City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us

PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
March 4, 2002

The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in the council chambers in City Hall on Monday, March 4, 2002 at the hour of 7:00 o’clock p.m. with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke (teleconference), Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 12; absent: Council Member Lunak - 1.

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

COUNCIL MEMBER GLASSHEIM REPORTED PRESENT

Mayor Brown announced that the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District Recreation Committee has awarded the City of Grand Forks a grant of $50,000 for the community green project, that Mike Polovitz, Grand Forks County Director met with our greenway staff to assist them in identifying a project that would be eligible for this grant, that Mr. Polovitz was unable to attend the meeting tonight although he personally asked him to thank Melanie Parvey-Biby for her work on this grant; that Ms. Biby put the grant application together, represented the City at a number of meetings to be available for any questions and encouraged them to support the project. He thanked the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District for their financial support of the project, that our greenway staff will be working with their staff to place the sign or plaque within the community green area to recognize them in their support for this project.

Mayor Brown stated this is City Government Week sponsored by the North Dakota League of Cities, that an insert was placed in the Grand Forks Herald this week that helps explain how the city budget is developed, where the money comes from and what it is used for. He stated extra copies are available in the Public Information Center.

Mayor Brown announced that the Alerus Center will be hosting the 27th Annual Home Show sponsored by the Forx Builders Assn. on March 8, 9 and 10, and as part of the Home Show the City will hold a housing fair that will feature a number of different city departments and agencies that promote home ownership and rental information.

He congratulated the Grand Forks Housing Authority Board, which has been awarded the prestigious 2001 Champion Affordable Housing honor from the ND Housing Finance Agency. Congratulations are extended to everyone at the Grand Forks Urban Development Office for their dedicated work in contributions to make this award possible. The Grand Forks Housing Authority was the unanimous selection of housing officials from within North Dakota, including the members of the Governor's Industrial Commission.

FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT UPDATE

Al Grasser, city engineer, reviewed the update on the flood protection project.

Corps of Engineers: they had several staff members in St. Paul last week and the Corps did the final technical review for Phase II of the levees and plans and specs. close to bidding stage, they had an initial meeting re. Phase III plans and specs. He stated that Nodak Contracting is progressing on Phase I, working on the storm water pump stations at 8th Avenue, work continues at 13th Avenue at the Olson/Elmwood pump stations, they have done some sheet pile driving on the DeMers pump station; Riverboat Road has been closed for part of that work, and are still installing some storm sewer in the Olson/Elmwood Drive areas. He stated that the English Coulee project has been awarded to Gowan Contracting, with work on that project beginning in April; bids were opened on February 8 for a demolition contract through the Corps of Engineers for the foundation demolitions on a number of houses that have been moved, and contract will be ratified soon, however, there are some complications - they are going through their central purchasing division as they've had some irregularity in interpretation of the bid and some challenges that they may have to work through on the demolition part of it - not sure how long to solve. He stated he was disappointed in the delay and that there may be some time if this doesn't get resolved, that might want to take some of those out ourselves - that if the Corps takes those out under their contract we pay a portion of that but is concerned that if this is not resolved by April-May we might want to consider that.
City Staff/Consultants update: He stated that United Crane and Excavating has completed about half the sewer and water relocations in Phase II and will start the remaining relocations in April. Construction Engineers on the raw water intake caisson has completed the fourth pour, one more pour left.
Federal Appropriation Process: He stated we don't have any official update since last report, however, they were in Bismarck as Senator Conrad had a field hearing and they testified as to Grand Forks' needs and have determined that Corps has potential to spend $75 million if we had it available this year. He stated they are submitting some testimony through the National Association of Flood Plain and Storm Water Management Agencies and they will testify to our needs on our behalf.
Acquisitions: We are making progress, getting appraisals done and offers out to the properties.
Other Items: He stated some items that were not included in the staff report, that FEMA came in on February 20 and discussed the draft flood plain alignment, that lines goes out to 42nd Street and takes in probably 90% of the community, which is worse than what they had originally contemplated, however, there are several technical issues that they see with that and will be submitting numerous questions and follow up for consideration. He stated they wanted to know if the City had an interest in refining flood elevations for specific homes, that we challenged them earlier as they want to use elevation contours on our contour maps, that they are 1 ft. contours and we didn't feel that was accurate enough for Grand Forks' needs because a few inches here or there could mean the difference between being in the floodplain or being out, and not apparent where that might happen; that request was forwarded to the mayor and he will send a letter telling them we are interested, and with the caveat that we need to look at some budget issues before we commit - they requested the letter to be back within thirty days. Mayor Brown stated that would be forthcoming.
Flood Protection Project: He stated that the contractors are making progress on Phase I and ahead of their initial schedules, however, that does mean that we're really going to need to look at advanced funding, and will bring something to committee of the whole at one of the next meetings because need to start putting that together to keep the contractor working, otherwise might run out of funds by July or August. He stated he is anticipating or looking at something in the neighborhood of $3 to $5 million of advanced funding from Grand Forks and probably an equal match from East Grand Forks.
Spring Flood Fight: He stated they received bids on the spring flood fight contractors and Strata was the apparent low bidder for moving dirt and equipment; Opp was the apparent low bidder for the sandbagging operations; those contracts won't be awarded unless it looks as though we actually need to get into a flood fight and will be done under an emergency declaration basis or come back to the city council.

Council Member Martinson asked for a brief update as to what is happening in the Burke Addition; Mr. Grasser stated that the Burke Addition asked for flood protection and for several other issues, but no annexation, no additional costs, etc. and the council reaffirmed the flood alignment that was in the original GRR and since that time not aware of any other discussions between those residents, the County and the City.

Council Member Kerian asked for additional information on the demolition contracts and dollars that would be involved in that. Mr. Grasser stated he wouldn't be able to give dollar information today, that demolition of a rather typical basement is approx. $2,500 (demolition and backfill), however, within the demolition contract there were some substantially larger structures like the Buegel building near the Point Bridge, and if can't get the Corps to tear those down in the timeframe, that we may need to consider taking them down because that building needs to go as part of the raw water intake project, that they expected that work to be done last fall and backfilled this winter and disappointed that was not done. Council Member Kerian asked what numbers are out there yet. Mr. Grasser thinks about 15 to 25 foundations that could be open, and contract was to be open-ended and that there are going to be more homes coming out, probably another 15-20 but those aren't available yet, but concerned about where houses removed last fall or winter and still not backfilled.

Melanie Parvey-Biby, greenway coordinator, highlighted a few of the items in the greenway update - that the Greenway Maintenance Planning Process is going well, have provided information last week of input and public comments; have been working with the DOT at a request of council to look at possibly using the TE fund and the TCSP funds to make enhancements to the Sorlie Bridge, haven't received formal response to their request but will share information when available. She stated they are working with the Greenway Technical Committee on several issues, one is non-paved trail plan and developing that with the MPO as well as fishing access points; they have the MN DNR and ND Game & Fish assisting on helping to locate fishing sites as well as boat launches within the project; and looking to prioritizing which areas they should develop and funding possibilities. She stated they are working on a few promotional items for the greenway - that they have been working with the UND Aerospace on the greenway video and should be available soon. She stated they have information available with the nature shift site through the Dakota Science Center, educational tool being used by students in the school system to give them background about what the project is and what is to come for Grand Forks. She stated they ware working with the Public Information Center in doing some revisions to the greenway web page, want to make sure the public is aware of what is going on and new things coming to Grand Forks. She reviewed upcoming meeting - Greenway Technical Committee meets the second Tuesday of every month at 10:30 a.m. at the Park District office; Goals Group will be meeting soon re. upcoming spring event, which is the Greenway Bike Day.

Council Member Christensen asked when the City could begin discussion with the State to consider our greenway becoming a state park as the MN people have done to get their DNR to have their greenway be their state park, that he is sure there has been conversations in the past, and asked what has gone on in the past. Ms. Biby stated that has been discussed in the past, that the Greenway Alliance was formed to provide equal representation of both Grand Forks and East Grand Forks, but they brought in agencies from the federal, state and local levels and one was the ND State Park System, and would be glad to pull those minutes out for review, they would like to participate but didn't have the funds available; may be possibility but perhaps now isn't the right time - not sure if they would be interested in coming in when the project is developed. Council Member Christensen stated that once developed they wouldn't be as interested in participating because they wouldn't have ownership whereas if ask them now to assist us in the development and have some ownership, and asked if she would be interested in pursuing that and perhaps could form task force to help explore that and work towards that as there is another legislative session coming up. Mayor Brown stated this is a 600 mile greenway concept; Ms. Biby stated that when we are done will have the 800 acres and 7 miles of trails in the project, and the boundaries looking at now are to the Riverside Dam and where pedestrian bridge would be placed as well and as far south as the southend drainway, that is the recreational part of the greenway; and there is area within the greenway beyond that but not sure what will happen north and south of us.

APPOINT COUNCIL MEMBERS TO LOOK AT OPTIONS OF
BIOSOLID DISPOSAL

Mayor Brown announced the appointment of three members to look at options of bio-solid disposal system: Council Members Klave, Christensen and Kreun.

CONTINUE REQUEST FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF PLAT
OF WEST CAMPUS RESUBDIVISION TO MARCH 18, 2002

The staff report from the Planning Department relating to the matter of the request from Rick Tonder on behalf of the University of North Dakota for final approval of the plat of West Campus Resubdivision, being a replat of all of Blocks 2 and 3, Burlington Northern Industrial Park Resubdivision including portions of North 42nd Street and University Avenue right of way and vacated North 43rd Street and 1st Avenue North. This plat also hereby corrects the plat of Burlington Northern Industrial Park Resubdivision by the removal of the southerly 15 feet of Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 2, Burlington Northern Industrial Park Resubdivision, Grand Forks, North Dakota, with recommendation for final approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the plat of West Campus Resubdivision, subject to the conditions shown on or attached to the review copy; recommend the city council to give final approval to the plat, subject to the conditions shown on or attached to the review copy.

Dennis Potter, city planner, asked that the council continue this item as well as the item relating to the public hearing and second reading of the ordinance to rezone the property until the March 18, 2002 meeting. It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Klave to continue this matter until the city council meeting on March 18, 2002. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP

An ordinance entitled "An ordinance to amend the zoning map of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, to rezone and exclude from the U-D (University District) and to include within the West Campus PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, all of West Campus Resubdivision, Grand Forks, North Dakota", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on January 22, 2002, and upon which public hearing had been continued until this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading.

The staff report from the Planning Department relating to the matter of the request from Rick Tonder on behalf of the University of North Dakota, for final approval of an ordinance to rezone and exclude from the U-D (University District) and to include within the West Campus PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, all of West Campus Resubdivision, Grand Forks, North Dakota, with recommendation for final approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the ordinance and Planned Unit Development, Concept Development Plan, subject to the conditions shown on or attached to the review copy; recommend the city council to give final approval of the ordinance and Planned Unit Development, Concept Development Plan, subject to the conditions shown on or attached to the review copy.
It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Klave to continue the public hearing and second reading of the ordinance until March 18, 2002. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

APPROVE GREENWAY RESTORATION PLAN

The staff report from the greenway coordinator relating to the greenway restoration plan, with recommendation to approve the areas north of Riverside Park, north of the Kennedy Bridge to Riverside Park, wet side of Central Park, low area in the former Lincoln Drive Neighborhood, Olson/Elmwood (Koinonia) site, as well as the southern portion of Sunbeam Park for restoration activities utilizing an EPA Grant with expended Greenway cleanup funds as a local match.

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

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE RELATING TO TECHNICAL
CODE CORRECTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

The staff report from the city attorney relating to adoption of technical corrections ordinance, with recommendation to adopt the ordinance.

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

Council Member Bakken introduced an ordinance entitled "An ordinance amending, repealing, and adopting sections of the Grand Forks City Code relating to technical code corrections and miscellaneous provisions", which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.

ACCEPT PETITION TO VACATE ALL OF THE REPLAT
OF LOTS 17-20, BLOCK B OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 7,
BLOCK 1, KANNOWSKI'S FIRST ADDITION

The staff report from the Planning Department relating to the request from the Managing Partners of Deacons Development, LLP, for approval of a resolution to vacate all of the Replat of Lots 17, 18, 19 and 20, Block B of the Replat of Lot 7, Block 1, Kannowski's First Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota. Said Replat of Lots 17, 18, 19 and 20, Block B of the Replat of Lot 7, Block 1, Kannowski's First Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, being vacated was filed in the State of North Dakota, County of Grand Forks, Office of Recorder on October 15, 2001 as Document No. 586912. Said property shall hereinafter be described according to the Replat of Lot 7, Block 1, Kannowski's First Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, as filed in the State of North Dakota, County of Grand Forks, Office of Recorder on April 14, 2000 as Document No. 571050. The property is located in the 5800 block of Pinehurst Drive, with recommendation to receive the Planning Department's request to vacate on March 4, direct staff to set a public hearing date according to law and refer the vacation to the Planning and Zoning Commission.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this recommendation be and is hereby approved, that the petition filed in proper form and contains the requisite signatures, that it be filed with the city auditor, that a notice of public hearing be published as required and the public hearing be set for Monday, April 15, 2002. Carried 13 votes affirmative.
APPROVE COST PARTICIPATION, CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR PROJECT NO.
5245, UNIVERSITY AVENUE OVERLAY

The staff report from the engineering department relating to Cost Participation, Construction and Maintenance Agreement for City Project No. 5245, University Avenue overlay, with recommendation to approve and authorize the execution of the Cost Participation and Maintenance Agreement with the NDDOT for Project No. 5245, University Avenue overlay (federal funds obligated for this project shall not exceed 80.93 percent of the total eligible project cost up to a maximum of $530,000, and the balance of the project cost is the obligation of the City, engineer's total construction and engineering estimate of $645,000)

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Upon roll call the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 13; voting "nay": none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICA-
TIONS AND ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, PROJECT NO.
5333, STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 138

The city engineer's estimate of total cost of the construction of street lighting on Nordonna Circle in the amount of $4,587.19, was presented and read.

The staff report from the engineering department relating to plans and specifications for Project No. 5333, District No. 138, street lighting on Nordonna Circle, with recommendation to approve plans and specifications and set bid date as March 11, 2002 for Project No. 5333, District No. 138.

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

Council Member Klave introduced the following resolution, which was presented and read: Document No. 8138 - Resolution.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this resolution be and is hereby adopted. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICA-
TIONS AND ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, PROJECT NO.
5331, STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 136

The city engineer's estimate of total cost of the construction of street lighting on Mighty Acres Drive in the amount of $14,975.63, was presented and read.

The staff report from the engineering department relating to plans and specifications for Project No. 5331, District No. 136, street lighting on Mighty Acres Drive, with recommendation to approve plans and specifications and set bid date as March 11, 2002 for Project No. 5331, District No. 136.

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

Council Member Klave introduced the following resolution, which was presented and read: Document No. 8139 - Resolution.

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this resolution be and is hereby adopted. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

APPROVE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AGREEMENT
WITH NDDOT AND AMENDMENT NO. 1 WITH CPS, LTD.
FOR ADDITIONAL STUDY AND DESIGN ENGINEERING
SERVICES FOR PROJECT NO. 5217, INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS

The staff report from the engineering department relating to engineering services agreement with NDDOT and CPS, Ltd. for Project No. 5127, intersection improvements at 32nd Avenue and Columbia Road, with recommendation to approve preliminary engineering agreement with NDDOT and Amendment No. 1 with CPS, Ltd. for additional study and design engineering services for Project No. 5217, intersection improvements at 32nd Avenue and Columbia Road. (NDDOT will reimburse the City for 50% of the expended engineering amendment, $436,650 of a not to exceed amount of $873,293.80)

It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Upon roll call the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 13; voting "nay": none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

AUTHORIZE RELEASE OF FUNDS BUDGETED IN
2002 FOR UND ENROLLMENT GRANT

The staff report from the finance department relating to the release of funds budget in 2002 for UND Enrollment Grant, with recommendation to approve release of the $100,000 budgeted under fund 2163 Economic Development in 2002.

Council Member Martinson thanked Ms. Hoffert, UND, for the annual report that was delivered to his home, and stated that as of the end of their year, June 30, 2001, the Foundation had $108 million in assets, and understands that this is economic development but if we continue to spend these kinds of dollars it will become a burden for the taxpayers of the city; that a lot of the people paying property taxes are retired and on a limited income and putting a burden upon our community and have already paid taxes across the state to the University of North Dakota and now being asked to contribute another $100,000 and has a problem with that and was going on record not to support it.

Council Member Gershman stated that we have this in our budget and our budget is balanced this year, and encouraged council members to support this tonight.

Council Member Hamerlik stated he was satisfied with the information that is available, and moved to that we release the $100,000 to the University pursuant to the enrollment grant and the original commitment we have already made to them. Council Member Kreun seconded the motion.
Council Member Glassheim stated that these monies are not taken from property taxes, this money comes from a portion set aside every year for economic development, ($1 to $1.2 million), that this council as well as councils prior to this, have felt that this was a wise use of $100,000 out of the economic development budget.

Council Members Brooks and Gershman called for the question, carried 13 votes affirmative.

Upon roll call on the motion the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun - 9; voting "nay": Council Members Bjerke, Stevens, Burke, Martinson - 4. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

ESTABLISH PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR
PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION BY MnDAK CONCRETE, INC.
FOR APRIL 1, 2002

The staff report from the city assessor relating to property tax exemption pursuant to NDCC Chapter 40-57.1 (expanding business) by MnDAK Concrete, Inc., 5000 DeMers Avenue, with recommendation to determine feasibility of exemption and if council wants to go forward with possible exemption, then determine competitors, if any, and establish date for public hearing.

Council Member Glassheim questioned whether the motion for 100% would go forward from here or that we favor an exemption for this project. Mr. Swanson stated at this point they are asked whether the council will take the next step forward of scheduling a hearing, although the council would have the opportunity to make recommendations, typically the council would hold that until the time of a hearing; if the council is not interested in approving an application you could decline to do it at this point; by Statute if you move forward to schedule a hearing, there is a publication requirement placed upon the applicant, they have to publish a notice once a week for two consecutive weeks and has to be 7 days apart in publication and not less than 15 nor more than 30 days from the time you hold the public hearing; if able to get the publication in the Grand Forks Herald this Saturday (March 9), could make April 1, or April 15 would be other alternative for hearing date if the council were inclined to schedule a public hearing.

It was moved by Council Member Glassheim that we schedule a public hearing for April 15, 2002. The motion was seconded by Council Member Kreun.

Council Member Klave asked for the time line after the public hearing. Mr. Swanson stated that once the public hearing is held the council can act upon whatever information is provided at the hearing or whatever information the council has; the fact that you hold a public hearing is not an indication that the application will necessarily be approved, you could act the evening of the public hearing if you chose to do so to approve it, or continue it for further discussion.

Jim Melland, Economic Development Corporation, stated on behalf of the company they could make the publication deadlines if you schedule the hearing for April 1, and would be prepared to discuss it at that meeting, and if some concern about delaying it, the company can live within a decision framework by April 15 or that time - either date would work.

Council Member Klave moved to amend the motion to April 1; Council Members Glassheim and Kreun accepted that as a friendly amendment.
Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 13 votes affirmative.

CONSIDER MATTER OF CONTINGENCY CDBG FUNDS

The staff report from the Office of Urban Development relating to the contingency CDBG funds, with recommendation to direct staff regarding use of the contingency amount of $73,188, as appropriate, direct staff to begin the process of amending the 2002 Action Plan, open a 30-day public comment period, and schedule a public hearing on April 15, 2002, to take final action.

It was moved by Council Member Bjerke to grant preliminary approval to move the $73,188 to the University Avenue mill and overlay project, to direct staff to begin the process of amending the 2002 Action Plan, open a 30-day public comment period, and to schedule a public hearing for April 15, 2002, to take final action. The motion was seconded by Council Member Stevens. Upon roll call the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke - 5; voting "nay": Council Members Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 8. Mayor Brown declared the motion failed.

It was moved by Council Member Christensen that we use the $73,188 to direct staff to implement a storefront plan similar to the one in downtown Grand Forks with a two to three to one match depending upon the plan staff comes back with. The motion was seconded by Council Member Brooks.

Council Member Christensen stated he wasn't definite as to where the funds would be spent, but at a prior meeting they talked about developing a storefront project concept similar to the one in downtown but probably be used in North and South Washington Streets, and Gateway Drive.

Terry Hanson, Urban Development, stated that typically in the past their match has been a one to one match, and a two for one match would be more than adequate, that his office would create the program and request applications and that is what they would base the awards on, and could open it up to any area that was mentioned.

Council Member Klave stated that the committee had discussed and suggested putting these funds in a contingency fund, look at options and then act on it. Mr. Hanson stated he would like direction this evening if it's the council's desire to move ahead with the storefront program to give the department that direction, and they will bring back the plan, have had the plan in place for a number of years and will take some tweaking on that plan to implement it.

Council Member Brooks suggested adding the streets mentioned to the motion - North and South Washington and Gateway Drive; Council Member Christensen agreed.

Council Member Hamerlik stated if they were going to help certain individuals or enterprises, it might be wise to use half for affordable housing and half for the storefronts, and suggested that Mr. Hanson bring this to the next committee of the whole meeting and vote on it the following week, and suggested deferring it, and moved that we table this to be discussed when plans are available at the committee of the whole meeting and to act on it the following week.

Council Member Christensen suggested before anyone seconds the motion as it is non-debatable, and if move to table it we haven't given staff any direction to develop a plan, and should give staff direction to develop a plan, begin the 30-day comment period, and then consider the number of dollars.
Council Member Hamerlik withdrew his motion.

Council Member Klave moved to amend the motion to direct staff to bring a proposal forward on the storefront projects and that we hold the $73,188 at this time and allocate it at a later date. Council Member Gershman seconded the motion. Upon voice vote the motion carried.

Upon call for the question on the motion, as amended, and upon roll call vote, the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Kreun, Martinson - 8; voting "nay": Council Members Bjerke, Stevens, Burke, Glassheim, Bakken - 5. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

APPROVE APPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS COMMITTEES

The staff report from Mayor Brown relating to committee appointments, with recommendation to approve reappointment of Dave Beach, Marsha Gunderson Ted Jeliff, Randy Lee, Rolfe Ottum and Dale Sickles to the Historic Preservation Commission for two-year terms; appoint reappointment of Arvin Kvasager to the Civil Service Commission for a three-year term; approve reappointment of W.F. Hastings, Jr. and Jim Fristad to the Mechanical Board for three-year terms.

It was moved by Council Member Bjerke and seconded by Council Member Stevens to approve the appointments of Mr. Hastings and Mr. Fristad to the Mechanical Board for three-year terms. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

It was moved by Council Member Glassheim to approve the reappointment of the individuals submitted for the Historic Preservation Commission: Dave Beach, Marsha Gunderson, Ted Jeliff, Randy Lee, Rolfe Ottum and Dale Sickles for two-year terms. It was seconded by Council Member Kerian. Carried 12 votes affirmative; Council Member Bjerke voting against the motion.

It was moved by Council Member Kerian and seconded by Council Member Kreun to approve the appointment of Arvin Kvasager to the Civil Service Commission for a three-year term. Carried 10 votes affirmative; Council Members Bjerke, Stevens and Burke voting against the motion

CONSIDER AND APPROVE COUNCIL TRANSITION
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS

Council Member Brooks, Council Transition Task Force, reported that the Task Force had presented 7 recommendations, and thanked the committee members Council Members Bjerke, Klave and Bakken and staff - the administrative coordinator, the city auditor and the city attorney for their input and assistance; and thinks that the important work they did in the committee was the development of a productive and efficient structure for a council of seven to carry out the business of government from June on. He reported that the recommendations would be presented and considered separately as follows:

1) Approve a list of housekeeping ordinance changes to bring City Code into alignment with the 7-member council. Council Member Brooks stated there was no motion on this item as it was covered under agenda items, and was merely housekeeping on some ordinance changes.

COUNCIL MEMBER GLASSHEIM EXCUSED

2) Council Member Brooks moved to create two council committees, finance/development and service/safety, with three members, one being the chair elected by the council and the other two appointed by the council officers. Council Member Bjerke seconded the motion. Carried 12 votes affirmative.

COUNCIL MEMBER GLASSHEIM REPORTED BACK

3) Council Member Brooks moved to approve the list of committees as proposed in the document listed by council committees for liaison purposes only. Council Member Bjerke seconded the motion.

Council Member Christensen stated that in looking at the committees there is not a council member on the Airport Authority Board and that needs to be addressed; that the Bikeway Committee will go away as the greenway continues to develop and perhaps end up with a greenway division that maybe under a city department or part of a city department (urban development or engineering), Growth Fund Committee handles money but haven't addressed the issues in this community as far as governance dealing with our economic development structure or how we deliberate in this city, that he and Council Member Brooks have separate meetings arranged with members of the EDC to discuss this. He stated he wasn't sure if there has been a need for a liaison because if you appoint a city council person to a committee by definition the person becomes a liaison for the council when he or she sits on the committee, and asked if we are going to have city council persons on the Airport Authority, Bikeway Committee or is it going to become a division of the city administration where will have citizens, that when they first became council persons they had a lot of debate on formation of a greenway commission (Red River Alliance) and if we have city council persons appointed to committees, and that should be the mayor's prerogative to appoint whomever he or she wishes to appoint. He stated it is a nice idea but with a 7-person council and most citizens who want some type of contact with the council person who sit on a committee aren't going to have to worry about a structure for contact, because they can call any council person, and not really in favor of that type of structure at this point.

Council Member Brooks stated what the committee addressed is the issue that he has heard over the years he has been on the council, that from citizens on these committees who want to know that they tie to a council member or council committee - the key is that there is some connection and if a council member sits on the committee they have it - it is a communication line.

Council Member Klave stated the committee of the whole was still the main committee but if something comes up that needs further research or consideration, wanted to know where to send it and tried assigning current committees to one of the two committees so that if staff had a question or if committee of the whole were discussing something would know which committee to send it to; and just to give direction where it was going to go.

Council Member Kerian moved to remove those committees from the list who do have council member appointments.

After some discussion, the motion died for lack of a second.

Mr. Potter stated he has some concerns about how this is structured, specifically in relation to Planning and Zoning Commission which has some statutory base in state law, and before the council takes any action related to Planning and Zoning Commission or the Park Dedication Committee which is structured under the Planning and Zoning Commission, and would like to have the city attorney review state statute and render an opinion as to whether or not you can actually do this, because if talking about the Planning and Zoning function, which comes through a state created entity and they have the right to determine who sits on it and currently has the mayor and two city council people sitting on it by city ordinance, and if take out of their hands their review function setup under state law and invest it with ad hoc city committee like the administrative committee he has concern about that.

Mr. Swanson stated that was not his understanding of the intent here, there still would be a Planning and Zoning Commission and still fulfill their statutory responsibility, however, if the council wished to have further debate on the council level after the Planning and Zoning Commission would have acted, they could assign it to one of these two committees for whatever additional discussion on the council level they chose. He stated it would be no different than if they debated a recommendation from Planning and Zoning at a committee of the whole.

Council Member Christensen asked if they were proposing an ordinance change or govern by resolution. Mr. Swanson stated for purposes of creating a liaison that would be done by resolution, the ordinance draft you have does not include that as a standing committee; you have eliminated by prior ordinance all standing committees. Council Member Christensen stated they are discussing a new council governance structure if we pass Council Member Brooks' committee recommendation, and if that is incorrect then perhaps get this in ordinance form and put it into the City Code dealing with our structure but if just the committee that the Committee came up with, he is okay with that; and if it is a suggestion as to how we go forward and once the group convenes in June, then that wouldn't be an ordinance but by resolution it is just a suggestion as to governance that can be changed once the new council works with it. He stated he was okay with the recommendation of liaison is resolution.

Council Member Glassheim asked if Bikeway Committee wouldn't more suitably fit under service because it's mainly physical city structure and library board fit under finance. The mover and second agreed to a friendly amendment.

Council Member Bakken stated intent was that they would be standing committee, to consider unresolved issues.

Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 13 votes affirmative.

4) Council Member Brooks moved to approve the officers of the council as presented - president; finance/development committee chair (first vice president) and service/safety chair (second vice president). The motion was seconded by Council Member Bjerke. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

5) Council Member Brooks reported that the recommendation related to the layout of the council chambers and dollar appear to be a concern; moved to request that staff bring back a proposal for voting/speaking system not to exceed $15,000. The motion was seconded by Council Member Bakken. Council Member Bakken stated that the committee's intent was to let the new council decide and up to their discretion; this was accepted as a friendly amendment to the motion. Council Member Brooks restated his motion, that the staff research a voting/speaking system bring it before the next council in July. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

6) Council Member Brooks moved to increase council salaries to $6,500 per year ($542.00/month); the motion was seconded by Council Member Bakken.

Council Member Hamerlik moved that amendment to the motion be changed to zero, leaving salaries at present value. Council Member Gershman seconded the motion.

Mr. Swanson stated concern about the amendment, not a proper motion; Council Members Hamerlik and Gershman withdrew their motion and called for the question. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

Upon roll call the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, Bakken - 2; voting "nay": Council Members Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Kreun, Martinson - 11. Mayor Brown declared the motion defeated.

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Hamerlik that we recommend to leave the city council salaries at the current level of $5,200.00.

Council Member Hamerlik asked if the budget builders, including new council, seem to think it advisable to increase the salary, what would council have to do with the motion or reconsideration of if this is interpreted as a recommendation.

Mr. Swanson stated there is a body of law that would indicate that you cannot bind a future council to matters of that nature, and whatever action you would take can't be binding upon them within the context of the budget, and noted that the motion on the floor is not really required because you have defeated the motion to amend the salary but it certainly is not out of order.

Council Member Christensen suggested that they not vote on Council Member Gershman's motion but feels if appropriate that it be in the mayor's budget and if he wants to increase the council's salary for 2003 and as people are petitioning to run for office that can tell their constituents how they feel about an increase, and the next council can consider that.

Council Member Gershman stated that when a number of people that were proposing a 7-member council and one of the things they told the public was that it would save money, and break faith with the voters if do that; and none of them know how much work there will be if they go to a 7-member council and if we do our job right, that the works will not increase, may decrease, but are trying to get more efficient and nobody is on the council for the money, and no one would come on for the money - major drawback to younger people getting on the council, is time and the process; and not in the favor of the mayor putting that in the budget at this time. Mayor Brown noted that Mr. Swanson had stated he cannot put that in the budget, however, he did think they were underpaid and finds nothing wrong with a pay increase for city council.

Council Member Brooks and Christensen called for the question; and upon voice vote the call for the question was defeated.

Council Member Christensen stated he believed the mayor has the power to put in his budget salaries in line items and doesn't recall a specific ordinance that set our salaries; Mr. Swanson stated that the ordinance establishes that the monthly compensation for council members shall be set by resolution of the city council, and stated that the budget that contains the monthly salaries proposed by the mayor to the Council and in the budget resolution approves the monthly salary, and that without the council approving an increase in monthly salary, the mayor has no authority to offer that or to pay that city council member. Council Member Christensen stated that in the budget that is approved by resolution, are approving the salaries and if the mayor wants to increase their salaries, that by resolution if the council approves the budget, they approve that increase also; that with a line item, the next council could debate what they feel should be the appropriate salary, and called for the question. Council Member Brooks seconded the motion. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

Upon voice vote on the question before the council, the motion carried 12 votes affirmative; Council Member Bakken voted against the motion.

7) Council Member Brooks reported that the last recommendation had to do with keeping attendance records, and does not have a motion; however, that the minutes published in the paper does not carry the attendance and recommended that we include that and would accomplish the same thing as having them published. Council Member Bjerke moved that the attendance be printed in the local paper with the minutes. Council Member Hamerlik seconded the motion.

Mr. Swanson stated that the language was included in the ordinance which you have given preliminary approval to, and would upon final approve to amend that if you choose and was placed in that ordinance not at the recommendation or suggestion of the committee, but placed there as a matter of expediency on his office's part as a reviser of the Code, and that he would feel more comfortable if you handled it directly as an issue and as a direct recommendation from the task force and simply as part of the housekeeping portion of the motion.

Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 13 votes affirmative.

Council Member Christensen stated that he had suggested at the committee of the whole meeting that Section 2-0301(34) be added to this proposed ordinance, had not been included, and that for a veto to override the mayor's veto would be 5, now says two/thirds, and should be chanted to 5, and moved to amend the ordinance to include that. Council Member Stevens seconded the motion. Carried 11 votes affirmative; Council Members Bjerke, Glassheim voted against the motion.

ADOPT RESOLUTION CREATING ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT, ACCEPTING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT
AND ADOPTING RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR
PAVING PROJECT NO. 5328, DISTRICT NO. 584

The staff report from the engineering department relating to creation of a special assessment district for Project No. 5328, District No. 584, Linden Court paving from 10th Avenue to 15th Avenue South, with recommendation to approve engineer's report, create special assessment district, direct engineering department to prepare plans and specifications and advertise for construction bids for Project No. 5328, District No. 584.

Council Member Gershman stated that at the committee of the whole they had discussed what they could do for this area to help them, one of the ideas was the low to moderate income assistance through Urban Development, there are 18% approx. of the property owners that would qualify in the Linden Court area; that if we were to do that it could skew the petitions, that he reviewed with staff and Ms. Jane Peterson, that the residents would feel if there was some sort of assistance from the City for everybody that we may be able to handle this project; that there is a question re. setting precedence and if look at the number of residential streets in the city of Grand Forks that are not paved, there are three - Linden Court area from 10th to 15th Avenue South, 12th Avenue South from Cherry to Belmont Road, and a block north of Conklin; and suggested you would still need a petition of 50% of the property owners, but if we were able to waive the engineering fee of 8%, waive the 8% administration and 6% contingency, and that would be 22% of the cost of the project that could be taken off the top and if the other two areas wished to petition to have their streets paved, they would fall under the same category, but would not extend it to new developments, and that it is really a health and safety issue, that some of these streets in very bad weather, esp. Linden Court and try to send an ambulance in there, fire trucks and the other issue is to complete what should have been done a great number of years ago. He moved that we waive the 8% engineering fee, the 8% administration fee and 6% contingency for the paving project at Linden Court, with the 5% interest during construction to continue and that same option would be extended to 12th Avenue South from Cherry to Belmont Road, and North 6th Street, north of Conklin Avenue. Council Member Brooks seconded the motion.

Council Member Gershman stated that the estimated cost of the project is $272,000 and want to put it out for formal bid so that the residents can have an actual number to start making their choice, the 22% would be $59,840 that the City would be waiving. Mr. Grasser stated this would be achange in precedent and if apply to where it would be applicable to, that's a council decision; that his comment process wise, but what doing tonight is creating a special assessment district and approving the engineer's report, and would want engineering to amend the engineering report to reflect that reduction in percentage. Mr. Swanson stated his concern was that they weren't creating the special assessment district and approving the engineer's report, that you motion maybe wouldn't be more timely once you have the bids back, but not out of order today but need to include within your motion, the creation of a special assessment district and the approval of the report. Council Member Gershman and Brooks agreed to include that in their motion - that we adopt a resolution creating the special assessment district, approve the engineer's report, including estimate of cost, an assessment district map, and further that we pass a resolution instructing the city engineer to prepare detailed plans and specification, and that we declare intent to sell bonds to finance these improvements, and advertise for construction bids for Project No. 5328, District No. 584. Document No. 8140 - Resolution, Document No. 8141 - Report and Document No. 8142 - Resolution of Necessity.

Mr. Grasser stated it would be beneficial to include the amendment to the engineering report tonight because that will be the basis by which the letters will go to the residents and if get clarified tonight, will make that adjustment in the engineer's report.

Council Member Hamerlik stated he was concerned, that we have had a lot of people pay for their portion of the streets and special assessments, concerned about safety but it's been there for many years and haven't had a real problem, and thinks we should set the hearing and not muddy it with the paying for it at this time.

Council Member Klave stated we should just deal with the issue at hand, create the special assessment district, and move forward with it, but with the motion that is on the table, the residents still have the option to petition this out; and even if we as a City decide to waive the engineering fees, if they qualify as low to mod, they can still apply for those funds. Mr. Hanson stated they could use CDBG funds to fund it but would have to create a project to fund those families that are eligible, and that has not been created - would have to allocate the funds, hold a 30-day public comment period, have a public hearing and fund it. Council Member Klave stated he will research that because there was something re. a five-year window where if their income level applies as a special needs project, they can petition the city auditor and the assessments can be waived for five years, then reviewed at the end of five years and if still qualify, they can be approved for another five years, but thinks there is a avenue for some of those people out there.

Council Member Brooks stated that we are looking at creating the special assessment district but looking at dollars, that we had discussion regarding the council and the savings we are going to realize when the council is downsized to 7-members, that there are savings in the salary and other savings related to that and was going to request that a budget amendment be brought forward so we can reduce those budget items by the savings, otherwise end up in cash carryover; and suggested that the city auditor could look at what the savings might be and that can be brought forward, and decrease this transfer in for the budget for this year but could be used to cover the waiver on this project.

Mr. Swanson stated that the motion has generated a great deal of discussion as to whether or not you should waive or fund it from another source, there doesn't appear to be any discussion about creating the special assessment district, but by having the motion together, if you by one reason or another defeat it, you have defeated the special assessment district, and may wish to divide the question and act first upon the creation of the special assessment district, and secondly, whether or not you wish to either waive fees or fund it differently.

Council Member Gershman and Brooks asked to divide the question .

Council Member Christensen stated that if the Special Assessment Commission could make a determination that those residents who don't have homes fronting on Linden Court would get a lesser benefit than those that have garages fronting on the proposed street, that if we create the district as far as the cost without waiving the fees that Council Member Gershman is suggesting in his motion, the Special Assessment Commission can do a lot of that work themselves when they assess the benefits as to the affected lot owners, don't have to get to the cost issue, and asked the city engineer his recommendation because property owners are going to make their decision as to protest or not, and if don't protest then it is up to a Special Assessment Commission to tell them how much benefit they get.

Mr. Grasser stated that tonight we create the district and approve the engineer's report, once that is done the Special Assessment Commission will meet and do a refined estimate of how they distribute the benefits, once that is completed the auditor's office will take that distribution of benefits, combine with engineering estimate from the engineer's report and send a letter to the residents with quite a range of numbers as to what they might expect the assessments to be; that with the report that we adopt tonight we're on the 28% tonight and that's what the letter will be and that will influence the dollars that they are going to see when the letter goes out; and suggested that we create the district and approve the engineer's report as one motion and as an amendment to amend the engineer's report to reflect the 22% and if the 22% is defeated you still have the district and the engineer's report in place to continue to move forward.

Council Member Klave stated that they had told the resident they would receive an actual cost so that they could make an informed decision on the actual cost of the project, to bid the project out, get numbers back in and then use the formula. He stated that the letter with the estimates will go out before you get the bid, and asked if after the bids come in, send them another letter of actual costs; that if send out an estimated cost letter and bids come in good, residents not sure, etc. and perhaps should be to approve the district and do the paperwork, then get the bids, establish the cost per lot and send it to the homeowners and let them review the actual cost and give them time to petition if out.

Mr. Grasser stated we are inventing a new process, our standard process would be to do what he first described, given the circumstances and the fact that trying to do additional communication to the residents, that might be confusing - and that notifications are procedural that the City has adopted, the State statute only requires publication in the newspaper and not on an individual lot basis and if the council chose to modify that and direct staff to wait until they get the bids to sent the numbers out, that it would be closer and still may be a bit of a range because of change orders, etc. and doesn't think there are any problems with that and would defer on that. Council Member Gershman stated they have already done that when they sent the letters out to the neighborhood, told them they were going to create the actual district and go for actual bids so they could make an informed decision.

Council Member Klave stated normal procedure when estimated cost is sent out, but if followed standard procedure, would send them another cost and after receiving bids, send them another cost again.

After further discussion and upon call for the question to approve the engineer's report, creating the special assessment district, etc. the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 13; voting "nay": none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried and the resolutions adopted.

Upon call for the second part of the question and upon roll call vote, the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun - 7; voting "nay": Council Members Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Klave, Martinson - 6. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

REJECT BIDS RECEIVED FOR PAVING PROJECT NO.
5322, DISTRICT NO. 583, ALLEY PAVING; AND DIRECT
STAFF TO REBID THE PROJECT

The staff report from the engineering department relating to bids for City Project No. 5322, District No. 583, alley paving between University Avenue and 2nd Avenue North from North 12th Street to North Washington Street, with recommendation to award contract to Rogers Construction in the amount of $30,560.90, contingent on receipt of protest.

The city auditor presented and read tabulation of bids which had been received and opened on February 11, 2002 for Paving Project No. 5322, District No. 583, indicating that Rogers Construction was the low bidder based upon their bid in the amount of $30,560.90: Document No. 8143 - Bid Tabulation.

Council Member Gershman stated it was his understanding that the property owner would protest the project and moved to reject the bid of Tony Anderson Construction as his bid did not meet the bidding requirements (his contractor's license was not included in the separate bid bond envelope) and to reject all the bids for this project and to rebid the project. Council Member Bjerke seconded the motion.

Mr. Grasser reported that the protest period expired on February 28, 2002, and property owner cannot protest the project and if reject bids and rebid the project that will set the protest period over again. He also stated that the protest periods run and for council to act and need to know if have received a sufficient protest, and expiration of protest periods run and if petition comes in on Friday the staff has a chance on Monday to review the petition and review land calculations so they can tell council if they have sufficient protest or not and need that information as to whether or not to award project, doesn't see a problem with timing.

Upon voice vote the motion carried 12 votes affirmative; Council Member Hamerlik voted against the motion.

APPROVE BILL LISTING

Vendor Payment Listing No. 02-05, dated March 4, 2002, totaling $1,296,871.46, and Estimates Summaries as follows: Regular Estimates totaling $2,567,358.08 and Flood Estimate Summary totaling $3,906.00, were presented and read.

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

APPROVE MINUTES FEBRUARY 19, 2002

Typewritten copies of the minutes of the city council meeting held on Tuesday, February 19, 2002, were presented and read. It was moved by Council Member Bjerke and seconded by Council Member Stevens that these minutes be approved as read. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS

1) Council Member Hamerlik stated that important that we congratulate and endorse the new member of the Aviation Hall fame, President Emeritus Tom Clifford who is being honored tonight.

2) Council Member Bjerke asked that all the Alerus financial information be in their packets this weekend.

3) Council Member Brooks thanked the Economic Development Corporation and that we open that line of communication and ask the mayor if it would be possible that as we have flood protection reports once a month and asked for a quarterly report from Economic Development Corporation.

4) Council Member Brooks asked if they could work on a budget amendment related to savings in our budget re. to the downsizing of the city council, and would like to see a budget amendment prepared and to see where that might go.

5) Council Member Brooks thanked Mr. Grasser for the flood estimate summary and asked if they could get reports earlier if have questions.

6) Council Member Martinson stated he has been involved in a situation with one of our employees who because of a very extenuating situation ended up having to fulfill some double duties and lost a considerable amount of vacation time, that he understands that the City Code 6-0807 covers this, but would recommend strongly that the new council look at that because it wasn't right, that 18 years of employment dedicated to the City, but because of the Code, the Mayor's Office had no choice but to do what they did, and on behalf of all of our city employees we owe them to at least take a look at it.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Kreun that we adjourn. Carried 13 votes affirmative.
Respectfully submitted,

Saroj Jerath
Deputy City Auditor

Approved:
_________________________________
Michael R. Brown, Mayor