Print VersionStay Informed
MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Monday, June 11, 2001

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, June 11, 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, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun - 12; absent: Council Members Lunak, Martinson - 2.

Mayor Brown announced that when addressing the committee to please come forward to use the microphone for the record, and advised that the meeting is being televised.

Mayor Brown recognized the City Water Laboratory, employees Craig Lacher, Andy Job and Steve Kolar of the City’s Water Treatment Lab., that for years they have been making sure our city has been complying with all environmental standards, that they work regularly with groups all around the region promoting teamwork and attracting outside research money; that in the last two years the lab has worked with community partners to secure over $200,000 in grant funding for projects relating to water treatment. In addition they recently provided technical assistance to a post flood Altru Health System Water Safety Study that was published in a national medical journal and praised by the journal’s editor. They also received a certificate of appreciation from 136th Quartermaster Battalion Water Supply North Dakota Army National Guard for the work they did during and after the flood of 1997. He thanked them for their dedication to the community’s safety and their on-going partnering efforts that result in team building and creative solutions.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DISCUSSION ITEMS

2.1 Devils Lake update presentation by Joe Belford.
Joe Belford, chairman of the Ramsey County Commission and Downstream Acceptance for the Devils Lake flood, presented an overview of the flooding of Devils Lake and problems they are having; map showing the elevations of the lake in 1941 and at present; that the lake has risen 25 feet and tripled itself in area - from 40,000 acres to approx. 122,000 acres, He reported that the water has started flowing into Stump Lake this spring at elevation of 1446.5 and starting to fill Stump Lake (moving at slow pace of 16 cfs/minute); and they are working very hard on a process of getting an outlet out of Devils Lake. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is underway by the Corps of Engineers with completion by September 2002; and hopefully design completed at the same time along with authorization and funding to proceed with the outlet; EIS will answer all the questions and concerns of friends and neighbors downstream - 40% of State’s population is downstream from Devils Lake. He stated they do not want to get to the 1460 elevation where it would flow out of Stump Lake on its own and down through Tolna Coulee and into the Sheyenne River because that would create another major catastrophe downstream; that the project the Corps is designing now is at the west end where the water quality is the best, taking it down the Peterson Coulee and into the Sheyenne River which is a 13 mile connection and flowing out at somewhere between 3 and 480 cfs/minute. He stated water quality is very important for the municipal drinking water and that’s why the west end where water quality is better - less parts of salt and sulftates.

He stated they are currently putting up two new bridges (federal and State) and a major grade raise near Churches Ferry at approx. $8 million; and presented an overview of the flooding and affect on towns of Churches Ferry and Minnewauken, as well as on highways, bridges and RR.; and expressed concerns on the Amtrak, which is is a state-wide concern. He stated that on Thursday Senator Conrad met with the president of Burlington Northern/Santa Fe - that the RR is proposing when the lake gets within 4 ft. of the top of the rail they want to close the track at Churches Ferry, they can pull the commodities back to Grand Forks and back to Minot but have a greater concern that Amtrak affords about 17-18,000 passengers with the heaviest load being in Grand Forks - what they propose is that they can use the south line which
Committee of the Whole/June 11, 2001/Page 2

would travel through Hannaford, New Rockford and on to Minot, and this is totally unacceptable and that we have to fight to maintain a transportation network to keep the northern tier of our state intact to continue to have this line run as currently - and in the conversation with the president on Thursday, he felt that they weren't obligated to put any money into the track, that he talked to their people in Fort Worth and actual estimate or short term fix is $2.4 million , but feels that the Railroad needs to be part of this because the land was granted to them when tracks were installed, and need to forge ahead and keep system running. He stated they will have another conference call fairly soon and appreciates the support that the City has shown and that they have had great support all the way from Fargo to Minot.

Mr. Belford stated in conference call they wanted to move ahead with the short term fix, a long term fix is if have to raise the track to 1463 for 8 miles and about $16 million - short term would bring track up to 1456, which would give them some time and perhaps have outlet in or relief of some sort, and that’s the one they support.

Mr. Belford thanked the council for listening to his presentation, and that if they want to come up as a unit for tour, would put one together for them; and thanked council for their support and will be back again in the future hoping that City will continue to support them. Mayor Brown thanked him for keeping us informed as we are in this together.

2.2 Committee of the Whole procedures.
Council Member Burke stated they had discussed whether or not they wanted to treat committee of the whole like standing committees and vote on items before us and make recommendation to the council, the idea doing that would give the public an opportunity to know where the council stood, knows some people prefer to use this meeting to discuss and hear and make a decision later on - would hope that we consider that change. Council Member Brooks stated he likes the committee of the whole with hearing presentations without vote, works well and public gets a chance to give us their input before we have to commit one way or the other; and didn’t think we should make a recommendation to ourselves, here to gather information and hear from the public.

Mr. Brooks asked if council members would like to vote at committee of the whole. Howard Swanson, city attorney, stated the Code and the State law does require a vote, either affirmative or negative, but as Home Rule City, if City chose to provide an option to reserve a vote or withhold a vote they have the authority to adopt an ordinance in that regard. Mr. Hamerlik stated when we had committees, the motion and second if from a council member would be laid on the table for the full council and people as well as council would be able to read the motion before the council. Mr. Swanson stated there are very few committees remaining that would be in that position or capacity but if had another body making recommendation to council, it would come with that motion and second.

Council Member Gershman stated the original idea was for us to gather information, look at an issue and request more information from staff and the public, before making decision; that he is comfortable with what we have now, that agendas are published and if people listen carefully which is their responsibility, they can get a sense of the council without having to take a vote.

Council Member Glassheim stated his concern is by not knowing what we are voting on and not having motions, when discuss something at committee of the whole, there’s no focus or clear motion, and the more difficult the issue is, the less we know the detail of what we’re actually going to vote on when come back a week from then - and then get an impromptu motion in detail at the council meeting. That there are two kinds of issues at committee of the whole and should distinguish them: 1) deal with fairly traditional or ordinary matters where we could easily after discussion vote on a motion to approve and if
Committee of the Whole/June 11, 2001/Page 3

something new comes up in between we could change our vote; but there are other matters that are more
policy-oriented or more abstract - and that his proposal is that on most items, make a recommendation, and on some items where no clarity yet, defer to another committee of the whole until somebody will make a clear motion that we can discuss. Council Member Burke stated that we often deal with issues that are not simply a matter of deciding yes or no on an issue that’s before us, but requires some kind of solution that needs to be put in the form of a motion; that sometimes we have not made a motion just so we could crystallize a concept to have before us the next time.

Mayor Brown stated he agreed with Council Member Gershman because committee of the whole is a work in progress, need to make it so it works for us and if we do vote on things we’re going to subject ourselves to intense lobbying and public hearings do not equal public opinion; and also staff summaries do recommend a council action, and council can amend the recommendation to serve the policy that you direct the City to follow.

Council Member Glassheim stated that from discussion staff couldn’t make a motion for us to vote on, that he would like a motion that we will vote on things that have clarity and postpone for two weeks things not ready to vote on.

Council Member Hamerlik suggested taking a straw vote by raise of hands as to whether leave it as is or want it the other way. Mr. Swanson stated straw vote has no official standing. Council Member Hamerlik stated his intent was if the majority of the council members want to change or majority do not want to change, do a straw vote. 8 council members voted to keep committee of the whole to remain as a discussion format; and 3 council members voted for change.

2.3 City Council executive committee.
Council Member Brooks stated he has heard from a number of people that maybe we need to fine tune the system, and that when came up with the changes in the council format was to start it and come up with changes/adjustments as go along; and looking for input from people - some items brought up were what committee duties would be - if had an executive committee or framework committee maybe that’s where to send items that are going to task forces; they could handle housekeeping items for the council, could be a group to allow staff to bounce ideas of, it could be a resource group for the mayor, one of accountability, that he has heard comments that the concerns prior to the election was that our council wasn’t open, that a number of decisions were made before the council even met, that since the election with the new council that’s even more so and probably set ourselves up by eliminating the committees (good idea to get away from those committees) but need that group in place where there is some accountability, open meeting laws, etc. and these are some ideas he jotted down - and looking for input.

Council Member Gershman stated concern about executive committee is it may have opposite effect for which intended, now we form a task force and are able to choose people from the council that have expertise in certain areas, that could be precluded to some degree if you had an executive committee; and another concern is that one year from now we’re going to be 7 members and have more concentration in fewer people on a percentage basis than now when have everybody on the council participating and going to the mayor with various issues and going to department heads, and feels it’s more open government, and his concern is that it would formalize a structure that would preclude other members of the council from being as involved as they are now.

Council Member Klave stated now if task force formed the mayor has luxury of being able to choose those that have knowledge in that area and if an executive committee is formed, will be loosing a lot of what have right now, expertise to be drawn from.

Committee of the Whole/June 11, 2001/Page 4

Council Member Kerian stated this would have potential to make for less open government as there is a small group who gets used to working together and may cause decisions to get in motion before there is broader discussion. Council Member Kreun stated if we were to form a committee of this nature, we have several questions - what is the authority, but first, what is this group going to do, and if haven’t defined what the need is, do we actually need it. Council Member Hamerlik stated size is important, would have to be 3 or less.

2.4 Task force on population decline.
Council Member Glassheim presented information (news clippings) showing decline in the population in Grand Forks County in the last decade - lost over 5,000 people ages 20 to 34 and this loss was 22% of that age category which is higher than ND’s average of 16% of loss of that age category and almost everywhere in ND is losing population and for us to be losing significant population in child-bearing years, that in the age 0-17 lost 14%, higher than ND’s average of 8% and we’re losing significantly more in the 0-5 year range which makes sense because if lose 20-34 year old range, not going to have more children -- this has impact on our school system and our entire future and was concerned and wanted to create a task force of several council people and a variety of people to spend a limited amount of time (perhaps 2 months) making a public document, and have discussion to see if there are things we can do - his point is to have a task force so that a lot of people can talk about what we might do to get people in this targeted age range to remain here and/or to come here. He stated he called the state demographer who put out the statistics to see if he could help, if he knew of any other places that were taking any similar action - that Fargo under commission with the Economic Development Commission, just completed a labor survey for them in 60-mile radius and had 9 focus groups of younger people about what they would do, whether wanted to stay and what it would take for them to stay - the briefing point is the summary on the web (www.fedc.com); that we spend over $1 million/year on economic development, whether we want to put some of that into things that will keep people here - not hopeless but need to take some action and would like to see task force with limited charge and time period to come back, hold public discussions, get public input and make some recommendations.

Council Member Gershman stated there are a few things happening may begin to answer some of this and E-mailed council members a synopsis of the Knight Foundation report that was held last week - the Knight Foundation has made a commitment to Grand Forks, which is one of the 26 Knight cities (where they have Knight Rider papers) and they have some nationally renowned economists that they are funding to come to Grand Forks (have been here for 2 meetings), interviewed over 40 people including Park District, School District, that they are going to be spending up to $1 million over the next 5 years in working with us on leadership development in the public and private sector, development for entrepreneurs, how do you get young people to start their business, to want to remain here, and will be looking at all of these things. The Economic Development Corp. last year commissioned a study on employment which addresses a lot of this and is an interesting report - and if the council wishes to form a task force to look at this, that’s good, but only criticism of it would be that we are already doing it in another form with nationally renowned professionals that know how to do this - this is Knight Foundation’s new initiate to raise the standard of living of the Knight communities and that is in higher wages and retention of people, etc. and they are committed to do that - that he is concerned that 1) we would be duplicating some of what they would do; 2) we would be gathering some information they’ve already gathered; and 3) the time factor, that one of the things that one of the economists stated was that the leadership in Grand Forks is burning out because we have too many committees, too many commitments and not enough people to do everything we’re trying to do - have a focus now which is an incredible opportunity for this city through Knight Foundation and should marshal our resources and go behind that one. Mayor Brown agreed.
Committee of the Whole/June 11, 2001/Page 5

Council Member Glassheim stated there are two things that are important in retention of young people and one is change in attitude among leadership to say that they care about this and the second is a hearing by young people in that age group is that leadership cares about them - doesn’t see this as conflict; that they’ve told us 23 things we need to do to make it easier for them to stay here - useful education for the city council and would be useful for people in that age group to be talking to somebody.

Mayor Brown stated that the Knight Foundation was initially seeking to evaluate our commitment to their program, was to evaluate our interest in our commitment and thinks it is growing and expect all of us to be invited and be involved.

2.5 Request from the Grand Forks Planning and Zoning Department for final approval of a resolution and to adopt an ordinance to amend Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, amending Article 8, Comprehensive Plan, Section 18-0802, pertaining to the grand Forks-East Grand Forks, 2022 Transportation Plan Update, (2000 Bikeway and 1999 Pedestrian Elements, 2000 Transit Element, Year 2000 Street and Highway Element, and 2000 Metropolitan Intelligent Transportation Systems Comprehensive Plan Element), together with all maps, information and data contained therein. This item was deferred to the June 18, 2001 city council meeting._______________________________________________________________________
It was noted this item will be on the June 18 council agenda, and at that time you will be asked to continue your public hearing to the July 16 meeting and to include on the committee of the whole meeting for July 9 as there may be possibility of some changes in that item.

2.6 Mayor appointments to Board of Adjustments.
No comments.

2.7 Mayor appointments to Board of Appeals.
No comments.

2.8 Consideration of bids for City Project No. 5252, asbestos abatement and hazardous materials removal from the former Almonte Nursing Home.__________________________________
No comments.

2.9 Moving permit application to move the home from 4609 Loamy Hills Drive to 2401 South 36th
Street._______________________________________________________________________
2.10 Moving permit application to move the home from 97 Grassy Hills to 3597 28th Avenue South.
2.11 Moving permit application to move home from 4619 Loamy Hills Drive to 2449 S. 38th Street.
2.12 Moving permit application to move the home from 1515 10th Avenue N. to 1315 7th Avenue N.
Council Member Hamerlik asked if Inspections had notified neighbors within the required distance and if houses fit into those neighborhoods. Bev Collings reported applications had been submitted by Wally Rodgers to move houses from 4609 Loamy Hills Drive, 97 Grassy Hills and 4619 Loamy Hills Drive; however, she was informed that he did not receive the houses in bid (bids opened this afternoon at 2:00 p.m.) but that he did not contact her to pull those items and felt that we should proceed with the applications, as it does not mean that the houses could not go to those locations. She also stated that these houses fit well within the new neighborhoods. Council Member Hamerlik stated he didn’t feel comfortable to proceed if applicant did not receive the houses. Council Member Christensen stated this is an application for a moving permit and this is a public hearing, the applicant does not own the houses, and items should be pulled. Keith Lund, Urban Development, reported the first two houses, 4609 Loamy Hills and 97 Grassy Hills, are houses to be relocated from their existing location for flood control structure and bid opening was this afternoon; that bid for the house at 4619 Loamy Hills Place has not
Committee of the Whole/June 11, 2001/Page 6

occurred; and he believes it is Mr. Rodgers’ intention to determine whether the move on these structures is feasible and the neighbors will allow this to occur; and that the first two properties did go to other individuals. Mr. Swanson stated the application could be presented by the home owner, by the owner of the lot seeking to solicit homes to be relocated, or submitted by the actual entity or person that going to do the moving - three possible bases for the application. Mayor Brown stated they could clarify this within the week. It was noted that non-refundable fees are paid in advance.

Ms. Collings stated that item 2.12 is to move house from 1515 10th Avenue North to 1315 7th Avenue North, that this is a smaller house that was donated to Habitat for Humanity by a private individual, and is to be moved to a smaller lot and her concern is the size of the house but it meets Building Codes and well kept house.

Mayor Brown called for the public hearing on the applications for moving permits. There were no comments and the public hearings were closed.

2.13 RFP for sale/rehab of historic homes.
No comments

2.14 Special assessment district for City Project No. 5256, Dist. No. 88, Street Improvements for
24th Avenue North.__________________________________________________________
Council Member Gershman reported he distributed a letter from Jim Senske requesting the proposed improvements. Mr. Senske stated he has developed the property (60 acres and developed lots, platted and constructed road), that in 1995-96 installed water system and land owners participated in cost of the project. He also noted that when he started developing the property it was in the County and agreed to be annexed to the city because of fire protection, that he sold lots to various businesses but have terrible streets - that he received a letter last week from Mr. Grasser, city engineer, stating they would like to repair the streets in a manner he feels is a temporary repair - had wet fall and spring - have heavy truck traffic, and want concrete streets and are part of the city that does not have city sewers (septic tanks) and City Code says you cannot have septic tanks - that he has lost accounts because they needed a way to get rid of their wastewater and septic tanks don’t work very well because of high ground water. He stated they can’t get rid of high ground water because don’t have storm sewers (ditches that don’t drain). He stated he has talked with majority of landowners in the area and they are in favor of these improvements.

Mr. Grasser stated they looked at this area extensively and what it would take to develop infrastructure - sanitary sewer, storm and water throughout that subdivision, and the dollar numbers to do were very high - that they looked at bringing a sanitary sewer from a lift station over by Conte Luna, since then because of the flows that go into that lift station from Simplot, revised that and most cost effective way of serving the sewers in the Oscarville area is to put in a new sanitary lift station, which is not special assessed and paid through the sewer rates and is not on the CIP at this point in time. He stated that the whole area drains into a 12” storm sewer pipe which drains into a pump station and are lacking a storm sewer pump station - those have been special assessed. He stated they also looked at long term planning but leaving ditching system in there to act as holding pond so wouldn’t have to go with large storm sewer pipes and upgrading the lift station - the water is in the alleys and that’s also the place for the sanitary sewer. In addition, the street is extremely wet and silty - based on past history it appears without some sort of federal monies (EDA grant) that can help subsidize the project, it becomes very cost prohibitive on a special assessment basis, plus the City would have to budget a lift station - and with those considerations in mind they thought to help resolve the immediate problem of truck traffic not getting through, that 24th Avenue is main link and to bring that up to standards that could maintain traffic (installing fabric and 24” aggregate base) - and agrees that is not the permanent fix but buy some time - but seemed to be a
Committee of the Whole/June 11, 2001/Page 7

reasonable compromise to solving an immediate problem and yet not putting undue burden on there and hoping some sort of federal program will be able to be developed which could help.

Council Member Burke asked why these projects weren’t on the CIP and not put on there after annexation, and that those are the services that we provide. Council Member Kreun stated that the wishes of the property owners was to develop that very slowly because costs were so high and that was one of the reasons that wasn’t put in there - part of the problem is the septic system that keeps draining out and keeps ground water level so high and in order to prevent that will have to put in the sanitary sewer so the septic systems can be taken out and ground dried out, and then process the rest of the infrastructure before putting the street in. He also noted that property owners know there will be special assessments and extra cost to this even though we would try to find some other source of funding, and it will be a part of the responsibility of the landowners along with the City to accomplish this.

There was some discussion as to requirements for an EDA grant. Terry Hanson, Urban Development, reported that the streets have to belong to the City in order to put them in but in cases like the High Tech Park which is owned by the Aerospace Foundation, the streets belong to the City and were put in with EDA funds, same with Industrial Park. Council Member Gershman stated he would like to see us get a process moving that would begin to look for an EDA grant, ways to put all that infrastructure in there before putting a street in. Mr. Grasser noted that street improvements are protestable, and suggested that we create the district and would like to be able to offer that choice and have process where property owners can look at it, evaluate it, and determine if want it or not.

2.15 Request from the Building Inspections Department for preliminary approval and first reading of an
ordinance to amend the text of the Land Development Code, Chapter XIX of the Grand Forks City
Code Section 19-0101 related to the adoption of the Uniform Building Code adopted by reference;
adopted specifically related to changing permit fees._____________________________________
Ms. Collings, Inspections, reported information re. costs other cities are charging was 2 years old, and with our current rates, we’re 38% low (looked at Minot, Bismarck, Fargo, Jamestown, St. Cloud, East Grand Forks, Sioux Falls). She noted that there is an inspection associated with a permit; that found other communities have one fee schedule for commercial and residential combined which is almost equal to our commercial schedule, our residential schedule is about half of what our commercial schedule is. Additional revenue with increase in fees would be approx. $50-60,000/year and go into General Fund.

Council Member Bjerke stated that he disagrees with the City inspecting houses, that’s a private sector job. Council Member Christensen agreed, that for the City to engage in inspection of a home that’s going to be put up for sale for $90 and when does our responsibility as a government end - we’re inspecting it and may or may not have liability.

2.16 2-Year property tax exemption for new homes.
2.17 Affordable Housing Programs.
Council Member Kreun stated he and Mr. Hanson had the opportunity to bring this information to the School Board today because if this should happen to be approved, they are a large player in the taxes - abatements, programs.

Mr. Hanson presented programs they have in place and those proposing, proposed alternate funding sources that could contribute to these funding programs:
Bricks & Mortar Programs:
Infill Housing Program - utilizing the lots that the City owns as result of acquisition for flood protection purposes as well as other City-owned lots that City has acquired as result of delinquent
Committee of the Whole/June 11, 2001/Page 8

taxes from County. - Would propose to encourage affordable housing development by putting out an RFP to developers to include non-profit agencies and assist them if recipient of these homes is to be a low and moderate income family (LMI) with HOME or CDBG dollars and if owner is to be non-LMI would assist them through contribution of the lot or reduce price in the lot.
Single-Family Housing Rehab Programs - these programs operated through their office and operated one in last couple years utilizing HOME Funds with the Red River Valley Community Action Agency and they rehabed approx. 40-50 homes each year - have various programs suggested under this.
Owner Occupied Rehab Program) where assist current owners of housing that needs rehabilitation and that program is available to families of LMI people (LMI is 80% of the median income for that family size).
Acquisition program: many people can afford home payments but can’t afford to upgrade them or provide them with safe and decent sanitary housing or if any part of the home fails over the next few years, don’t have the money to repair, and propose a program in conjunction with an acquisition program where will help individual family buy the home and if house needs a new roof installed also provide them with the funding for that.
Emergency repair program: has been in the past a program provided for LMI families to repair on emergency needs (furnace, leaking roofs, or major component of the house, etc.)
Rental Rehab Program - which is a low interest loan to landlords and based on size of unit and most or all of it is required to be repaid.
LMI Rental Unit Creation - Proposing this program which City utilizes its resources in CDBG funds or HOME funds and becomes a facilitator with a developer that could use LMI tax credits or other funding sources as well as commercial lending to go back into older areas of town and redevelop portions of town and reducing need to expand infrastructure and have special assessments on the property.
Home Ownership Assistance Program - which includes a down payment and closing cost assistance and is funded with CDBG dollars and city council recently increased the assistance through this program from $2,500 to $5,000, and is eligible to LMI families. and are proposing a new program utilizing HOME dollars where assist families that are LMI, assist up to $15,000 in addition to the down payment closing cost assistance in second mortgage or buying down the principal amount of the first mortgage and making the homes more affordable to them, and have program authorized by HUD but not established in many communities yet - Section 8 Home Ownership Program where Section 8 voucher program can actually be used by those recipients of that assistance to buy a home rather than rent a home for up to the first 15 years and have to be a first time home buyer program, and can be used in conjunction with the State first time home buyer loan.
Tax Abatement on New Residential Construction - program being proposed up to the first $75,000 of the property value of a house for two years, and maybe expand on that and have for consideration of this body it not only abates taxes for the first $75,000 but have the City commit to funding a program for acquisition out of the remaining dollars that are received from those taxes on that property. He stated they would be trying to assist families in the 80% to 120% of the area median income. The CDBG and HOME dollars and other federal dollars can be used to assist families 80% and below but no program that can be funded with federal dollars that assists families with the purchase of their first home; and encouraging City to fund a program from tax dollars to assist those families that fall within 80% to 120% of the median income to buy their first home - to commit the tax revenue of all dollars from the new construction of homes towards this program. Another source of funding would be the revenue of the sale of any lots that the City now owns.
Tax Exemption on Rehabilitation - Some applications have come before council in the past few weeks and have to do with type of ownership, whether people with disabilities, but a program that allows a family that is rehabilitating their home an exemption for the first three years taxes if the improvements are at least $5,000 or 10% of the value and house has to be at least 25 years old, and are proposing that

Committee of the Whole/June 11, 2001/Page 9

program be encouraged with all people coming in for a building permit and through other housing programs that the City now operates.
Proposal to develop an affordable housing development district - This came out of the study done in 1995-96 and presented to city council in April, 1997 - to develop an affordable housing development district, one or two, within the city and would allow for smaller lots, reduced R/W, alleys allowing for garages in the back of the house, property tax exemptions, blacktop streets rather than concrete curbs; that was adopted by the city council but ordinances were never changed to implement that program.
Funding Sources - for any program the council wishes to undertake are mainly for benefit of LMI are
CDBG Entitlement Funds; CDBG Program Income; HOME funds; Section 108 Loan Program which is a HUD program; issuance of City bonds; property tax exemption, property tax earmark, Low income housing tax credits, historic tax credits, renaissance zone, federal housing choice vouchers, City-owned lots; redevelopment for reutilization of existing infrastructure, FNMA (Fannie Mae) may have some programs and other commercial lenders have programs, and Federal Home Loan Bank has programs for the assistance of affordable housing to LMI families.

Mr. Hanson stated they are asking for an initial discussion of providing a well-rounded affordable housing program for the City of Grand Forks residents, and expect some input back and will develop any pro-grams that the city council directs them to develop but would like the input from the council on what to do.

Council Member Kreun stated that Grand Forks is running 47 to 50% homeownership, that the State of ND and region and nation running about 67%, that Grand Forks is in a competitive market and have tried to put together a package that covers spectrum of people in Grand Forks so something for just about everybody and want to be competitive in the market so can attract people into Grand Forks with jobs, businesses and with home ownership and help them want to live in Grand Forks, along with arts, greenway, etc. and put into package so that council can look at it, disect it and bring it back.

Council Member Gershman suggested this asks for a task force to sort out these programs and come back with recommendation and more of a structure.

Council Member Hamerlik asked if there was anyone who had updated information on number of units for sale in Grand Forks now, and asked for number of new construction starts in the city - Ms. Collings stated there are over 30 and going up every day.

Council Member Bakken stated they are talking about retaining our young people and growing our community, but scenario west of here is disturbing, lot of farms abandoned, small communities turning into elderly communities and their residents slowly disappearing, eventually the amount of people that we have to draw into this area is becoming less all the time, and trend hasn’t stopped yet, and will continue for the next few years; need to do everything we can now to retain as many as can before there’s nobody out there to retain.

Council Member Klave stated he was out east for builders conference, and every builder he talked with from all areas are looking at programs like this, that in ND building starts are down, and are working with the local governments as to how are we going to keep the people, what programs do we need to put in place, and seriously look to see if we can keep them in our community. He also noted that material costs since January of this year have increased 70% to build a house, there are 6 suppliers.

Council Member Kreun stated that normal starts in a year are 140 to 150 and are down somewhat, and would be willing to sit on that particular task force committee if they would desire and that if they look at
Committee of the Whole/June 11, 2001/Page 10

the packages they put together tried to hit all the economic spectrums of the citizens so that everybody has something to benefit them in order to move to Grand Forks or to build a new home in Grand Forks or to move up so more existing homes for sale. He stated that the 80 to 120% median, that’s the ones they have to develop funding sources through our existing sale of lots or tax structure, etc. and that’s the one they want to direct a lot of attention to because those are the people that will buy existing homes in Grand Forks, and that opens up the lower affordable housing so that some of these other program can put into place as well.

Council Member Christensen stated that this body should establish policy and if this body is inclined to devote resources and staff time towards affordable housing, then staff should give us a definition of what is affordable housing, general guide lines of CDBG, various sources of funding available so we can focus on affordable housing - that we’re looking to council persons to do work when this knowledge is peculiar to Urban Development Department, and should give this department some broad guidelines as to what we would like to have accomplished and suggest having this by specific date, Urban Development should give us our options if committed to affordable housing and do that rather than voting on this on Monday.
Mayor Brown stated they will name that task force this week and to bring back by August 1.

2.18 Policy on rental of dry-side City-owned homes.
Council Member Kreun stated at this time we have requests for people that need houses for temporary period of time and would want to accommodate those people. Council Member Gershman stated that people who thought they were going to move a year from now, will have to move sooner, and some will make more than one move, and if we have anything in place to mitigate the cost of the two moves since we made a decision to accelerate the project. Mr. Hanson stated they will be reimbursed through the Uniform Relocation Act for one move, the second move will be up to them - 6 or 8 homes where pushing time - have had 5 owners in this situation contact their office asking for some kind of relief; they have 8 homes that are partial takes so not ready to be sold to the public as yet and homes are going to remain intact and the property will be subdivided and then sold; and would like to have council authorize them to lease them to the Phase II dike project homeowners, and would like council to give them authorization to, if needed, pull houses they currently have listed with the realtors off the market to make them available to these families that are affected by the increased timeline, and then pull the homes off the market as feel they are needed. He also stated they could forego a certain portion of the lease to cover the first relocation, and the rental rate is determined by the cost of the structure and amortized over 40 years at 4%. He noted that all notifications for any phase after this should be given ample time and we would provide these homes to the affected homeowners through December 31, 2002. Mr. Swanson stated their office is in charge of the acquisition program and some of the most difficult conversations are with those property owners that have been described in Phase II because they were anticipating an additional year, some still looking to relocate or acquire lots, to build, they are in a unique position from those in Phase I who were notified well in advance; stated he can identify 4 property owners that have had discussions with that are not in a position to move in the time frame that is being requested, and each of those are starting construction or have started or in negotiations of either moving houses or acquisition of lots - about 4 or 5 and maybe others they haven’t heard from yet.

Mayor Brown stated that the intent is to take care of these families and the homes that aren’t needed will be sold. Mr. Swanson stated the council needs to be aware that included in this proposed policy is the manner of tie breaker - which property owner has priority over another property owner - we do have 2 or 3 property owners where we have not yet received the appraisal back on, and those are farther behind in acquisition, and policy as presented has an inverse time relationship, the last person that we project getting offers will have the first opportunity for selecting a home if there are multiple people vying for the

Committee of the Whole/June 11, 2001/Page 11

home, and in some cases maybe one or two families that want the same home and needed some type of
tie-breaker and that’s what staff is recommending.

This item will be moved to the special action items to take action this evening.

2.19 Request from Valley Memorial Homes.
Mr. Hanson reported they received letter from Garth Rydland, administrator of Valley Homes, and that we gave loan to Valley Homes to cover interest costs and bond while negotiating the sale of Almonte Homes, have extended it twice in the past, and they are requesting that it now be extended again until such time that the settlement on Almonte Homes is complete. Council Member Burke asked what status of our lawsuit on the taking of Homes. Mr. Swanson stated it was sometime in March the City received an order granting us possession and title to the property, the attorneys for Valley Memorial Homes have not yet disclosed their appraisal that was due the end of May, and expect that shortly; they have asked the Court not to schedule trial until sometime after January, 2002 and unless able to reach an agreement, which is within realm of possibility and would hope to after we see their appraisal, and if that can’t occur it would not be until after January, 2002 that trial scheduled. He stated that to this point we have requested Valley Memorial to provide us with their appraisal which would be a counter-offer to what the City has made and we’ve not taken any position on that and waiting for that so can evaluate it, we have served discovery which is standard questions, what do you value the property at?, what basis of valuation do you utilize, what experts have you used, but there’ve been no depositions, virtually nothing occurring, and we have offered to submit the matter, have suggested we will do mediation but want to see appraisal first, and if they want to expedite it, would be agreeable to binding arbitration or try to Court without a jury or with a jury.

Council Member Hamerlik asked if council could set date certain rather than leave open ended and expedite the process - Mr. Swanson stated his recommendation is that react to this request independent of any eminent domain proceeding that we may have with them - the eminent domain proceeding whether resolved by agreement of the parties or through mediation or arbitration or trial, will run its own course, and if want to tie the length to that, that is fine, or if want to pick a date that you believe is an appropriate date, that is within prerogative, can go either way. He stated it might help to expedite it or somebody else may interpret that as being an adversarial move.

It was noted that the loan had a zero percent interest rate, and asked if Valley Memorial had withdrawn the loan amount ($100,000). Mr. Rydland stated they did withdraw the loan amount and have been using that to pay for the legal expenses they have been incurring. Mr. Swanson stated the $100,000 under the quick take proceeding the City is obligated to deposit and they are free to do with what they would like with those dollars.

2.20 Award contract for relocation of historic home at 1205 Lincoln Drive.
Mr. Hanson reported they received two bids for the relocation of this home, one bid from Cameo Homes in the amount of $92,900 and one bid from First Dakota Enterprises in the amount of $150,000; and are requesting and recommending that the city council reject both bids and to allow this home to sit, have talked to engineering and they can wait for several more months before it has to be relocated and they will have more homes coming up in the very near future and can add this house at that time; felt that the bids were too high.

Tom Lander, 1110 Almonte Avenue, stated there are 10 property owners on 1100 block of Almonte, 3 here tonight and he is representing 4 other property owners; that this is a beautiful home (Woutat house), and will fit in nicely in their neighborhood, but have some concerns, that once it is moved that the City is
Committee of the Whole/June 11, 2001/Page 12

not going to rehab the building and it has not been inhabited since the flood and understand there has been a rodent problem and would like to make sure if the house is moved to 1119-1123 Almonte that problem is taken care of. He asked how long the house will sit there if not sold, and renter policy, and what will house sell for (appraised at $141,000). Mr. Hanson reported that the minimum bid when it is sold will be 95% of current appraised value if it is completed, that they propose to relocate the house and then issue an RFP to interested parties on the rehab of bringing the house back to owner/occupancy; and will only consider those that have the financial ability to do that project and also consider the interest in the historical nature of the home that they will maintain it as a historical home; the City does have an obligation to mitigate that home as it is part of the agreement we have. He stated if no one is interested in purchasing the house under that method, the City will have to rehabilitate it so they do sell it; that they do not intend to own or lease this house. He stated that once the property is relocated onto a new basement any rodent issue would be taken care of. Council Member Gershman stated he would like that policy be put in writing for the neighborhood. Mr. Lander stated that property owners agreed that would be acceptable.

2.21 Change order #1 for Project No. 4901, English Coulee Bikepath Lighting.
No comments.

2.22 Bids for City Project No. 4371, Grand Forks Wastewater Treatment Plant (Bid Package #7, Process
Mechanical Equipment.____________________________________________________________
Clint Rodningen, 2102 8th Avenue North, spoke in favor of award of the contract to Lunseth Plumbing & Heating Co. for $2,678.000, stated he is familiar with bids and bidder irregularities, and that he didn’t think this was a bid irregularity, lot of sub-contractors and material suppliers give their prices at the last minute, and in the meantime bids are submitted to City Hall, and bid had a deduction on the outside of the envelope, and they did waive that irregularity when they received and opened the envelope and read the bids and have waived that irregularity; that Lunseth is experienced contractor and are also a joint venture in another contract on that project - and gave the lowest bid and benefit to the taxpayers.

David Kveit, Lunseth Plumbing & Heating, reported they submitted their bid, and approx. 15 minutes before the bid letting, had a price deduct from one of their major suppliers and only way to make a deduct is to write on the outside of the envelope since envelope was sealed - that in talking with some of the architects in town, that’s standard procedure; that he talked with numerous contractors and they have done that in the past, and is surprised this is an issue at this time - that their bid envelope was opened with no protest pointed to the fact that shouldn’t be an issue. Council Member Gershman stated if this was an irregularity that a deduct was on the outside of an envelope, that it should never have been opened in the first place, but the fact that it was opened and there was no protest at the time, that it was an acceptable bid. He stated that the staff report states there was a letter from the Associated Contractors (AGC) of North Dakota that further suggested that in most instances it would seem to be in the City’s best interest to accept the deduct even though it was noted on the outside of an envelope, and doesn’t know why they are not accepting the bid, and in favor of going with the low bidder.

Mark Walker, engineering department, reported at the bid opening it was noted that a deduct offer was included on the outside of the bid envelope, based on that they had no reason not to open the bid, nothing in the specifications that says you can’t open the bid, did make note at the bid opening that they did not know if the deduct could be accepted, later looked at specifications and determined that it was not within their authority to accept the deduct and would have to be brought to the city council for their determina- tion. He stated that based upon the specification, the bidding documents that were used by all the bidders, and if were to follow the rules and prepare the bid in accordance with the instructions, technically the deduct that was offered on the outside of the bid envelope would not technically be recognized. He stated
Committee of the Whole/June 11, 2001/Page 13

there is one other issue he would like to address, and called upon Casey Hanson of KBM to discuss this further - that there are two different pieces of equipment that were bid and bid specs. were set up such that the owner could choose which piece of equipment he would like to choose; each bidder was to bid one piece of equipment and then offer an alternate bid for the second piece of equipment, and in putting together the specs. could not find two pieces of equipment that were actually identical so have an opinion that one might be better than the other and left the option open for the owner to choose which piece of equipment he wished and make award based on the low bidder of the option chosen by the owner.

Casey Hansen, KBM, Inc., reported that the specifications state that the rules for modifying or withdrawing a bid are executed in the same manner as the bid, and their interpretation at the time was that any modification made to the bid, part of the essence of that of being of the same manner of the bid was that it should have been signed by a contracting officer, and not being signed by a contracting officer, it didn’t mean anything to them whether it was not an irregularity or someone writing on the envelope - the bid inside assumed to be valid and when opened all of the proper documentation was in both of the envelopes in order to make that bid valid; that when they talked to AGC, one of the defining points is that when a bid was accepted for the Fargo Dome it was signed, and that goes to part of their recommendation as to why they are looking at that as a bid irregularity. Mr. Gershman asked who would put the price on the outside of the envelope, not a competitor - that they delivered it. Mr. Hansen stated they don’t know who it was.

Mr. Hansen stated that the second issue is that they bid two pieces of equipment (had previously come before council and requested that they bid two pieces of equipment and picked out two of the better pieces of equipment as far as the screening goes) because building a state of the art plant which has the capability of being integrated with the compost facility in the future; one of the things trying to avoid were having plastics in the sludge, they are considered undesirable and if get into the sludge it will be incorporated into the compost facility and will have to be taken care of elsewhere should the council decide not to go with the compost facility - that no matter how it is done outside of landfilling all of your sludge, plastics are a problem. He stated the 2 screens that were selected are very different in design and operation - the first one is Vulcan, a step screen, and second is WasteTech, a fine screen; and reviewed discussions with other city personnel, and everybody seemed to think that the WasteTech unit was a superior product, but there was some dissent about how much money is it worth to the City. He stated their recommendation as consulting engineer is that it is worth the extra money, is an easier unit to maintain, and also has higher efficiency on a more consistent basis - there are technical data to support that. He stated it’s a more repeatable process with the WasteTech screen, and also some maintenance and operation issues that make the WasteTech screen easier to take care of. He stated that the bid was set up so the City could get prices on both of them and look at how much more is it worth to take one over the other.

Council Member Brooks stated we need a purchasing function here and have someone making these decisions; and asked where funding for this project - that engineer’s estimate was $1.5 million and bid opened was for $2.7 million plus and if we will be looking for a budget adjustment, or if reject and rebid the project. Mr. Grasser reported funding from the Surface Water Treatment Loans.

Mr. Hansen stated the $1.5 was his estimate, that this is difficult job for engineers to estimate because LPH and BDT have a joint contract to provide much of the equipment going in under this contract, have materials which they estimate; but don’t know how much labor a contractor will take to put that in and estimate included large labor portion. Mr. Grasser stated that we have two bids that are very close and wouldn’t think have the expectation to go out and rebid; and may ask on council award that we do need to adjust our request to the State on the loan fund - that we’re at $27 million and should go to $29 million.
Committee of the Whole/June 11, 2001/Page 14

Council Member Burke stated estimate off 81% and thinks that’s way too much.

Gary Bridgeford, general manager for ICS, stated they were the apparent low bidder of utilizing the Waste Tech equipment and that there are couple issues that need to be looked at - 1) deduct on the outside of the envelope is contrary to the specs. and irregular; and 2) have two types of equipment, Waste Tech is brand they were low bidder on, and if accept the outside of the envelope proposal (deduct), they would be proposing the Vulcan equipment - that their research indicates that the Waste Tech equipment has a recovery rate of somewhere between 70 and 80% and the Vulcan has a solids recovery rate of approx. 40%, and significant difference in recovery rate, and if the City is going to go into a composting operation, it would behoove the City to look at a higher recovery rate, and if have a product you are going to be selling, it would generate that $38,000 difference in two bids very quickly. He stated this project is very weather dependent and a lot of outside work needs to be done, and if look at a rebid or further delay put this into winter construction project and may end up with higher bids.

Mr. Swanson stated there are two issues before you - 1) whether or not you will accept the bid modification of Lunseth and 2) what form of technology or product you will accept; he stated as to first issue staff had no discretion to not open the bid, they were required to open the bid, and that is the official bid that is before you, they did undertake legal research and did not find any reported decisions from any jurisdictions addressing this, anecdotal issues from various bidders that went both ways, the standard of law is clear, that it is a discretionary decision for the governing body to make, and the items that you will review is whether one bidder had an unfair advantage over the other, and secondly, whether there are any issues or concerns of authenticity as to the change or modification and the bid; with regard to the second question, that is purely discretionary decision as to what process or equipment you will accept, however, it has to be a rational decision, articulate why you are selecting one over the other, and is a decision only the governing body can make.

Council Member Kreun stated this process was brought to the council several months ago and explained that there were going to be two different types of equipment bid, and this was going to be the type of process that we were going to go through, that Mr. Hansen explained the different types of equipment that were going to be bid and that we would have the choice of which one we wanted at the time of the bid.
He stated our staff comes out, bid specs. are put out, all information presented, every time it comes in it is a different contractor that writes a different thing in a different manner, we’ve been very consistent on how we’ve asked for our bids and very consistent saying that we rely on the AGC and other entities that
do that, so we are consistent with all the contractors that come forth and if we change it, we are the ones that are altering it, and not our staff.

Council Member Klave stated there have been about 9 contracts issued on this project, and would like to know the original bid amount and how many change orders on each of those 9 contracts and the amount of the change orders. Mayor Brown asked that they make that available for the entire council.

2.23 Location list for Project No. 5196, 2001 Sidewalk Repairs.
Council Member Bjerke questioned as the sidewalk listing appears to be new construction and whether property owners have choice of whether they want sidewalks or not, that this is a cul-de-sac with no traffic except for people who live there, or if appeal process.

Mr. Walker stated that all the sidewalks on this listing are new construction, that they are following the ordinance requirements; notifications sent to property owners who have ability to install sidewalk themselves or have City install. Mr. Swanson stated the City Code requirements on sidewalks, if less than 300 ft. there is no sidewalk required but if greater than 300 ft. sidewalks are required, and there is no
Committee of the Whole/June 11, 2001/Page 15

appeal process - the city council has established under grandfather clause certain areas that do not have sidewalks, but outside of that there is no discretion, no appeal rights. Council Member Glassheim reported several years ago there were number of cul-de-sacs, number of places evenly divided, some wanted, others didn’t, and council adopted firm policy as Mr. Swanson read, and decided they couldn’t have sidewalks in some places and not in others; and if want to revisit it then need to bring the ordinance in for discussion, but as of now there is no appeal because all treated equally, and can’t choose individually whether want a sidewalk or not.

2.24 Bids for Project No. 5140, Upgrade Lift Station 24.
No comments.

2.25 Consideration of Change Order #2, City Project No. 5200, 2001 Flood Preparation.
No comments.

2.26 Request from L & G Partnership (Larry Roth) on behalf of DMG Investments (Dave Butler) for final approval (fast track) of a Replat of Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 1, Butler’s Addition, Grand Forks, ND (located at 2809, 2815 and 2819 S. Washington Street)______________________________
No comments.

2.27 Petition from Art Greenberg, Jr. and Oppidan for approval to vacate all that portion of an access and utility easement lying in Lots 2 and 6, Block 1, Columbia Park 27th Addition to the city of Grand Forks, ND (located in the SE Quadrant of the intersection of 32nd Avenue South and I-29 and as shown on the map which is, by reference, made a part hereof.______________________
No comments.

2.28 Request from Steven Adams on behalf of Art Greenberg and Oppidan for final approval (fast track) of the Replat of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 1, Columbia Park 27th Addition to the city of Grand Forks, ND, including a variance to the definition of a minor subdivision from a maximum of five lots to six lots and the dedication of some access and utility easements (located at 32nd Ave. S. and I- 29)_____________________________________________________________________________
No comments.

2.29 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Vernon and Judy Gornowicz for approval to vacate all that portion of a street turn around or cul-de-sac having an 80 foot radius and to vacate all that portion of an adjoining 10-foot wide utility easement lying northerly of the westerly extension of the northerly line of 16th Avenue North and lying westerly of the northerly extension of the westerly line of North 73rd Street Circle as platted in Vern’s Addition, Grand Forks, ND and as shown on the map which is, by reference, made a part hereof.___________________________________________________
No comments.

2.30 Request from Lavonne Adams for preliminary approval of the plat of Shady Ridge Sixth Addition (located north and east of Desiree Drive, Grand Forks, North Dakota).______________________
No comments.

2.31 Engineering agreement Project Nos. 4814.1, 4815.1 and 4816.2, Phase II Utility Relocations,
GFEG Amendment No. 17._____________________________________________________
No comments.

2.32 Christmas in the Park event in the greenway.
Committee of the Whole/June 11, 2001/Page 16

Melanie Parvey-Biby, Greenway, reported this land will be owned by the City of Grand Forks, and the streets proposed to stay in this area include Lincoln Drive area and roads around the park area (Plum Avenue and back to Lanark and out 13th Ave. S.) and that the proposal is that the Lions Club is interested in putting in the electricity in this area, everything would be underground wiring, the transformers above ground are removable; and in discussions with staff and Inspections Department no concern on the flooding of these transformers and the underground wiring. A representative of the Red River Lions Club (and South Forks Lions), stated their proposal is to trench in varied electrical service and after the event is completed, will remove the transformers, water-proof the ends and place them in tubs so that when springtime comes (and water comes/goes) the facility will still be in good shape, the distribution from the transformer out will be to 200 amp panels to service the various locations.

Ms. Biby reported the lots are not subdivided units and area would be maintained by the City; it was noted that it would have to be determined in the agreement if the City wanted to use this electricity for other events, the Lions Club is interested in allowing the City to use their connections if the City wishes to do so. The rep. from the Lions Club stated their purpose was to get a longer term commitment from the City that they can continue with this project, because of cost of placing the electrical facility. It was noted only maintenance would be removal of snow and Lions Club would work with City or Park District to have snow removed. Council Member Kreun stated this is long term scenario and encouraged Lions to apply for some of the grants next year that incorporate into our projects because this is worthwhile project.

The Lions Club rep. stated this event would be in operation from Thanksgiving tentatively through First Night as one of the attractions for First Night - this would include leasing of a lot, Lions provides electricity, and businesses have the opportunity to put up Christmas displays. Ms. Biby stated another concern was whether this disrupts the recreational activities in this area, that this is quite some distance from that area and would need to be taken into consideration for traffic and safety reasons. The Lions Club rep stated their suggestion was to have their attorney sit down with Mr. Swanson and make a formal agreement between the City so they know various responsibilities between the two entities. Ms. Biby stated their recommendation was to consider the annual event and then to give staff approval to work out an agreement between the two.

2.33 Potential nature center in Grand Forks.
Council Member Klave read recommendation - to authorize staff to continue to study the general concept for a Nature Center, but not under Phase II Levee Design, with the understanding that the Nature Center may or may not be included in future levee phase design as city council may direct after further study. Council Member Christensen stated the short answer is “no Nature Center in the Sunbeam Park area”.

2.34 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Lenthe Investments for final approval of a replat of Lots C thru I and Lots K and L, Block 1, O.J.’s Addition._____________________________________
No comments.

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL ACTION ITEMS

It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Bakken to recess and convene as the city council for consideration of the item relating to policy of rental of dry-side city-owned homes. Carried 12 votes affirmative.

Mayor Brown reconvened the committee of the whole with all (12) members present.
Committee of the Whole/June 11, 2001/Page 17

RECESS

Mayor Brown called for a 5-minute recess.

The committee of the whole reconvened at 10:35 p.m. with all members present.

2.35 Summary presentation of budget for FY2002.
Mayor Brown reported it has been suggested that this item be postponed until 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 18, 2001. The city auditor reported that this presentation is intended to be an overview of the budget where it presently sits, the philosophy used by the Mayor as he worked with the departments in establishing that budget where it comes down as far as tax impacts, rate impacts, etc., the presentation will take approximately 30 to 40 minutes - this was meant to generate questions as we go into the detailed sessions that will follow.

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR COMMENTS

Rick Duquette, interim administrative coordinator, reported that Economic Development Corporation will be bringing in report and update for presentation to the committee of the whole on June 25, and will continue discussion on matter of summit on economic development.

He stated that Mr. Belford, Devils Lake, complimented City on its cleanliness and how nice medians look as well as streets and avenues, and recognized the public works, urban development and street department employees. He also recognized the hard work done by the department heads and staff to prepare information for the agenda.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Glassheim stated that wage negotiations committee would be meeting again tomorrow, and if any council members have any input on two-year settlement, to give them the benefit of reaction.

2) Council Member Burke stated he hoped they could express their good thoughts and prayers for Mr. Lunak who will have an operation tomorrow.

3) Council Member Burke stated that several weeks ago they discussed in budget meetings how they might survey streets that were overlaid last year to find out if have any problems they want to take care of under the warranty, and would like to hear from engineering and streets at the next committee of the whole and what kind of recourse we have for some of the problems under warranty. Mayor Brown asked Mr. Grasser and Mr. Feland to generate report.

4) Council Member Burke asked for status on flood fight this year and how covered (90-10% or 75-25%). Mr. Grasser stated we are still at the 75-25% but hopeful it will go to the 90-10%, not sure when they make that determination, and not sure council will see an actual final bill soon as they are trying to incorporate some of the street repairs, etc., reimbursed for some of the overtime and use of City equipment used during flood fight (some funds come back where not a direct expenditure, ie., may receive equivalent amount of money as if leased for city pumps; still evaluating erosion problems; and may be claims we will submit that may not be spending cash for.


Committee of the Whole/June 11, 2001/Page 18

5) Council Member Hamerlik thanked Chief Packett for information re. 17th Avenue South fire stations, which have been used by the police department and giving an outline of many of his needs and to incorporate that in capital improvements so that if wish to dispose of 17th Ave. fire station, take care of some/all of his needs and what about NRO’s, and others housed there.

6) Council Member Bjerke asked if July 30 (fifth Monday) could be scheduled for budget session as schedule shows finalization in August. The city auditor reported they did schedule it for approval in August, but also left gap for additional meetings.

7) Mr. Swanson reported on the English Coulee Diversion Project Acquisitions - that the council members had received letter from their office last week with regard to the status on takings for the English Coulee Diversion Project, that on Friday morning Judge Bohlman issued a ruling in favor of the City of Grand Forks, that he rejected all of the constitutional arguments and ruled that the City’s utilization of quick take eminent domain was constitutional, and also ruled that the project was a public use and that the property was necessary for the taking. This afternoon in a separate action involving Minn-dak Seeds, Judge Kleven similarly ruled that the quick take proceedings was constitutional, that the project was public use and the taking was appropriate; that he anticipates those rulings will be placed into written form as early as tomorrow and that there are only two items of property on the English Coulee Diversion left, one small parcel for Minnkota which involves swapping sides of the ditch for a substation and that is under works and should be completed shortly, and the other has to do with a parcel of property on the southernmost reach of the extension and close to striking an agreement with that.

8) Mayor Brown encouraged everyone to attend the Farmers Market in Town Square on Saturday morning - nice display of locally produced items.

9) Mayor Brown stated he had requested council members to submit three priority budget items to his office or Mr. Gershman, and have received only one or two, and encouraged members to submit those items to his office this week.

10) Mayor Brown asked each council member to write his/her vision for the city and submit that to his office and he would consolidate it with his.

ADJOURN

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

Respectfully submitted,



John M. Schmisek
City Auditor