Mr. Hanson stated there are two city projects and those are the $95,000 that was provided for the Property Management (disposition of the property that we own) and $100,000 of Historic Mitigation funds that were provided, and could reduce the amount of Historic Mitigation to $75,000 and make that up with program income. Mr. Hanson stated that the source of funds is not a concern, still have to go through the process to get the project on this year’s annual plan and that’s what takes the time. Mr. Hanson stated that they cannot start both projects at the same time because the Aspen Creek project is an existing project on our books and Richard’s West Park project is not, so have to go through a formal process establishing that as a project. Mr. Hanson stated that one of the suggestions by the committee was to use some of the Park District money on both parks and doesn’t believe that’s necessary, that if they allocate all of the funds for Aspen Creek, and the balance necessary to finish Richard’s West and will get both done if council’s desire to put this much money into either or both parks. Council Member Christensen asked Mr. Hanson to prepare a resolution for Monday that would allocate some of the bricks and mortar money from that one fund so could amend that so there would be a source of money to start on this project this summer. Mr. Hanson stated they will start the paperwork.

2.14 2001 Beautification applications.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - April 9, 2001 - Page 9

John Ramsey, 2622 Cherry Street, spoke in support of a request from the Park District for $20,000 of funds that have been allocated for the City Beautification Program, money would be used in part to fund the construction of a Japanese garden in Sertoma Park. In 1998 the City of Grand Forks signed a formal sister-city relationship agreement with the town of Awano, Japan and after 3 official visits by Awano we made an official visit last year headed by Mayor Brown and at that time discussion was held regarding a gift the town of Awano wished to give the people of Grand Forks and their original thought was to give us cherry trees, but USDA wouldn’t allow the importation of those cherry trees in the U.S.; the next idea was to build a Japanese garden in Grand Forks, and two months after we got back from Awano in October, 2000, the City of Awano sent over their city planner plus a master gardener who worked with the Park District and selected Sertoma Park for a Universe Garden, that there are only 3 of these in the world, and this will be the only one in the U.S. (there will be people coming from all over the country to see this garden - it will be spectacular). The City of Awano in addition to paying for the travel and time of this master gardener to design this garden, are also giving the City a gift of 3 stone lanterns, lanterns are hand crafted, hand made and two of them weigh 6 tons each and the small one weighs one ton, and will pay shipping to Grand Forks and will be erected in the garden.

Cindy Loyland, Grand Forks Horticulture Society, spoke in favor of the project and distributed brochure of the Universe Garden., and asked council to seriously consider helping make this happen.

John Staley stated he wanted to endorse the concept of this garden, this is a unique opportunity for us, and has huge draw and will be a city-wide type of attraction to our community and a great asset, located along the English Coulee next to Altru Complex, great value to Parkwood Place and staff and visitors to hospital, and only one part of a greater thing - exchanging stays in Awano, Japan and culture exchange is magnificent.

Council Member Kreun stated this is another issue that creates a quality of life issue for us in Grand Forks and these are things that people like to see when they come to town, and is a great project.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that if the council members have a concern about any of the beautification projects to voice them; that the committee spent a great deal of deliberation in making decisions; and stated he has one general comment - 3 years ago right after the flood there was a suggestion by some people in Grand Forks to build several monuments at various strategic sites within the city for historical purposes about the measurement of the flood, and have yet to see that on any of the requests. There was notation that the beautification program document needs to be updated - Mr. Hanson stated he has seen the discussion on plaques throughout the city and if have this program next year, confident will have something on that, and will make the changes to the outline.

Council Member Burke stated his concern about this is that the projects may be fine, the problem we have in this community with regards to beautification isn’t addressed by these projects - Highway 2 all the way from the river to the Airport and that’s an issue that needs to be addressed. He stated when this comes to a vote next week, he is going to move to table this matter, other than the $20,000, until after they know what the flood fight costs us, to withhold $75,000 from this project and that we table the allocation of the $100,000 in events money as well.

2.1 Resolution establishing terms and directing issuance of definitive improvement warrants, Series
2001C (Dike Improvements) on the fund of Flood District No. 14 and providing for and appropriating special assessments for the support and maintenance of said fund._____________
Council Member Burke stated the staff recommendation doesn’t mention the cost of these bonds and asked that be included; and to include dollar amounts in agendas so people have that information.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - April 9, 2001 - Page 10

Council Member Bjerke stated we are borrowing $18 million and information stated $8.1 million from the State - total project $18 million. The city auditor reported the application was done in 1999 before we knew we were going to receive State funding, and actual borrowing will be about $9 million and information will be changed by Monday night. He also noted that interest rate is 2.5% interest plus .5% administration fee; and noted that several years ago we had $10 million G.O. bond issue, and have done $9 million special assessment bond issue a year ago.

2.2 Resolution authorizing the issuance of Sewer Reserve Revenue Bonds, Series 2002D to finance
the undertaking of an expansion and improvement of the Municipal Sewerage Utility.________
Council Member Bjerke asked if these bonds would be repaid from the Wastewater Enterprise Fund; and if this would be the last borrowing on this project. Mr. Feland stated this is a State Revolving Loan Fund, which is a 3% loan, State ranks projects on a priority basis and our project was ranked high, that the State administers the grant program and buys down the interest rate on loans to municipalities and rural areas. He stated the City took out a $13 million SRF loan and have taken out an additional amount that totals the borrowings to $27 million for the completion of the plant (this is second borrowing). Council Member Christensen stated he would like to have a summary of the borrowing to date and expected borrowing, source of revenue and fees allocated to pay; the city auditor will take care of that.

2.5 Great River Energy power line relocation for English Coulee Diversion.
2.6 Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. power line relocation for English Coulee Diversion.
2.7 Nodak Electric Cooperative power line relocation for English Coulee Diversion.
Council Member Burke asked if these were costs that are part of the flood project; Mark Lambrecht of flood protection project staff, stated those were items budgeted within the project. In answer to questions whether these costs were local, Mr. Lambrecht stated that the land easements, rights of way and relocations are a local responsibility but the State’s 45% is applicable to it and is also applicable to our match with the federal funds. Council Member Kreun noted that this is not the last of the relocation fees coming up. Mr. Swanson advised that the documents from items 2.5 and 2.7 appear to be in order but the document proposed by Minnkota Power has a hold harmless clause which he will not be accepting and
will have further negotiations and on Monday he will be asking that they approve 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 subject
to their office’s final review and approval.

2.8 -Mosquito control supervisor position description.
Council Member Burke stated that before approving this they should consider whether they want this position to stay in the health department, might be better off in public works, and find way not to have the whole position dedicated to this project, that public works department deals with part-time seasonal people that mosquito control function might fit over there and that the supervisory function of the position might be less than a full time position.

Don Shields, health department, stated this is an important position for the continuity of the mosquito control program on a year to year basis, difficult to run seasonal program on something of this magnitude. He reviewed duties of position on an annual basis, and highlighted several things - during months of May through mid-September the people involved with putting chemicals in the 150-sq. mile area - that there are over 1,000 mosquito control habitat sites which workers address on an annual basis - during the off season there are duties that have to take place to make that happen (vehicles, storage of equipment), maps areas of control, research new chemicals and equipment, new techniques, bidding for chemicals, provide education materials, wrap up report for 2000, hiring of seasonal workers, that in North Dakota you have
to be certified pesticide applicators and pass State audits on what do and where, and results. He stated that the program doesn’t stop once mosquito season over; and when the program was established in
1994/95 and was put in the health department, as the big issue was the health issue associated with
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - April 9, 2001 - Page 11

potential mosquito borne communicable disease threats to humans (have western quinine encephalitis threat) in July, August, September timeframe and important to monitor what’s happening and put in a program to keep those mosquitoes at a tolerable level; and reduces the nuisance level of mosquitoes. He also noted chemical safety and environmental view and expertise their department has developed.

There was some discussion relative to temporary positions that last for several years, either the position should be classified and utilized or shouldn’t have the position. It was noted the mosquito control supervisor position was approved in the 2001 budget and if put into public works what about funding from outlying areas. Council Member Christensen stated the issue is temporary vs. part-time and asked what cost would be - cost difference noted to be approx. $1800/yr. (benefits) Council Member Christensen stated we have a larger issue - that we have number of employees that are classified as temporary for 5-10 years, creates unsatisfaction among ranks of employees, and take opportunity to begin discussion at policy level of whether or not continue to have temporary employees or after certain point in time people who are qualified become permanent employees.

Mayor Brown stated that when he made his morale trips to the various departments, this was a key issue, and tasks Finance, Human Resources and Rick Duquette in the Mayor’s Office to come up with a policy and will see that soon for review. Council Member Hamerlik stated there was a committee that worked for 2 /2 years and report have been done and has asked that it be brought up. Council Member Glassheim stated he thought they were close to resolving that problem and that there were a number of proposals. Mayor Brown stated they have report and are bringing it forward.

Council Member Burke stated his concern was to do this more efficiently; Mr. Shields stated they felt this was a full-time position.

2.9 Budget amendment (HL40, $30,000, 4/2/01), and contract amendment for Tobacco Grant with the
North Dakota Department of Transportation.---------___________________________________________
Council Member Brooks stated $30,000 for campaign against smoking - well spent dollars.

2.10 -Ordinance changes revising limits for biological oxygen demand (BOD) and Molybdenum.
Council Member Burke asked if this would have impact on rates for industries. Michael Shea stated it give us a few extra pounds of BOD that they could allocate to industry, that this is short-term fix, once get new treatment plant on line will redo the whole ordinance; this won’t change basic rates but will change the penalty situation, once you exceed the rate in your permit, you go into a penalty situation where pay double and that will allow us to raise the penalty or the limit in the permit, so wouldn’t approach that quite as frequently - beneficial to industries.

2.11 Consideration of bids for City Project No. 5244 mowing in Greenway, 2001.
Council Member Bjerke questioned rates for mowing and it was noted that numbers are per time. Melanie Parvey-Biby stated bids were for the engineering department; that they have $100,000 maintenance budget and have approx. $50,000 set for mowing, $25,000 for tree maintenance and $25,000 for snow removal and have tapped into the tree maintenance. Council Member Christensen asked what plan was for this summer for Central Park area; Ms. Parvey-Biby stated that area mowed this summer until flood protection project comes in and playground equipment installed and possible riparian restoration in the future.

2.12 Consideration of bids for construction of City Project No. 4901, English Coulee bikepath lighting.
Council Member Bjerke asked why NDDOT involved with this project. Mr. Grasser stated because we are accessing Federal Transp. dollars (Federal Transp. Enhancement) for use on recreational activities
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - April 9, 2001 - Page 12

and determined that bikepath lighting would fit within those guidelines; and noted that there is 4-5 year history on this project - been somewhat controversial (whether lighting a safety enhancement), last action would have been to approve the concept report and approval of plans/specs., bids came in very good. Council Member Brooks stated he thought the lights on the path were not a safety factor, gave false sense of safety because area so covered with growth, however, that bike path has changed considerably since then - with the development on the Bronson Property that continues to develop and some retail space, etc. and also being used lot more and thinks time has come for it to be lighted. Council Member Hamerlik stated that the UND is participating in this, they have maintained part of this. Mr. Grasser noted that at one time the project was cut back (about 500 ft.) because of budget concerns, that prices came in very good and will probably bring in a change order to continue the lighting all the way to Gateway Drive.

2.13 Approval of Grand Forks Renaissance Zone Project 2001-1.
Council Member Gershman stated this is a good project and urged strong support of the project.

2.16 Consideration of purchase offers for dry-side City-owned homes and lots.
Council Member Gershman questioned why not getting releases of those home before getting bids and slowing process down. Terry Hanson, Urban Development, stated we have to wait until we have a legitimate bid in order to go back to the owner if they have right of first refusal but that is not the issue this is trying to address; he stated that their office has the authority that when they make a sale of a home to have the authority to sell it for a percentage below the appraised value, and if doesn’t sell for that and if have no bids, which is the case for these 3-4 homes that they tried to sell, then it goes to the realtors for sale. That they have not established a policy on who is the approving authority for when a realtor brings an offer on one of those homes, and are trying to set that authority. Council Member Gershman asked if they could get a waiver of right of first refusal before going to the realtors. Mr. Swanson stated the right of first refusal would be based upon having a bone fide offer in hand; however, if there were former owners that clearly did not wish to exercise that right in advance, they could waive that right. Mr. Hanson stated they do that, they contact the owners and ask if they will waive that; he stated they are looking for level of authority and are proposing four levels; and would prefer #4 to do as staff , to leave it up to the
office of urban development with concurrence of the mayor’s office or administrative coordinator on the offer that comes forward. Mr. Swanson stated the last time they had a significant number of properties to be sold through realtors was in the 80’s and council established a listing price and staff was authorized to immediately approve any offer at the listing price or above, anything that was offered below the listing price was sent through an authorization change, and at that time didn’t accept too many that were less than listing price, unless unusual circumstances; and it would be clearly within prerogative and discretion as to whom you want to make those discretionary decisions at this point. It was noted that there are appraisals on the houses. Council Member Christensen stated he was in favor of the Urban Development staff monitoring this and let them make the business decision. Council Member Hamerlik stated he was in favor of oral bidding after bids opened, and questioned reason for not having oral bidding on these homes providing that they submit a bid for at least 95%. Mr. Hanson stated that prior to this they did have oral bidding, that they considered that in the office and changed it because they had so many bids that came in at the listing price because they knew they could come in and bid it up and didn’t obtain any substantial higher price; now if you want the house you have to bid price willing to pay and probably come out better with one bid.

2.17 Sale and redevelopment of the Boom Town Building at 216 South 3rd Street.
Council Member Gershman stated this proposal fits in with what trying to accomplish downtown; and is supporting proposal from Gerard Stockert.

2.18 Disposition of wet-side Lincoln Drive area homes.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - April 9, 2001 - Page 13

This item was removed from the agenda.

2.19 Increase in maximum benefit of City’s Affordable Housing down payment and closing cost assistance program.__________________________________________________________
Council Member Gershman stated he thinks we have an opportunity to do something here and that is having the housing fair and that he would recommend and be willing to assist in any way he could to contact HUD and to make it a regional housing fair - you not only bring in the expertise from the City from the programs but have people who can analyze the families financial situation to tell them what kind of a home they can buy, have the realtors there to work with people, have the banks there and also have food and entertainment so when bring their children so something for the kids to do; that there’s a whole plan to do a housing fair and we have a lot of housing stock around and have good quality of life here - will take some planning but in the future to take this program and expand it and recommend considering that. Council Member Martinson stated there is a onward going program for homebuyers sponsored by the Village in $80 to $100,000 range and they could sponsor something like that and maybe the Village would help do that. Mr. Hanson stated the way regulations are set up when you have a down-payment closing cost assistance program could only assist 50% of those costs. He stated there is discussion whether to increase the down payment and they would be in favor, but have to have a different title for the program - which would be an Affordable Housing Acquisition Program because you can use CDBG funds to buy down interest rates to reduce principal amounts, etc. but can’t do it under the title of this program; can utilize both CDBG funds and HOME funds; and in favor of increasing - knows of communities that are paying $40,000 to assist families to get into housing. Council Member Kreun stated it can’t only be low to moderate income people but find a way to entice people that are outside that category as well to come to Grand Forks.

2.20 Program of Projects, 5309 Capital Assistance FY 2001 Funds.
Council Member Hamerlik stated as a member of the Public Transp. Committee, he has been informed that the motion to apply for a grant was passed and included a public hearing which is not necessary, and motion will have to be amended on Monday to delete that from the motion.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

4.1 Council Member Burke stated that in discussing at Budget Committee that since they have program funds beyond what dealt with in the original disposition there was the opportunity to allocate additional funds within the 15% cap for public service projects because only allocated funds based on the entitlement program income through about 9 months of last year, when they considered the matter with CDBG for the park issue, perhaps Urban Development can provide us with how much money we might be able to allocate to public service funds, and heard from many organizations who felt there was additional need for public service type funds and have the opportunity with the additional program funds for 2001 to put more money into that, and should look at that especially if amending the 2001 to accommodate the park situation.

4.2 Council Member Burke presented the matter of increasing tipping fees at the landfill for communities other than Grand Forks and to look at doing before end of the year, esp. if opportunity to use revenue from the landfill to fund the EIS.

4.3 Council Member Burke stated that the bus committee minutes stated they voted not to recommend changes to the bus route, and asked when would see that. Dennis Potter, city planner, stated there are two elements to this program, one is the action of the bus committee, the other is the action of Planning & Zoning Commission that has started into an ordinance amendment process to codify the ability to get the
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - April 9, 2001 - Page 14

dollars to do the route change, etc.; that they met with Roger Foster and Todd Feland and agreed to bring to you at your next work session so would have both items on simultaneously and make a clear cut choice; could not get paper work here tonight. Council Member Burke asked if we didn’t provide night bus route would we not be obligated to provide dial-a-ride at night. Mr. Feland stated if we did not have a night bus service we would not be obligated to provide a complimentary paratransit service. Council Member Burke asked if they would include potential savings, both in grant money and in local money if we did not have the nighttime service. Mr. Feland stated that in this case the City is fully funding night service, and his recollection of cost for both was approx. $60,000/yr.

4.4 Council Member Hamerlik presented several items: 1) suggested resolution for women’s basketball team and was going to do the same thing tonight for hockey, but staff has prepared resolutions for both; 2) that the first part of our session this evening about the flood might be beneficial for people in the community to see, and asked if replayed - could run first part as public information. Mr. Dean stated they would make the request to have this played and work in with schedule with UND; and Mr. Hamerlik asked for press release so other media would say when it will be run.

4.5 Council Member Stevens complimented Mr. Shields on bringing up temporary employee situation and glad Mayor’s Office is taking action on it.

4.6 Council Member Bjerke stated the Bus Committee has 3 unelected people attempting to set policy, overriding council member - advisory committee okay, but not trying to set policy.

4.7 Council Member Brooks thanked Rick Duquette and Terry Hanson for their assistance in Richard’s West and Aspen Creek Park resolution.

4.8 Council Member Martinson thanked engineering department and people in EOC, fire and police departments and public information and all other who are fighting flood, they are appreciated.

4.9 Council Member Kreun stated he would like to reiterate the ability to bring people into Grand Forks
and to look at those issues very strongly.

4.10 Council Member Klave stated re. bus committee motion passed but came to Planning & Zoning, and they voted opposite direction of the bus committee, and these things have checks and balances as they go through the system.

4.11 Council Member Christensen asked for a report as to the location of the leaf/grass pickup sites, street going south by 47th Ave. with pickup site changed to South Jr. High School, and asked what policy was going to be for leaf and grass pickup throughout the summer and fall, not see discontinuing pickup in September or October; and asked what each department has for a budget carryover within the next month and would like to know amount of excess fund available (sales tax funds, Hwy. Users fees, budget carryovers from each department). He also questioned when the committee of the whole meetings will be televised live or delayed tape replay.

Todd Feland stated they are planning curbside grass pickup on the first week in May, most of the sites are out there excluding the one on 47th which is being moved to near South Middle School, and also one
at the southend fire station they are moving to Apollo Park near the baseball field. He stated with all the sites people want them near but not too near and hard to place in neighborhoods without affecting the neighborhoods - that they moved the 47th location but not near homes where they received a lot of complaints. Mayor Brown stated that notice was posted at the site.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - April 9, 2001 - Page 15

Mayor Brown stated that the leaves on the berms presently need to be bagged for pickup; Mr. Feland stated they have notified Info Center that if people could get them to the compost sites, otherwise bag leaves, and if there are people who cannot do it they will make every attempt to help them. Council Member Christensen stated they have been discussing recycling - that some people don’t do it, that recycling truck paid for each house on the route rather than just the houses where picking up recycling and should have a check-off and if want it, pay for it - $1.00/month to pick up recyclables. Mayor Brown stated fee should be $1.00/month if don’t pay for it because impacting landfill. Mr. Feland stated they will pick up grass throughout the whole year, and on recycling they will discuss this on Wednesday along with wastewater, waterworks, lab, etc. and week after streets and sanitation, etc. and his intent was on the 18th to talk about recycling, sanitation and come back on consensus on what people are looking for.

Mr. Feland stated that Sam’s Club had site which was run by Waste Management, but recently decided they didn’t want the site in their parking lot and has been discontinued, Waste Mgmt. is looking for another site on the southend of town. He stated they talked about drop-off sites but even in sites where more closely monitored, people still have problems, and question whether these need to be staffed or hours limited, etc. Council Member Hamerlik stated there are a lot of leaves that weren’t picked up last year, and how much of an obligation do we have, lot of sand on berms, some still frozen; and asked what rationale was for them to bag them and haul them - if possible for sanitation department come around, rather than to send out the truck have them call in. Mr. Feland stated they would have to divert personnel to do that function, that hey have 3 to 4 weeks before leaves fall and we get rain or snow, not something can plan, give people options and can drop leaves off at compost site, bag them up or try to get around twice in the fall. Council Member Hamerlik was stating not last fall but now and looks pretty messy.

ADJOURN

Mayor Brown reminded council members that the city council bus dike tour will leave from City Hall on Thursday at 3:00 p.m. and stated the meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Schmisek
City Auditor