City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Monday, September 10, 2001 - 7:00 p.m.

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, September 10, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chamnbers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Lunak, Kerian, Kreun - 9; absent: Council Member Gershman, Klave, Bakken, Martinson - 4.

Mayor Brown announced that when addressing the committee to please come forward to use the miocrophone for the record, and advised that the meeting is being televised live and taped for later broadcast.

Mayor Brown reported that this past weekend the flood protection assessments were published in the newspaper and is available on the web site - www.grandforksgov.com

Don Barcome, 3017 Broadway Blvd., Grand Forks, presented an update on the 2001 Forks Curling Classic, that copies of their budget were presented, team list, etc. in their packets last week; that the investment from the City has allowed them to finalize rental agreements with Ralph Engelstad Arena and the Grand Forks Curling Club for the event to be held November 15-18, 2001; that their web site has generated over 1100 hits from all across the U.S., Canada, Europe and the South Pacific, 37 teams have entered, last 5 on the waiting list; that for a first year event this is almost unheard of, that included in their field are 9 U.S. teams including team that represented U.S. in 1998 Olympics in Japan, and 3 other trials teams giving them 4 of our Olympic trials teams in our event; 3 Canadian teams that are in the Canadian Olympic trials. He reported that they have raised about two thirds of the money they’re trying to raise which will more than match the City’s gift. He named areas that will be selling tickets giving event solid regional exposure, negotiations underway with radio, televesion and newsprint organizations to increase exposure; that there’s a lot of work to be done but confident that the 2001 Forks Curling Classic is on their journey for hosting the 2008 World Curling Championships.

Council Member Christensen reported present

2.1 Part-time positions.
Rick Duquette, interim administrative coordinator, reviewed the report developed re. part-time employee positions, along with some specific objects: classify on-going positions and resolve the benefits problem - that for several years have had employees that are “permanent part-time employees” filling fulltime positions (work more than 20 and less than 40 hours/week), identified those and some on-going positions that are felt needed to continue with the city’s service; simplify employee classification definitions and streamline hiring and benefits process, identify and monitor future staffing needs for both classified and non-classified positions; and made the following recommendations over a two year process to unwind circumstance.

He stated that in 1996 the City had 401 classified positions and 77 non-classified positions that were considered seasonal, temporary or benefitted part-time. After 1997 to help with recovery after the flood had 392 classified positions and 214 non-classified positions, were alloted 407 classified positions; that of the 214 positions, 89 hired under CDBG recovery programs, 38 were benefitted part-time positions, 72 temporary and 15 seasonal positions. Presently the City has 413 approved classified positions and as of August 1, 2001, 136 non-classified positions consisting of 77 benefitted part-time, 35 seasonal and 24 special project or grant related positions. He reviewed the current Code definition for our part-time positions - part-time employees are employees who work more than 20 hours and less than 40 hours per week on a continuous period throughout the year,
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - September 10, 2001 - Page 2

seasonal employees hired for certain times during the year (mow grass, remove snow, operate equipment) generally 5 to 6 months at a time; temporary employes are limited to a max. of 1250 hours/year; and of these groups only the permanent part-time are eligible for certain benefits and benefits paid on a pro-rated basis only after the employee has worked at least 1040 hours in a calendar year - the employee works at least 1040 hours in a calendar year and paid benefits based upon what he worked last year or this year, nightmare for HR to keep track of, to monitor people working 80% of the time, 60%, etc. and one of his recommendations is that they begin to provide benefits - where a department head or manager should be able to sit down each year and determine how many people for x number of hours and budget for that - better fiscal management tool.

Positions recommended for classification: City-funded positions - 11 with an approx. cost of $20,000; these positions have been on-going with recommendation by mayor and department head providing on-going services they want to continue with the city.

Positions to be reviewed: 27 - these positions will be reviewed in another year for determination on whether or not they should be classified in 2003; these people are working the 40+ hours per week and not receiving the same benefits as classified employees.

Seasonal positions: 35 - do additional services

Project and grant funded positions: 24 - are recommending that 11 positions in the Health Department communicty health nurses be classified; that these positions have been working with the city for 7, 10 or ll or more years but are operating at 80%, 75%, etc. of the time; to classifiy a person working 4 days a week at 80% of the benefits that all employees get, makes sense to have these positions at the rates they are working. These position benefits will be funded through the project or grant, when the grant runs out these positions are gone or when special project is over, these positions are gone. He said it makes sense to pay reasonable benefits to stay with this project.

Positions recommended for elimination: some positions planned to end at the end of the year. some positions vacant (6) and have about 20 additional positions on this list where he’s worked with the department heads to determine on how eliminate these positions and redistribute the work among other part-time empoyees that will continue next year. He noted that some of the savings mentioned here have already been attached to the 2002 budget.

He stated his recommendations to the city council: to classify the on-going positions mentioned, both City funded and grant funded postions in the Health Dept.; that we adopt the enabling ordinances (included in the packet); that we collapse our employee categories into two categories:
classified and non-classified, listing work hours, provide pro-rated benefits to all employees hired for 12 months or more. He stated the next step beside adopting the enabling ordinances in classifying positions - that all new positions will go through a civil service process (and in ordinance allow employees who are considered part-time to apply for these classified positions - which mean a hiring process which includes interviews, scoring and points) - nobody automatically gets a job. All non-classified positions also need to go through a hiring process as moving forward - that in the past have hired people without going through HR, Finance or Mayor’s Office - and all new non-classified positions will go through a hiring process which will include applications and interviews, etc. All current city employees, whether classified or non-classified positions, will be allowed to apply for the new classified postions as determined by the civil service commission. He stated if an existing employee is succussful in securing a classified position, they would be allowed to keep their accrued vacation and sick leave hours that they have at that point, and be allowed to accrue these
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - September 10, 2001 - Page 3

benefits based upon their current accrual rate - however, for the purposes of seniority and pension benefits the new hire date will be used; longevity pay starts with new hire date. All hiring of either classified or non-classified positions would need the idnitial approval of the mayor, adm. coordinator and HR. He stated it will take a two year process to unwind process, and need to be careful about unwinding positions, adding positions.

Terry Keehr, nurse at Public Health Dept., (worked for 9 years as non-classified health nurse and now hired as classified employee) spoke in favor of making the grant-funded positions as classified employees; that those positions pay for salaries and the pro-rated benefits (sick leave, holiday and vacation) and classifying these positions will cost City nothing; that all public health nurses whether classified or non-classified have the same educational background and have the same job description; however the non-classified positions don’t receive the same benefits (pension or disability, etc.) and no vote at employee rep. groups; and urged changing of the positions to classified positions.

There was considerable discussion by the council.

Council Member Lunak stated when discussing temporary employees, etc. - that’s part of the morale problem is that temporary employees were making more money than classified employees, and now not only do they get the benefits but still get the high pay, and asked about changing that. Mr. Duquette stated he agreed with the morale problem - that situation had to do with CDBG positions, that people hired under CDBG under employment agreements, got benefits right away and better pay, had people working in positions that were CDBG received higher benefits and higher positions on the pay scales very quickly - was a mistake probably and it affected people around here, he saw it and lived through that. He stated this is not the same, these people working side by side and doing same jobs (permanent part-time)

Council Member Burke stated that the lower limit for benefits would be 20 hours per week and would pro-rate benefits based on how many hours they worked with 40 being benchmark, and how do you pro-rate health benefits, and if the current classified employee have the option of opting out of health benefits and getting cash instead, if a part-time employee had half the premium picked up and wouldn’t have the option of having the balance of the premium deducted from his check (or giving the part-time employee the option of opting out and taking the cash to apply towards some other plan, etc.). - Mr. Duquette stated is someone works 75% of the time we pick up 75% of the premium cost, etc. and could not get cash instead of health benefit premiums, but perhaps should look at that.

Council Member Burke asked if it was any more difficult to reduce work force with a classified person than a non-classified person. Mr. Duquette stated no, if the reduction is based upon fiscal decisions, budgetary matter of positions being eliminated (ie., civic auditorium). A classified position has some additional benefits - they can be placed on a re-employment register if resign in good standing or leave city or laid off and if a position comes open in a department that they qualify for during the year, they can apply for that position; they have the ability to be on a re-assignment register which is a prioritized register in front of the civil sevice commission to gain positions they are qualified for. There is no recourse for grant-funded position.

Council Member Burke asked if the new plan does away with job-sharing; Mr. Duquettes stated they’ve broken the categories down to classified and non-classified and recommending that in both those categories employees be allowed to work less than 40 hours, the job-share idea under a
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - September 10, 2001 - Page 4

classification process is where you have one classified position and wanted to have two people share it (50-50, 60-40, etc.) and there’s not a need for that under the new model; this allows you to have one classified person at 80%-20% - that they wouldn’t call it job-share, would have one party working 60% of the time and the other 40% of the time.

Council Member Burke asked if every job goes through an internal opening, and then external if you don’t have the desired candidates and if there is any stipulation that if only have one internal candidate that it automatically goes external; Mr. Duquette stated he hadn’t gone to that point but has had some discussion with department heads about that circumstance. Council Member Burke stated he would like to see that considered so that it doesn’t become a lot for one particular person.

Council Member Burke asked if subsection (5) in Section 6-0807 needs to be included as it seems to have expired the end of last year; Mr. Duquette stated he would research and bring back. Council Member Burke also brought up several copy editing items (page 11 changed from emergency to circumstances but one line continues to use emergency; and on next page in paragrah 2 have two of the same types of situations. Mr. Duquette stated he will discuss with the city attorney.

Council Member Christensen commented on the health care issue - third option would be that all employees receive health care than a percentage so if part-time get health care, that the City would save money because the City wouldn’t be paying social seciurity tax on the dollar - won’t have the situation where hire somebody for 20 hours but if want health care, will pay half but you have to pay the other half and taking it out of their salary to do that but paying social security tax on their salary which means you’re losing and not a good management tool and should be thinking about full time benefits across the board and adjust salaries downward to the extent that they are part-time and not have that issue. Council Member Burke agreed except that our ordinance and law probably would argue against that, in that we would have two different pay scales, one for fulltime and one for parttime and could be a problem. Council Member Christensen disagreed and that employer could do that. Mr. Duquette stated they would review these ideas and bring some recommendations back.

Council Member Brooks stated they are recommending 11 positions, and if we are going to add a new position, would like to see some type of documentation as to justification for those positions; and asked if job titles had changed for those positions; Mr. Duquette stated same job descriptions and same title and same classification. Council Member Brooks also asked of the two categories and new positions created if they would come to the council for approval, and asked what we’re going to do so don’t end up in this situation again. Mr. Duquette stated they would seek council approval for classified positions and past practice has been to add to our part-time line item in our budget and fill positions from that - that it makes sense to get city council approval for new classified positions and ultimately this two-year model that they’re recommending will take care of circumstance where we’ll either have classified positions that are working part-time that would have been approved by council or non-classified which won’t be rceiving benefits; positions will come to the city council for approval.

Council Member Glassheim asked what rules are for hiring non-classified people or who makes the decision, that with grant positions and not sure if grant going to last do they have to make an immediate decision as either classified or don’t have them; there are positions where not sure if want to continue for many years but may need for year or so and if able to get one or two year grant funded where not ready to come to council and ask for classified position. Mr. Duquette stated they will have that available to them and that is why included in recommendation that if
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - September 10, 2001 - Page 5

have positions that will work for 12 months or more as a part-time position that they will receive pro-rated benefits - to allow us to look at this for 18 months and recognize as on-going part of city services bring to mayor and city council; but have to be careful in not re-creating what we have to this point. That the mayor, administrative coordinator and HR would all approve a non-classified hire. He stated he was concerned about the 12 Urban Development positions that are to be eliminated and how they are being presented, but thinks those are all non-City funded positions and concerned if these are useful positions doing useful work needed by the City and paid for out of federal HUD money - there is significantly a lot more work to do in the urban development office based upon federal monies and grants administered and additional housing things that are happening and if these are coming out of the administrative overhead of additional income from HUD, not sure why want to eliminate some or all of them. Mr. Duquette stated in working with the department head, they are looking at realigning their organization and asked what positions to eliminate at the end of the year, and that’s where they arrived - at those positions but has met again with the department head within the last week and he has pointed out that he may have some reservations on 2 of those positions on the list, and his recommendation is to bring that concern and issues back to the mayor for disussion and then determine what to do. Council Member Glassheim asked for the dollar amounts to be slated for removal, and that he doesn’t see any place in the text of the new ordinance any process for approving new non-classified positions, unless emergency and now called circumstancial, is the only way for getting a new non-classified position, and thinks it needs to be added. Council Member Burke suggested they do codify that, since non-codification got us into this in the first place.

Council Member Kerian stated they did a good analysis of part-time jobs and need, and if in the future they will be doing the same thing with the classified employees. Mr. Duquette stated they would strongly recommend that be done and begin looking ahead 2 to 5 years, etc. to start matching sevices and staffing - that overall organization needs a look where staff people are, whether thick in the middle, heavy at top, etc. and need to answer and bring recommendations to the council.

Council Member Hamerlik stated part of the task the original committee was to clear up the terminology - definitions - and still have another problem - that there were about 60 employees and problem created by past councils holding the line on budget by not adding any employees and enough money in the budget of a department so put on part-time or temporary and as result they continued or extended those positions - and doesn’t see a cure for that. He has a concern about how temporary employees are appointed but when start extending them…even though by ordinance they weren’t suypposed to be re-appointed and if we don’t follow our own rules, we’re back where we were; and asked how long an appointment, other than the 90 days, will they be appointing. Mr. Duquette stated in the proposed ordinance they’ve suggested that benefits be provided only for employees for positions that will work 12 months or more - and cautious in saying the seasonal positions should only be good for 6 months or 8 months, but should be less than a year and non-benefitted. Council Member Hamerlik stated he was concerned on emergency appointments, easy to ask for and get ourselves into positions we don’t want to be in, somebody is tapped to fill the position (learns the skills, etc.) and that person automatically has an inside track for the position rather than opening it up for all the other people within the city staff to have any chance at that or from the outside - familiar with position that if appoint anybody in an emergency or temporary position they’re not eligible for a full time appointment in that position and that gives an opening for other people within the staff or outside. Mr. Duquette stated his suggestion may be to flush out our Code on emergency employments to preclude - that there is a ceiling or sunset on the period of time that emergency appointment exists.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - September 10, 2001 - Page 6

Council Member Bjerke questioned number of days for an emergency appointment - 90 days and whether send to another job. Council Member Burke stated that paragraph is to re-assign an existing employee not someone hired under paragraph 1, and might want to say “reassign an existring classified employee”. Council Member Bjerke asked why have to go 180 days or 6 months - Mr. Duquette stated he would review with the city attorney the intent of the ordinance. Council Member Bjerke stated they are going to classify two of the employees of the Public Informtion Office; Mr. Duquette stated that it is the mayor’s recommendation to continue this as an on-going service of the city and these positions be classified. Council Member Burke stated with regard to temporary employments (last paragraph on page 11) it was seem that you can be classified or work for up to 90 days and that’s it. Mr. Duquette stated they would clear that.

Council Member Hamerlik asked if under under bonus personal leave (on page 18) shouldn’t include bonuses in other sections and perhaps should have all together. Information.

2.2 Approval of request for qualifications to perform a wage and salary study.
Daryl Hovland, HR, reported that about six weeks ago the council directed a charge to do a wage study, and based on the past wage studies, the amount of the bids have been very substantial, last study cost $75,000, and wants to keep the council well informed of the process and have outlined the request for qualifications, including their goal of projected schedule, request , what looking for in content (their office will have the position descriptions done before the consultant starts the wage study) and shorten up the process and save some money on the bid, He stated they will be looking at the job descriptions, matching organizational chart, job families - that in the last wage study they did not look at the exempt-non-exempt positions, and should be reviewed; look at definitions as outlined in the Fair Labor Standards so they can address and make sure positions are properly classified. He stated the committee includes city council president, chair of the civil service commission, the administrative coordinator, the finance director who would also represent the department head assn., employee rep., and the HR director. He also stated that the time table is aggressive with completion date of 12/31/01 - December 7 award contract, and looking at antici-pated date of April 9 and that is how long to do a proper wage study. The committee will review and make the selection process based on the bids, outlined criteria and outline for consultant.

There was some discussion relating to the makeup of the committee - Council Member Burke stated he would like to see two more council members, and would like to see that this committee meets at least after 4:30, perhaps after 5:00 p.m., that they have no daytime meetings so more convenient for council members to attend these meetings and also for city employees; and with regard to the specs. of RFP, concerned about the notion of job equity between departments and would rather try to figure out a more market relationship to what we pay, not trying to equate a laboring position to an administrative position - and that the consultant when doing studies, look at pay rates in other communities. Mr. Hovland stated it would take into account the market ananysis - equity between departments, will be looking more at hierarchy as to the relationship with the department head, second in command, etc. to make sure equity is fair so not a big spread or compressed.

Council Member Hamerlik stated it was important to have legal counsel present and suggested that either Mr. Swanson or someone be in attendance at those meetings.

Council Member Brooks stated there is one employee rep. and would like to hear from employee reps. if should be two and address by next week; who develops scope of the study - Mr. Hovland stated the scope of the study will be going before this committee and will advise council step by step of process.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - September 10, 2001 - Page 7

Council Member Bjerke questioned use information from the market analysis, and hoped they weren’t going to do comparisons to the private sector - have civil service protection and enough cities in our region to compare our jobs to and compare ourselves to other government type entities and market analysis inflates because we compared ourselvles to the private sector; Mr. Hovland stated they would be getting market analysis information during the wage study, not the one that was completed by Fox Lawson.

Council Member Burke stated he would like the consultants to discuss the merits of having sets of employers looked at for different types of positions, that we have positions in the city where the market is local, regional or professional people we compete for on a national basis - that in the last market analysis it didn’t matter whether you were an unskilled laborer or a professional, compared with a given set of communities and would like to see the market study tailored to the type of job. Mr. Hovland stated that the market analysis will be a smaller portion because the wage study is going to look at like positions and going to look at the public sector but do have positions within the city that may not match up with other public sector - some positions may have to go to a private sector to get a comparison.

Council Member Kerian commented on process for maintaining salary structure on a long term basis, and that might include either an association or internal work that we can do so can keep that updated without consultants each time. She also stated that when giving them an existing situation that has our classified positions and at the same time moving some additional into that, and asked if there was a large number that would not match our classified and know the scope of that or suggestions as to what do about that. Mr. Hovland stated there are some positions that currently do not match up against our classification plan, that they will either add, delete change whatever action would be to make sure those are properly identified.

Council Member Christensen agreed that they need at least 3 council members on the committee, questioned why the civil service commission chair would be serving on this committee since that person is on committee that would administer our ordinance in the job hiring, may want to think about eliminating that and perhaps want another employee - that the committee is a function of HR position to attend those meetings and not sure why have him on the committee as a voting member; and knows this is a suggested committee and is concerned that this committee be a cross-section of this council and have some city employees and also look to the area in which we are competing - know what paying for clerics, janitorial in the “grand cities” area rather than elsewhere because he doesn’t care what the clerics or janitorial or drivers are being paid in Fargo or Bismarck, but more concerned what we’re paying in this community and what we have to compete against in this community to get people to work for us in those positions. He stated if have to compete nationally for department heads, etc. that’s a different story - last wage study too broad and more concerned about what paying Minot, Bismarck, East Grand Forks, Thief River Falls, etc. He also asked why have to do data compilation as part of RFP, that make it a requirement that the people participating and helping gather the data have some knowledge in labor law, wage standards - and as to the clerical aspect the gathering of the data, once define scope, is something HR could be doing rather than paying someone to do that. He stated there’s an organization at the University of North Dakota who does this data gathering (Dept. of Political Science) and asked that they explore that as far as gathering data to limit scope and save some money. He stated if they do that it will help move forward is that will have a continuing methodology of gathering data and updating data pools so we don’t have to do this every third year and spend monies. Mr. Hovland stated there is a resource at the University, that we have a good network with them and can use that.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - September 10, 2001 - Page 8

Council Member Kreun asked if we even need an outside consultant. Mr. Hovland stated it was his professional opinion that then have staff currently in their department that is capable of doing it, it is a very labor intensive time study that they need to do, and has contended that their department could save the City $75,000 if charged them the wage study; credibility factor, if we can negotiate a reasonable prudent price with a consultant it would be much easier to have an outside agency look at it. Council Member Kreun stated it’s a regional study and national study for certain job positions, and have that information and with help from the University would consider and before doing the RFP would like to know what they could do that study for internally with the help from the University. He also stated on the makeup of the committee, we have the finance director wearing two hats and may want to reconsider that as well. Council Member Christensen stated he would encourage HR to do what they can to conduct the study internally, would be a good learning experience and that they can do a lot of it themselves, good for employees and morale.

2.3 Public Transportation Task Force/fare increase and night ridership.
Council Member Hamerlik stated he would like the mayor or adm. coordinator to make any statements relative to plans to the task force that the public transportation committee has. Mayor Brown stated he has a proposed list of people for a combined task force to look at bus service night ridership and fare increase rather than have two committees: and would make sense to combine into one task force rather than duplicate effort or time. Council Member Hamerlik stated they discussed this at some length and because of the time lines they voted that they should have two committees with about 4 or 5 in each one represented by council, citizens group, otherwise have same task force and is going to take longer than if broke in half; and suggested they have two committees and move forward. Mayor Brown stated the committee for night service would be Mary Weaver, Bobby Vogel, Chris Frost and Council Members Hamerlik and Bjerke; and fare increase committee would be Petra Clemens, Frank Harlow and Council Members Burke and Bakken and Developmental Homes representative.

2.4 Award contract for relocation of historic homes.
There were no comments.

2.5 Neighborhood revitalization strategy.
Council Member Burke stated this is an item that begs for the old committee system so that the committee can provide guidance to staff as they develop a plan; difficult to do that in the committee of the whole type of setting and not sure how appropriate it is for individuals to try and shape a plan along these lines; perhaps this is an opportunity for a ad hoc committee because it’s an important initiative, something we have talked about in the past in the old urban development committee about how we use our CDBG funds but how we go about revitalizing some neighbor- hoods, esp. those relatively close to the downtown and benefit from this type of activity - would like to have council input more closely as we work on this before it gets to the committee of the whole for discussion in this environment.

2.6 Finaliizing Alerus Center construction project.
Council Member Hamerlik reported that the recommendation from the Core Committee is noted in the report. Council Member Kreun stated in the letter Compass Mgmt. wrote indicated that they would like to be paid with the 10% discount upfront and asked what advantage that would be to the City. Jeff Kossow, Compass Mgmt., stated that as part of the pre-opening contract with Compass, there were incentives for selling of certain things (suites, advertising, contracts of sorts), as the original contract was written with the City of Grand Forks those were payable 30 days after those contracts were signed; from a cash flow perspective and issues with the construction
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - September 10, 2001 - Page 9

budget, it was deemed that when Compass reegotiated its contract with the City for management, those would be amortized over a five-year period; the opportunity right now is the availability of the funds and this part of the pre-opening process or pre-opening function, the construction dollars could be used for that and was recommended from the city auditor as they discussed this, that it come out of this portion of the budget and in that request that went back to the corporate office it was responded with the memo that the council has in front of them. He stated as far as the calculations on the 10% doesn’t know how that was determined, and believes it was in today’s dollar value as opposed to the future dollar values. He stated that the way the process was originally written, those would have been due 30 days after signed contracts, but in deference to the construction budget at that time and they had challenges before the project was completed financially, not knowing it was going to finish to be amortized over five years. Council Member Hamerlik stated that the city auditor highly recommended that it be done. The deputy auditor stated they discussed this and that they felt that it is good for the City and will be a savings of $60,000, and right now they have money left over from construction funds.

2.7 Amendment No. 18 to Greater Forks Engineering Group for in-kind engineering services,
City Project Nos. 4817, 4818 and 5116, Interior Drainage.___________________________
There were no comments.

2.8 Amendment No. 19 to Greater Forks Engineering Group for in-kind survey services,
City Project No. 4820._____________________________________________________
There were no comments

2.9 Change Order #1 for Project 5203, 2001 Storm and Sanitary Sewer Repairs.
There were no comments.

2.10 Change Order #2 for Project 5203, 2001 Storm and Sanitary Sewer Repairs.
There were no comments.

2.11 Change Order #3 for Project 5197, 2001 Concrete Street Repairs.
There were no comments.

2.12 Request from the Grand Forks Planning and Zoning Department for preliminary approval
of an ordinance to amend Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended,
amending Article 8, Comprehensive Plan, Section 18-0802, pertaining to the Grand Forks -
East Grand Forks 2022 Transportration Plan Update, (2001 Bikeway Element, 1999 Pedestrian Element, 2000 Transit Element, Year 2000 Street and Highway Element, and 2000 Metropolitan Intelligent Transportation Systems Comprehensive Plan Element), together with all maps, information and data contained therein. This ordinance amends the Street and Highway Element of the Transportration Plan to provide for corridor presrvation activities on the Merrifield Road.______________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.13 Request from Webster, Foster & Weston on behalf of Concrete, Inc. for preliminary
approval of the plat of Concrete, Inc. Addition (located at 5000 DeMers Avenue)._____
There were no comments.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - September 10, 2001 - Page 10

2.14 Request from Webster, Foster & Weston on behalf of Concrete, Inc. for preliminary
approval of an ordinance to amend the Zoning Map to rezone and exclude from the A-1
(Limited Development) District and to include within the I-2 (Heavy Industrial) District, the
southerly 210 feet of Lot 1, and all of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Concrete, Inc., Addition (located
at 5000 DeMers Avenue, Grand Forks, North Dakota._________________________________
There were no comments.

2.15 Request for approval of a resolution to annex Concrete, Inc. Addition to the city of Grand
Forks, North Dakota.__________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.16 Request for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the text of the Land Develop-
ment Code; Chapter XVIII, Article 2 Zoning, Section 18-0207, A-2 (Agricultural Reserve)
District, (6) Required Lot Area, Width, and Depth, (11) Special conditions (B) Non-farm
Single Family Dwellings relating to non-conforming parcels…Density Reqirements for
those parcels of less than twenty (20) acres shall be at least at a ratio of one (1) unit per
two and one-half acres relating to lot sizes.________________________________________
Council Member Christensen questioned purpose of this. Dennis Potter, city planner, reported that currently in the two-mile jurisdictional area our requirement is a minimum of a 20-acre piece of land and then a minimum of 5-acres per lot; this particular ordinance proposes to change that from a minimum of 5-acres to 2.5 acres, and that will get us to a mirror image with the County whose planning and zoning regulations are 20 acres for the basic land area and a minimum of 2.5 acres per lot.

CONVENE AS CITY COUNCIL, AND RECONVENE AS COMMITTEE
OF THE WHOLE

The committee of the whole convened as the city council to consider item 2.17 (Reconsideration of the matter of the request from LaVonne Adams for final approval of the plat of Shady Ridge Estates Sixth Addition (located north and east of Desiree Drive, Grand Forks, North Dakota)

After a brief city council meeting, the committee of the whole reconvened as the committee of the whole with all members present except Council Member Hamerlik.

2.18 Hold public hearing for moving permit application to move the home from 93 Grassy Hills
to Lot 5, Block 2, Shady Ridge Estates 6th.__________________________________________
Mayor Brown called for the public hearing. There were no comments.

2.19 Consideration of awarding additional funding for interim flood protection.
Council Member Kerian asked for comments on this issue, if it was pro-active that we could do that might allow us to do something else should we be in another flood situation next spring or spring after.

Council Member Kreun stated there may only be available time frame to use this as one and possibly two years, that they would be filling in some of the areas where the homes have been taken out and basements filled in; these areas lie in a higher elevation so not a situation as had in the lower part of Belmont where it flooded every year; this would be in higher water table consideration, but one of the things that does is if we would get a situation where have to fill these in, it would take one day of time to do that and one day of time in a real emergency situation can be
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - September 10, 2001 - Page 11

a long time, and not happy about spending $50,000 when we wouldn’t have to, but if don’t do it and situation arises, we could be a day behind with out equipment and some other major areas of the community should high water come at a fast rate.

Council Member Hamerlik reported back.

Council Member Glassheim asked if there was any use for the dirt after a year or two. Mr. Grasser stated the clay would end up getting reused as part of the Corps flood protection project, too late to go through the paperwork where the Corps could consider granting us a dollar allocation for that dirt, but latest talk in the Sunbeam area has been to put up the decorative wall and berm that earth between the wall and the streets where reduced perceived height of the wall. He stated this dirt will be incorporated but they will be moving so much dirt in there that will lose this between the cracks - that a lot of the raises in the Sunbeam area, Belmont Court, they’re in the neighborhood of one to two and half feet so not talking about a lot of dirt, and makes it a difficult decision. That as Mr. Kreun pointed out the unknown, that flood could happen next year, one day’s worth of work could make the differenbce between a successful or unsuccessful fight. He stated the funding is $50,000 because mechanism to do this work is a time and material basis, and hard to judge how much time it’s going to move this. He stated as they do a change order to add equipment hours in to do this work, felt need for a little bit of leeway room, but doesn’t mean will spend it. (funding - part of the special assessments of the permanent flood protection project because re-incorporating parts of this into the permanent flood protection)

Council Member Brooks asked if looking at a budget amendment; Mr. Grasser this would be an additional dollars against the permenanent flood protection project, and this would actually be a change order to our existing contract with Gowan, but need to recognize transfering those funds. The deputy auditor stated it would be purely a City cost, won’t be shared by Corps.

2.20 -911 amendment.
There were no comments.

2.21 Bids for city-owned property - Bid Pkg. #2001-30, 1201 7th Avenue N. and 415 N. 7th Street.
Council Member Kerian asked if there was a counter offer on property at 1201 7th Avenue North. Mel Carsen, city assessor, stated he wasn’t directly involved in this item except to set the value, that the process is when you bid a lot like this, either accept the offer or reject it; if you reject it, then could open it up and sell to anybody who comes along.

2.22 Administrative coordinator job description.
Council Member Bjerke stated that last time there was a little controversy over the department heads and who they reported to, and if this job description is approved, does that mean change over the department head job descriptions so the report to the administrative coordinator; Mayor Brown stated that was correct.

Council Member Brooks asked what changes were of organizational chart distributed by HR and chart in the binder; There are 7 items under public works; Mayor Brown stated they expect this draft to change before next week.

Council Member Burke asked if there were any substantial changes between this job description and the previous one for this position; Mr. Hovland stated that under item where conducts performance appraisals of city department heads along with the mayor and/or the mayor’s
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - September 10, 2001 - Page 12

designee is a change (previously the mayor was doing the performance appraisals, now through the adm. coordinator. Mayor Brown stated they also envison on first page exercised and supervision over management and would say department heads, and departmental supervision technical and clerical staff and expect first page of the job description to change.

Council Member Christensen stated in the proposal they have with the mayor or mayor’s designee and if go with an administrative coordinator and mayor doesn’t do it and would appoint his designee, and asked if that was something we want for the long term good of the position because might set up a tension with the administrative coordinator and the mayor’s designee, as we are a part-time mayor city, and not sure want to build into the job description, that the mayor always has the ability to delegate. He stated they might ask whom the designee might be and may have effect on applicants.

Mr. Christensen asked if there there was a preference for a master’s degree under training in prior description; prior description only asked for a bachelor’s degree. He stated they may be eliminating applicants and if wasn’t necessary before, why necessary today, and perhaps should eliminate that and look at those things, because don’t want to get into a situation where ended up like last time where if not in job description, etc. and set up so person has a definite area of authority and that person is under the mayor. Mayor Brown stated they should work on changing those - deprtment head contracts to reflect that. Council Member Brooks stated that the minimum requirement is a bachelor’s degree, but preference would be master’s degree, and doesn’t eliminate anybody from applying but helps in the process of assigning points.

It was noted that the organizational chart draft will be revised by next week.

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR COMMENTS

3.1 Process review of home/basement demolition for the 24th Committee of the Whole agenda.
Mr. Duquette stated there was an inquiry at the last council meeting about progress and process for this item; that they have not completed that information and will make that part of an update to the city council.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Burke asked when they have engineering or inspections sending out notices to neighbors where there may be a house moved to have that information sent to council members in the affected wards so they may have an opportunity to talk with constituents.

2) Council Member Burke asked to go back to item about Compass - he stated if refer to Mr. Peter’s memo, Compass will discount the remaining balance of $291,726.00 by a factor of 10% to $231,530.00 - figure wrong - The deputy city auditor stated that is not the straight 10%, it’s factored as a present value of future payments, that she doesn’t know what the discount factor is, but it is the present value of future payments.

3) Council Member Hamerlik stated there are a lot of barrels left on streets after windstorm, and not labeled but sometime before snow flies need to get them picked up.

4) Council Member Hamerlik asked for matter of clarification - that on tonight’s committee of the whole agenda, and if need to have a council meeting, suggest we put that info. on top of agenda - not
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - September 10, 2001 - Page 13

sure if official way to call council meeting by included as notice on issue; and perhaps put separately placed near end and have an agenda. Noted.

5) Council Member Hamerlik reported that at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow morning there will be an announcement that Rod Stewart is coming on November 13, tickets will go on sale Saturday morning at 9:00 ticketmaster; another feather in the cap of the Alerus and Compass Mgmt.

6) Council Member Stevens thanked Mr. Duquette and mayor’s staff for putting together the temporary employment situation, and did an excellent job.

7) Council Member Bjerke stated if you refer to the March 19 minutes that public transportation committee is scheduled on the first of October, and asked that on September 24 committee of the whole have a discussion on that, whether have a committee or the make up of the committee.

8) Council Member Bjerke stated he would appreciate information on what School, County and Park Board are going to consider for increases, if any, on the mill levy, as information item at the beginning of the agenda. Mr. Duquette stated he will obtain info.

9) Council Member Brooks stated several thank yous - to the mayor’s office for presenting update on the administrative coordinator position; and for person who put handout in packet - an excerpt from a newspaper related to bond ratings, etc. (the deputy city auditor provided this handout).

10) Council Member Kreun stated on the home/basement demolition - that council members have to remember that the timeframe is not immediate when they ask for information - that actually we’re two weeks out on our committee of the whole process and the reporting process and information given, and when ask for information should remember it’s two or three weeks out before getting it again.

11) Council Member Christensen stated that the urban development office is in the process of proposing a restructuring, and as there are some issues re. elimination of some jobs in report, would ask that they put the urban development’s restructuring on the committee of the whole in two weeks and look at that in elimination of some of those jobs.

12) Council Member Christensen complimented Mr. Duquette’s presentation and Mr. Hovland’s, these people doing a great job and hope they can find some way of doing the wage study internally because information would be something they would continue to use.

13) Mayor Brown reported that the Grand Forks City Fire Department will have a safety fair next Saturday, Setpember 15 between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. at Central Fire Station; and thanked people for their turn out at the Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast at the Holiday Inn, it was well attended and well worthwhile.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Kreun and Council Member Lunak that we adjourn. Carried 10 votes affirmative.
Respectfully submitted,

Saroj Jerath, Deputy City Auditor