City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us

PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
July 15, 2002

The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in the council chambers in City Hall on Monday, July 15, 2002 at the hour of 7:00 o’clock p.m. with President Gershman presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 7; absent: none.

President Gershman 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.

President Gershman also announced and commented on the following items:
1) He noted the passing of Raymond Slominski, valued employee for over13 years as an equipment operator for the street department; he died suddenly and offered our sincere condolences to the family and friends.
2) He stated we've had the first case of West Nile virus, which was discovered in a horse near Grand Forks last Thursday, and important to remember that no ND residents have been diagnosed with the West Nile encephalitis and the risk to North Dakotans remains low. Most people infected with diseases transmitted by mosquitoes experience no symptoms or have only mild symptoms such as fever and headaches. The City and County West Nile response plan has implemented measures that include increased West Nile virus safe surveillance for bird, horse and humans, public education concerning normal precautions and continued larviciding and ground spraying when warranted to reduce the number of mosquitoes and are encouraging citizens to enjoy outdoor activities and recommend that you take normal precautions for protection by limiting outdoor activities between dusk and dawn, eliminating stagnant water in containers around your homes, repairing screens in windows and doors, using insect repellent that contains Deet (30% or less), etc.
3) He thanked the Park District for an outstanding job hosting our guests, the Japanese gardeners, they had to cut their trip short but they may be coming back this summer or fall. The garden is in the Sertoma Park and will be quite beautiful and is one of four parks like this in the world.
4) Under summer events re. the fair at the Alerus Center, there was great cooperation from the Alerus staff with the Fair Board.
5) He also noted the Mayor's comments re. events in the community, and congratulations to the Alerus Center and the County for pulling off a first-time Grand Forks County Fair, and received very positive feed-back from the Fair organizers and a great venue for all types of events, and echoed by people around the region and beyond.
6) He noted that the Mayor had attended Summerthing at University Park, and thanks to the Park District for sponsoring this event.
7) He commended the city firefighters who were battling the heat in the new fire education RV at Summerthing.
8) He stated we have more diverse events in store - Passport to Culture this Thursday at Town Square and second in the series of the smallest Riverside Blues Festival on Saturday with the concert featuring Walter Trout in Town Square, and that Tuesday night at the Empire Arts Center Maria Muldouer will be here, with profits to the Empire Arts Center.

PRESENTATION OF 2002 ENGINEERING EXCELLENCE AWARD

Mike Murie, ND Council of Engineering Companies Awards Committee presented the American Council of Engineering Companies National Recognition Award to Al Grasser and Adam Jonasson from the city engineering department and to Charlie Vein and Roger Grimsley from Advanced Engineering, for the Grand Forks City-wide Geographic Information System project.

APPROVE APPLICATION FOR MOVING PERMIT TO
MOVE A HOUSE FROM 1402 SOUTH 17TH STREET
TO 721 CHERRY STREET

The deputy city auditor reported that the notice of public hearing on the application by Ricky Johnson to move a dwelling from 1402 South 17th Street to 721 Cherry Street had been continued until this evening.

President Gershman opened the public hearing.

Several individuals opposed the moving of the house to 721 Cherry Street:
Susan Askjeim, 716 Cherry Street
Francis Adams, 718 Cherry Street

Paul Johnson, Mayville, ND, representing Ricky Johnson, stated that Ricky Johnson owns the lot and plans have been submitted and presented a copy to the council for viewing, showing that the house would have a front porch and entry to be similar to houses in the block, that there no longer was driveway in the front, access from the alley, and that Ricky Johnson plans to live in the house.

Mel Carsen, city assessor, reported that the Mayor asked him to review any information that the owner might furnish, but nothing furnished as to what the impact might be on the values, that he looked at the neighborhood and their assessed values range from $36,400 to about $73,400, and most buildings are one and three-quarter story houses or two story houses built between 1898 and 1928, that this house is considerably newer and is a one-story house compared to two-story houses. The value of this house when completed would very likely be more than most of the houses in the neighborhood or that block; and would be hard pressed to say that it would negatively impact the value of the current homes and doesn't find that source of evidence in the marketplace; architecturally it might not fit real well but doesn't think that negatively affects the value; there's perception of some property owners that it would be a big negative influence but doesn't see that in the marketplace. Mr. Carsen viewed the drawing submitted by Mr. Johnson; and that the addition to the front of the house rather that at the side, and elevation of the house making it a bi-level house, gaining more area; and lifting the house up and making it a bi-level, which they are planning, would enhance the value, and his opinion is that it wouldn't have any positive or negative affect on the neighborhood.

President Gershman closed the public hearing.

The staff report from the Inspections Department, relating to the application to move the house from 1402 South 17th Street to 7921 Cherry Street, with recommendation for approval of the moving permit be approved.

It was moved by Council Member Kerian and seconded by Council Member Glassheim that this recommendation be approved, and that Mr. Johnson be authorized to move the building. Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 7 votes affirmative.

TABLE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE RELATING
TO THE ESTABLISHING OF REGULATIONS GOVERNING
THE USE OF A-FRAME SIGNS AND SCHEDULE SPECIAL
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL

An ordinance entitled "An ordinance enacting Sections XX-XXXX relating to signs in the central business district", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on May 20, 2002 and upon which public hearing had been continued, was presented and read for consideration on second reading.

President Gershman opened the public hearing.

Council Member Christensen stated he had some editing of the ordinance and that if they are going to have consistency they have the Downtown Design Review Board - sometimes say City and sometimes Downtown Design Review Board and should be consistent; that on page 2 paragraph 4, where talking about holder thereof and statue says "permittee" and should use "permittee" throughout; and ordinance lists "..within 10 days of the day of mailing.." and how do you know they get the mailing and should be "..within 10 days of receipt of the mailing.." if do by certified mail. Mr. Swanson stated that unless it is specifically provided the appeal goes to the council, otherwise to the administrative coordinator, then to the council. Council Member Christensen stated that if there were a denial of the permit, would like to have direct appeal to the council.

President Gershman stated he had comments under Definition on page 1, where it says "..the business or service shall advertise only those goods and services sold or offered by the permittee.." and would like to offer an amendment to that which would be "..or to promote non-profit activities.." because this could help the community.

Dennis Potter, city planner, offered several amendments to the ordinance - that with the 2 ft. and 6 ft. setbacks for clear unobstructed walk, they reviewed and the width of sidewalks on DeMers are narrower than the scale on air photos and would like to do a global change where they would take all references to a 2 ft. clearance from the curb to 1 ft. and change all references to a 6 ft. unobstructed sidewalk area to a 4 ft.; that he has discussed that with the city attorney and that will allow them to work on DeMers, and made the request.

Mr. Swanson had two minor comments on section re. confiscation of signs and would propose that they would amend it to removal of signs and change word confiscated to removed, as confiscation would indicate not only removing it from the premises but taking title to it and the City is not interested in the latter and if there is a problem which is a safety issue, it may be removed from the premises but not confiscated from the owner. The other comment was re. the section with compliance with ADA requirements and doesn't believe that is necessary and no need to incorporate it the ordinances, and asked that they make those amendments to the section on confiscation and remove the ADA requirements.

Council Member Christensen also noted the section stated signs located in a position approved by the City, should be by the Downtown Design Review Board, and if there is a violation, there will be a letter going out stating they are in violation and if not corrected, there will be a citation issued and it becomes a matter of Code violation.

Mr. Potter stated they were trying to keep pedestrians as far from the curb line and also providing a fairly large walkway, for pedestrians and also for wheelchair access, and on DeMers Avenue sidewalks had 7 feet and left 4 feet from there to the edge of the building, and require a 1 ft. minimum setback off the curb line and a 4 ft. clear unobstructed walkway - signs are a max. of 32" in width, and if putting sign at curb line have to put 1 ft. away from the curb line. It was noted that the ordinance states that a sign must be placed on the sidewalk immediately adjacent to the building and business to which the sign relates.

President Gershman closed the public hearing.

It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Glassheim to amend the ordinance as noted in the comments.

Council Member Kreun stated Planning and Zoning had discussed and passed motion that anybody who applied for a permit would receive a full year plus the balance of this summer for their fee, and that would be done administratively.

Upon call for the question on the amendments, and upon voice vote, the motion carried 7 votes affirmative.

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Christensen to table second reading of the ordinance and call for a special meeting of the city council on Monday, July 22, and to limit the agenda to the ordinances relating to the A-frame signs and establishing regulations governing outdoor seating in the central business district. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

TABLE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE RELATING
TO THE ESTABLISHING OF REGULATIONS GOVERNING
OUTDOOR SEATING IN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
AND SCHEDULE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL

An ordinance entitled "An ordinance enacting Section X-XXX relating to outdoor seating in the central business district", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on May 20, 2002, and upon which public hearing had been continued until this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading.

President Gershman opened the public hearing; there were no comments from the public and the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Potter stated he had the same situation with regard to the 2 ft. clearance to 1 ft. at the curb and change all references to 2 ft. clearance from the curb to 1 ft. and change all references to a 6 ft. unobstructed walkway to 4 ft. and also under Standards for Temporary Encroachment (2) to read "The outermost (street side) edge of the clear straight pathway shall be at least one foot from the edge of the adjacent curb and shall be a straight line parallel to the curb." and balance of the paragraph, after consultation with the city attorney, is not necessary.

Council Member Christensen asked that they look at the ordinance and where the word "owner thereof or holder thereof" change that to permittee so are consistent. He also noted that under the section "Permit Issuance and Conditions", it states the City and should be the Downtown Design Review Board and if not included should have direct appeal to the city council; and in subsection (9) Permittee acknowledges that seating and tables are not for the exclusive use of permittee's customers, but may be used by the general public, and there was a suggestion to remove "..but may be used by the general public." Mr. Swanson stated he has no concerns with removing subsection (9) entirely; that a business could maintain those tables or attributes only for their patrons. Council Member Christensen stated under section on Enforcement Procedures, and after the words "..shall issue a notice of violation to the.." and should be to the "permittee." and hope to have the same language dealing with by certified mail or personal service so that the individual's time starts running when they receive notice i.e., by mail. Mr. Potter agreed to re-image the prior ordinance; and remove ADA references.

There was some discussion relative to the issuance fee for a permit of $100.00, and renewal fee of $100.00. Council Member Kreun stated that was discussed during Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and potential applicants at the meeting felt that was a fair amount for the fee and for renewal.

Council Member Glassheim stated that the subsection relating to allowing general public to use the tables and understands why business owner would want control over who sits at his tables, but concern about eroding public space and giving it to somebody else who is not paying for a building expanded by 6 ft. but is expanding into public space which the general public cannot use, and if amend it would like it to be done in a formal motion so he can vote no. Council Member Kerian stated that we would have some expectations that these areas would be maintained in the proper manner and if not an ability to control it in some way, that may be hard for the property owner; that there are other places to sit, benches provided and other areas that people can use.

Council Member Christensen moved an amendment to the ordinance under section re. Permit Issuance and Conditions, to delete subsection (9) Permittee acknowledges that seating and tables are not for the exclusive use of permittee's customers, by may be used by the general public. The motion was seconded by Council Member Kerian. Carried 6 votes affirmative, Council Member Glassheim voted no.

It was moved by Council Member Christensen and seconded by Council Member Hamerlik to amend the ordinance as discussed and that it be presented in written form to the council members by Friday of this week, and to table second reading of the ordinance and call for a special meeting of the city council on Monday, July 22, limiting the agenda to the ordinances relating to this ordinance and to the ordinance re. A-frame signs.

Council Member Hamerlik moved an amendment to the ordinance to delete any statement relative to $100.00 and to change that amount to $50.00 annual fee. The motion died for lack of a second.

Mr. Swanson asked for friendly amendment to the ordinance to include under the category Permit Issuance and Conditions, subsection (11) to identify that to read as follows: "Any other condition of approval which the City deems necessary or appropriate for the specific site and the safety of pedestrians, patrons and the general public."; and the other comment would appear under section Authorized Remedies and Penalties for Violations, what is now labeled (2) and (3) can be deleted. The mover and second agreed to the friendly amendment.

Upon voice vote, the motion carried 7 votes affirmative.

DEFEAT ORDINANCE TO AMEND ZONING MAP TO
REZONE AND EXCLUDE FROM R-4 (MULTIPLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE, HIGH DENSITY) DISTRICT AND INCLUDE
WITHIN B-3 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT LOTS 17,
19, 21 AND 23, BLOCK 23, VILLARD'S ADDITION
The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to the request from Douglas A. Bergman for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the Zoning Map to rezone from R-4 (Multiple-Family Residence High Density) District to B-3 (General Business) District, Lots 17, 19, 21 and 23, Block 23, Villards Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota (located at 12th Avenue South and South 15th Street), with recommendation for denial of the ordinance. The ordinance had been considered and denied by the city council on June 17, 2002 and reconsidered by the city council on June 25, 2002 for presentation to the city council for consideration of the request from Mr. Bergman this evening.

Mayor Gershman called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter.

Doug Bergman, 1923 South 19th Street, owner of the property at 1423 12th Avenue South, stated that they had meetings prior to this for public input and Planning and Zoning rejected the rezoning and out of the 55 notices that went out only 13 that were opposed to the rezoning, that concerns presented re. amount of noise, height of the building and that can be answered as the height of the building is that under current zoning, could build an office building there and height of it would not matter, the amount of noise would be very minimal as doors would be closed, not a high traffic area or business. He named several of the other businesses in the area (Hastings Heating, Busy Bubbles, Cash Trucking) and only requesting to move the zoning over 100 ft. It was noted that the building formerly used by Northern Property Mgmt would be torn down and become parking, and 30x40' metal building that was used as storage would remain as storage, and on southwest corner of the lot construct a new building; and requested rezoning of the property to B-3.

Several individuals opposed the rezoning of the property stating concerns re. devaluation of the property, amount of noise, size of the building and that this type of business inappropriate in their neighborhood:
John Hughes, 1503 11th Avenue South
Ron Kaiser, 1125 South 15th Street
Tom Hagness, 1423 11th Avenue South and that he received letter form Leila Olson opposing rezoning.
Charles Young, 1514 13th Avenue South

Mark Daucsavage, 1423 13th Avenue South, stated he had no opposition to the rezoning of the property.

President Gershman closed the public hearing.

It was moved by Council Member Kerian and seconded by Council Member Christensen for denial of the ordinance. After some discussion and upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 6 votes affirmative; Council Member Hamerlik voted against the motion.

DETERMINE INSUFFICIENCY OF PROTEST ON PAVING
DISTRICT NO. 586, PROJECT NO. 5366

The deputy city auditor reported that the period for filing protests on the resolution of necessity for the improvement in and for Paving District No. 586, Project No. 5366, paving South 25th Street from 45th Avenue South to 44th Avenue South and 44th Avenue South from South 25th to South 20th Streets, had expired on July 11, 2002, and that no written protests had been received.

President Gershman called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none.

Council Member Kerian introduced the following resolution as to protests, which was presented and read: Document No. 8195 - Resolution.

It was moved by Council Member Kerian and seconded by Council Member Glassheim that we find and determine an insufficiency of protest against Paving District No. 586, Project No. 5366, as no protests were filed, and further that the resolution be and is hereby adopted. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

RECEIVE TABLUATION OF BIDS, ESTIMATE OF TOTAL
COST AND AWARD CONTRACT, PAVING PROJECT NO.
5366, DISTRICT NO. 586

The deputy city auditor presented and read tabulation of bids which had been received and opened on July 1, 2002 for Paving Project No. 5366, District No. 586, paving South 25th Street from 45th Avenue South to 44th Avenue South and on 44th Avenue South from South 25th Street to South 20th Street, indicating that Aggregate Industries North Central Region, Inc. was the low bidder based upon their bid in the amount of $203,972.80: Document No. 8196 - Tabulation of Bids.

The city engineer's estimate of total cost on Project No. 5366, Paving District no. 586, in the amount of $259,000.00, was presented and read.

The staff report from the engineering department relating to bids for City Project No. 5366, District No. 586, paving South 25th Street from 45th Avenue South to 44th Avenue South and 44th Avenue South from South 25th to South 20th Streets, with recommendation to award contract to Aggregate Industries in the amount of $203,972.80.

It was moved by Council Member Kerian and seconded by Council Member Glassheim that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Council Member Kerian introduced the following resolution, which was presented and read: Document No. 8197 - Resolution.

It was moved by Council Member Kerian and seconded by Council Member Glassheim that this resolution awarding the contract for Paving Project No. 5366, District No. 586, to Aggregate Industries North Central Region, Inc. be adopted. Upon roll call the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun, Gershman - 7; voting "nay": none. President Gershman declared the resolution adopted and the contract awarded.

APPROVE FINAL PLAT; AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3930,
AMENDING STREET AND HIGHWAY PLAN TO INCLUDE
PUBLIC R/W SHOWN AS DEDICATED ON THE PLAT OF
BERG'S FIRST ADDITION

An ordinance entitled "An ordinance to amend the Street and Highway Plan of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, to include the public rights of way shown as dedicated on the plat of Berg's First Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on July 1, 2002, and upon which public hearing had been scheduled for this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.

The deputy city auditor reported that the required legal notice had been published calling for a public hearing to be held on this matter this evening and further that to date no protests or grievances had been filed with her office.

President Gershman called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none and the public hearing was closed.

The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to the request from CPS, LTD. on behalf of Keith Berg (personal representative for Emil Jacobson Estate) and Keith Berg on behalf of himself for final approval of Berg's First Addition, Grand Forks County, North Dakota (located in the 7100 block of 32nd Avenue South), with recommendation for final approval of the plat of Berg's First Addition, subject to the conditions shown or attached to the review copy and including an ordinance amending the Street and Highway Plan.

It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this recommendation be approved. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Upon call for the question of adoption of this ordinance and upon roll call vote, the following voted "aye": Council Members, Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun, Gershman - 7; voting "nay": none. President Gershman declared the ordinance adopted.

TABLE FINAL APPROVAL OF PLAT, AND TABLE PUBLIC
HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE TO
AMEND STREET AND HIGHWAY PLAN TO INCLUDE
PUBLIC R/W SHOWN AS DEDICATED ON THE PLAT OF
BERG'S SECOND ADDITION

An ordinance entitled "An ordinance to amend the Street and Highway Plan of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, to include the public rights of way shown as dedicated on the plat of Berg's Second Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on July 1, 2002 and upon which public hearing had been scheduled for this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading.

The deputy city auditor reported that the required legal notice had been published calling for a public hearing to be held on this matter this evening and further that to date no protests or grievances had been filed with her office.

President Gershman called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. Mr. Potter, city planner, asked that the city council table this matter until the August 19 city council meeting as the petitioners have asked for a hold on this matter while they continue to review their options as to how they want to deal with subdividing the land that is part of Berg's Second.

It was moved by Council Member Glassheim and seconded by Council Member Kerian to table the public hearing and second reading of the ordinance until August 19, 2002. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

TABLE PUBLIC HEARING OF PETITION TO VACATE
A 10-FT. WIDE EAST-WEST UTILITY EASEMENT LYING
SOUTH OF AND ADJOINING THE NORTH LINE OF BLOCK
1, PERKINGS THIRD ADDITION AND BLOCK 1, PERKINS
FOURTH ADDITION, EXCLUDING CERTAIN PORTIONS
UNTIL AUGUST 19, 2002

The deputy city auditor reported that pursuant to instructions by the city council after having received a petition to vacate the 10-foot wide east-west utility easement lying south of and adjoining the north line of Block 1, Perkins Third Addition and Block 1, Perkins Fourth Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, excluding the easterly 10 feet of said Perkins Third Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, excluding the easterly 10 feet of said Perkins Third Addition and the westerly 10 feet of said Perkins Fourth Addition (located north of 36th Avenue South between South 31st Street and South 34th Street), the required legal notice had been published calling for a public hearing to be held this evening, and further that no protests or grievances had been filed with the auditor's office.

President Gershman called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. Mr. Potter, city planner, asked that the city council table this matter until the August 19 city council meeting as all of the adjacent landowners have not yet signed the vacation document request.

It was moved by Council Member Glassheim and seconded by Council Member Kreun to table the public hearing and consideration on the petition for vacation until August 19, 2002. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3931, RELATING TO NON-
CONFORMING USES

An ordinance entitled "An ordinance enacting Section 18-0411 of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987 relating to non-conforming uses", which had been introduced and passed on first reading on June 17, 2002, and upon which public hearing had been scheduled for this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.

The deputy city auditor reported that the required legal notice had been published calling for a public hearing to be held on this matter this evening and further that to date no protests or grievances had been filed with her office.

President Gershman called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter.

Mr. Swanson, city attorney, reported this is a draft of ordinance which had been prepared at their suggestion and after consulting with both the Army Corps of Engineers and other cities that have been involved in major acquisitions, there are certain properties where you may only acquire a portion of the property, and as a result of acquiring only a portion of the property you sometimes leave the remnant which no longer will meet your zoning code for setbacks, etc. and in order to maintain financing availability for that lot and a market for that property owner to subsequently sell, they are recommending that you adopt the ordinance as presented to you that would allow an exception for those present property owners to continue to be considered to be in compliance with the zoning codes as long as they are within 75% of the mean of the requirement; this is a benefit to the property owner, without it they do not qualify for many financing packages, either through federally funded agencies or through private funded agencies, it places that property owner in a severe predicament. He stated they have a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission in which they are suggesting two changes: 1) that we record documents, to note on any property, abstract or title, clarifying property's conforming status, and that he would speak against that for several reasons - you have no control over what the abstractor does or does not put into an abstract, and you do not presently record any document saying that the lot is or is not in conformance because those zoning code's requirements can change based upon replatting of property lots, if dealing with high water lines, and with water lines there are a number of things that can change that, and seems to be inconsistent to try to peg out certain non-conforming status and record it. The second proposal from the Planning and Zoning Commission stems from an acquisition that has already been completed by the City, they are attempting to propose a restriction that would prevent the City from selling any excess property that the City might have acquired. He noted that there are some residential lots in which the City does not need the entire lot, only a portion of the rear yard, however, because the taking is so severe to the impact of the homeowner, the homeowner is asking whether the City would consider acquiring the entire parcel and the City could then construct the dike and put the remaining remnant up for sale, any potential purchaser would then be able to visualize the impact of that dike would have upon the home. If this proposal (b) were included you either would not be able to acquire the whole lot and relieve the property owner from that concern or if you did acquire it, you could not subsequently sell that lot which would be a potentially a marketable and usable lot. He stated he wasn't aware other than that particular instance he has identified and there perhaps is some excess property that might be available in the downtown area, but aware if we have any particular areas where there is a possibility of property for sale, and would suggest that even including such requirement may in fact be unconstitutional because you are treating yourself, if you were to adopt it, differently than any other similarly situated property owner. He stated he sees little logic including either amendment and the request from his office would be to amend the Code by including the ordinance as presented; and that ordinance is substantially the same ordinance that has been adopted by the City of Fargo and other cities, including Rochester, etc., essentially those communities that have had projects and found a need to adopt an ordinance and his recommendation is to approve the ordinance as originally presented.

It was moved by Council Member Kerian and seconded by Council Member Christensen that the ordinance be adopted as originally presented.

Council Member Kreun stated in part (a) of the proposed amendment to the ordinance from Planning and Zoning Commission was so that a new owner would know that this lot would be conforming and they wouldn't have to go through the process of trying to find out if that was a conforming lot or now; and how would notification be made to a potential buyer. Mr. Swanson noted that if the City were the seller, we would be providing that type of information in closing documents or in sale documents; that if the City was not the seller but sold by a private owner to a private purchaser, that information will come very clear in the course of a title search provided that there is financing involved; virtually every transaction now requires some type of plat map to be presented along with the title work and that is where it is demonstrated.

President Gershman closed the public hearing.

Upon call for the question on adoption of the ordinance and upon roll call vote, the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun, Gershman - 7; voting "nay": none. President Gershman declared the ordinance adopted.

ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3932, ANNEXING ALL OF
LOT C, BLOCK 1, ADAMS-DOBMEIER 3RD RESUBDIVISION
TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS

An ordinance entitled "An ordinance to annex to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, all of Lot C, Block 1, Adams-Dobmeier 3rd Resubdivision", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on July 1, 2002, was presented and read for consideration on second reading.

The deputy city auditor reported that the notice to the public that this petition for annexation had been filed with the city council had been published as required.

President Gershman called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none.

Upon call for the question of adoption of this ordinance and upon roll call vote, the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun, Gershman - 7; voting "nay": none. President Gershman declared the ordinance adopted.

TABLE ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE STREET AND
HIGHWAY PLAN AS A PART OF THE MASTER PLAN
TO INCLUDE AND EXCLUDE RIGHT OF WAY RESERVATIONS
LYING WITHIN A PORTION OF SECTION 35, T151N, R50W
OF THE 5TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN

An ordinance entitled "An ordinance to amend the Street and Highway Plan as a part of the Master Plan of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, to include and exclude right of way reservations lying within a portion of Section 35, Township 151 North Range 50 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, more specifically described herein", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on June 3, 2002, and upon which public hearing had been scheduled for this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading. (location of the property is south of 62nd Avenue SE and west of L & S 3rd Resubdivision, a.k.a. Burke's Addition)

The deputy city auditor reported that the required legal notice had been published calling for a public hearing to be held on this matter this evening and further that to date no protests or grievances had been filed with her office.

President Gershman called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none.

Mr. Potter, city planner, asked that they table this matter to their meeting on August 19, 2002. It was moved by Council Member Glassheim and seconded by Council Member Kreun to table the public hearing and second reading of the ordinance to August 19, 2002. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3933, RELATING TO THE
PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF COUNCIL

An ordinance entitled "An ordinance amending Section 2-0103 of the Grand Forks City Code relating to president and vice president of council", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on July 1, 2002, was presented and read for consideration on second reading.

It was moved by Council Member Kerian and seconded by Council Member Kreun to approve the ordinance. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Upon call for the question of adoption of the ordinance and upon roll call vote, the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun, Gershman - 7; voting "nay": none. President Gershman declared the ordinance adopted.

TABLE ORDINANCE RELATING TO OFF-STREET
PARKING AND LOADING

An ordinance entitled "An ordinance amending Section 18-0302(5) Article 7 of the Grand Forks City Code relating to off-street parking and loading", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on May 6, 2002, and tabled pending further report from the Building Inspections Department.

The staff report from the Planning Department relating to matter of the request from the Inspections Division, city engineering department, to amend Section 18-0302(5) of the Land Development Code relating to off-street parking and loading, with recommendation to table the ordinance until the city attorney has completed his review of the ordinance.

Mr. Potter, city planner, asked the city council to table this item indefinitely until the city attorney completes his review of this ordinance and the companion ordinance that is related to the same basic subject.

Mr. Swanson stated he is looking for guidance from the Code Enforcement Office as to where they want to go with ordinance as well as the other ordinance dealing with junk, they did their legal review, made some proposals and comments and waiting for feedback.

Bev Collings, Code Enforcement Officer, stated is only to make it clear as to what is required, and hasn't redrafted the ordinance because she doesn't know what direction the council want to go on it, that there are a lot of citizens concern.

It was moved by Council Member Glassheim and seconded by Council Member Christensen to send this to the service/safety standby committee. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE RELATING TO MEMBERSHIP
OF GRAND FORKS GROWTH FUND COMMITTEE

Council Member Glassheim stated that this brings the Growth Fund Committee into line with the reduced size of the council, that he has an amendment to the ordinance, that the ordinance states it asks for any three members of the council to be nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the city council, that if we have standby committee of finance/urban development that those three people should automatically be on it and why divide your expertise and skill and moved an amendment after the first line of the proposed ordinance, "...three (3) members from the city council, to consist of the members of the finance/urban development committee.", with the balance to be deleted. Council Member Hamerlik seconded the motion.

Mr. Swanson stated they were eliminating the reference to the urban development committee because by Code had eliminated all formal standing committees, that they can move forward with the amendment if the council chose to do so, you have by resolution created these standby committees and even if you were to have adopted the language which you have before you on a proposed basis, you also could have adopted a simultaneous resolution directing that the mayor appoint those, and doesn't think it is out of order and leave to their discretion. He also stated that the effect of the ordinance, including the amendment from Mr. Glassheim, would be to reduce one city council member, presently 4, and reduce it to three and would also reduce members nominated by the Grand Forks Regional Economic Development Corporation, so overall membership will be reduced. It was noted there would be 5 members total on the committee.

Upon call for the question on the amendment and upon voice vote, the motion carried 7 votes affirmative.

Council Member Christensen introduced an ordinance entitled "An ordinance amending Section 24-0108 of the Grand Forks City Code relating to members of the Growth Fund Committee", which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.

APPROVE APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATE MUNICIPAL
JUDGE

The staff report from the Municipal Judge relating to appointment of alternate municipal judge, with recommendation to confirm appointment of John E. Widdel, Jr. as alternate municipal judge.

It was moved by Council Member Kerian and seconded by Council Member Kreun to approve the recommendation and confirm the appointment of John E. Widdel, Jr. as alternate municipal judge. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

APPROVE AWARD OF BIDS FOR PHASE II GREENWAY
CLEANUP PROJECT NO. 5239

The staff report from the greenway coordinator relating to bids for Phase II Greenway Cleanup Project No. 5239, with recommendation to award contract to low bidder, ICS, Inc. in the amount of $187,750.00.

It was moved by Council Member Kerian and seconded by Council Member Kreun that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Upon roll call the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun, Gershman - 7; voting "nay": none. President Gershman declared the motion carried.

APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS

The staff report from the Office of Urban Development relating to budget amendment request to move cash carryover in the amount of $997.00 to appropriate line item for eligible grant project (from unspent Human Needs funds to 2002 Human Needs Grants.

The staff report from the Office of Urban Development relating to budget amendment request to move cash carryover in the amount of $15,297.00 to Maintenance Buildings & Grounds (balance of Beautification projects and Landscape Crew project to appropriate line item for 2002 expenditures).

It was moved by Council Member Kerian and seconded by Council Member Kreun that these budget amendments be approved. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

RECEIVE TABULATION OF BIDS, ESTIMATE OF TOTAL
COST AND AWARD CONTRACT, SEWER PROJECT NO.
5374, DISTRICT NO. 413

The deputy city auditor presented and read tabulation of bids which had been received and opened on June 24, 2002 for Sewer Project No. 5374, District No. 413, storm sewer along South 20th Street from 135 feet south of 44th Avenue South to the southend drainway, indicating that United Crane & Excavation, Inc. was the low bidder based upon their bid in the amount of $203,833.40: Document No. 8198 - Bid Tabulation.

The city engineer's estimate of total cost on Sewer Project No. 5374, District No. 413, in the amount of $259,000.00. was presented and read.

The staff recommendation from the engineering department relating to bids for City Project No. 5374, Sewer District No. 413, storm sewer along South 20th Street from 135 ft. south of 44th Avenue South to the southend drainway, with recommendation to award contract to low bidder, United Crane & Excavation, Inc. in the amount of $203,833.40.

It was moved by Council Member Kerian and seconded by Council Member Kreun that this recommendation be approved. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Council Member Kerian introduced the following resolution, which was presented and read: Document No. 8199 - Resolution.

It was moved by Council Member Kerian and seconded by Council Member Kreun that this resolution awarding the contract for Sewer Project No. 5374, District No. 413, to United Crane & Excavation, Inc. be adopted. Upon roll call the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun, Gershman - 7; voting "nay": None. President Gershman declared the resolution adopted and the contract awarded.

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE RELATING TO BANNERS
AT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS IN THE CITY

The staff report from the request from the Planning Department for preliminary approval of an ordinance amending the text of the Land Development Code, Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, Section XX-XXXX, relating to banner display area(s) in the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, with recommendation for preliminary approval of the ordinance and to set a public hearing date for August 19, 2002.

It was moved by Council Member Kerian and seconded by Council Member Kreun that this recommendation be approved. Carried 7 votes affirmative.
Council Member Kreun introduced an ordinance entitled "An ordinance enacting Sections XX-XXXX relating to banners at specific locations in the city of Grand Forks", which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.

SUPPORT GRAND FORKS COUNTY COMMISSION TO
SUBMIT QUESTION TO ELECTORATE TO INITIATE
PROCESS TO INCREASE THE 911 FEE FOR HARD-LINE AND
CELL PHONES

The staff report from the director of PSAP relating to initiate the process to increase the 911 fee for hard-line and cell phones from the current $0.50 (50 cents) to a total of $1.00 (one dollar), with recommendation that the Grand Forks city council supports the Grand Forks County Commission submit the question to the electorate of the entire county of Grand Forks, including the city, for an advisory vote on the fee increase.

Council Member Christensen stated that at the last meeting Council Member Hamerlik pointed out that we're really not approving the tax, only agreeing with putting it on the ballot and let the citizens decide.

Mr. Morken stated that the recommendation would read "the Grand Forks city council supports having the citizens right to vote on the increase of the 911 fees in Grand Forks County by having the Grand Forks Board of Commissioners place it on the fall election as a measure.

It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Hamerlik to approve the recommendation as stated by Mr. Morken. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

TABLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS FOR MAYOR'S OFFICE TO
NEXT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING

The staff report from Daryl Hovland, interim Human Resources director, relating to job descriptions, mayor's office, with recommendation to approve the job descriptions for the following positions, assistant to the mayor, executive assistant, communications supervisor and communications specialist.

PRESIDENT GERSHMAN RELINQUISHED CHAIR;
VICE PRESIDENT HAMERLIK PRESIDING

Council Member Kerian stated she had several comments on this and had sent them to Mr. Duquette and others, that the questions that came out of this had to do with whether there may be overlaps between the two and confusion for departments as to policies, whose initiating and maybe lack of clarity and who really has the responsibility to carry that forward and some oversight in a few other areas, the communications areas and the assistant to the mayor have merit and requested to table to the next Committee of the Whole meeting so some of those things can be clarified . Council Member Christensen seconded the motion to table. Carried 3 votes affirmative; Council Members Glassheim and Kreun voted against the motion.

VICE PRESIDENT HAMERLIK RELINQUISHED CHAIR,
PRESIDENT GERSHMAN PRESIDING

ADOPT 2003 CDBG PROGRAM SCHEDULE, AND AUTHORIZE
FINANCE/URBAN DEVELOPMENT STANDBY COMMITTEE TO
ANALYZE AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION FOR ADDITIONAL
CDBG FUNDS

The staff report from the Office of Urban Development relating to 2003 Community Development Block Grant Program, with recommendation to 1) review 2003 CDBG schedule, 2) appoint city council representatives to serve on bricks and mortar review committee, 3) approve United Way as administrator of 2003 public service funds.

Terry Hanson, interim executive director of Office of Urban Development, reported they are recommending that United Way administer public service fund of about $187,000, 15%; and suggested that bricks and mortar applications go to the finance/urban development committee or citizens advisory committee and actually recommending that they go back for review of the public applications to the citizens advisory committee for this year, and also recommending that the allocation or consideration of other public projects go to the finance/urban development committee and they concurrently proceed with the application process and determine which projects the City has that could be funded with these dollars.

Mr. Hanson stated it was their recommendation that they follow a procedure that they brought forth a year ago, asking for 9 members on the Citizens Advisory Committee, and that each council member appoint one resident from their ward to the committee and that the two council members that are in the low and moderate income areas nominate the additional two. Council Member Christensen asked if he could give the city council several options at the next committee of the whole meeting as to how to select the citizens committee, and is more concerned with getting people involved so they get some continuity and trying to develop leaders; and that is something the Chamber of Commerce is working on with Ned Hill and here have opportunity to get the younger people involved and work with the Chamber as they are trying to find 100 leaders, and would like some suggestions before they choose the citizens committee.

Council Member Kerian asked if there were other ways in which they could use such a body. Mr. Hanson stated that the City of Grand Forks is required with CDBG program to have a 5-year comprehensive plan that is submitted to HUD and are in the third year of that 5-year plan, and that requires a lot of citizen input also and it is his recommendation that they would use the same committee along with the finance/urban development committee to work on the development of that plan and the annual action plan (the annual action plan is the application process).

It was moved by Council Member Christensen and seconded by Council Member Hamerlik to 1) adopt 2003 CDBG Program schedule; 2) approve United Way as the administrator of the 2003 public service funds; 3) appoint a citizens' advisory committee; and 4) appoint finance/urban development standby committee to serve as bricks and mortar review committee. Motion carried.

It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Kerian that the finance/urban development standby committee be directed to analyze and make recommendation for the additional CDBG funds. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

APPROVE PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
PROJECT NO. 5375, DISTRICT NO. 414, SANITARY SEWER

The staff report from the engineering department relating to creating special assessment district for Project No. 5375, District No. 414, sanitary sewer along North 42nd Street from Gateway Drive to 16th Avenue North and 16th Avenue North from 42nd Street to the terminus of 16th Avenue North Circle, 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. 5375, District No. 414.

John Warcup, 3301 Dessert Star Lane, reported he owns this property at 4404 16th Avenue North Circle (Lot 6, Block 1, Auditor's Subdivision No. 27) with his father and in 1996 built private shop and storage area for cars, there was no sanitary sewer available and on direction of city planning department and engineering department a septic system was installed with the drain field and been in operation since that time, very little traffic and minimal water usage; and in his opinion the sanitary sewer system that is proposed for this property has no benefit for their building or lot. He stated if sanitary sewer installed and special assessed to the property, he would have to remove the existing septic system and connect to the sanitary sewer system and pay connection fee to connect to the sanitary sewer system, additionally there would also be a special assessment for this project against the lot and would pay on-going sanitary sewer charges on normal monthly water bill to the City; and since he doesn't feel it has a particular benefit to their lot, requested to be excluded from the special assessment district, and if the City does decide to grant the request and exclude this property from the special assessment district, the City could possibly impose a tapping fee for the future if the property does decide to be connected to the sanitary sewer system that is proposed, and if he or subsequent property owner connected the City could recoup its costs that were not assessed; and would request that the City waive the requirement for mandatory connection contained within the City Code and waive the sanitary sewer charge from the monthly water bills. He stated that even if the City decides not to exclude the property from the assessment district and includes this property within the district, he would still request that he be granted a waiver so that the property would not have to connect to the new sanitary sewer system and would not have to pay for the sanitary sewer in that area. He stated his reason for doing this is that he has a private sewer system installed with knowledge of the City and is only 5 years old and doesn't see any reason why the septic system should be removed and a required connection to the sanitary system be placed.

Mr. Warcup stated this property is adjacent to I-29 and stated re. question re. flooding - that there was no water in that area in 1997 and doesn't think there would be an impact of any future flooding.

Mr. Grasser stated they are doing this project based on petitions they've received from a number of the property owners and that there are many of the existing businesses out there have either a holding tank or a septic tank and drain field combination; and noted that once the assessment district is created, notices will be sent to the property owners and may get more feedback from them at that time. He noted that assessment on sewer is non-protestable however, the council can choose to hear petitioners and take whatever action they deem is appropriate; and would provide a copy of the petition for sanitary sewer to the council members.

Council Member Kreun asked if in prior projects if any property owners given a grace period of x number of years to come into compliance and set precedence in another area under these same circumstances, and if we haven't can we say within the 5-year period has to meet city code so they can plan and bring that property into code. Mr. Grasser stated he wasn't aware of the City giving any grace periods in the past; Mr. Swanson stated he would note for the record that Mr. Warcup and he are partners in a law firm and disclosed an apparent conflict of interest - that he is not aware of any sanitary sewer issues but provisions allowed for the water service (homes connected to rural water) and were given a window of opportunity to change from rural water to city water and if didn't connect to city water, they continued with rural water for some period of time and that also occurred in the Oscarville Subdivision annexation which is on North 42nd. Council Member Kreun asked if done with water connections if that would set situation for sewer lines. Mr. Swanson stated whether you believe you set a precedence or not, you do have discretion, either in the creation of the district or in providing waivers or amortization periods; and would be within their discretion.

Council Member Glassheim asked if they would have the ability to change the assessment district boundaries or would the Special Assessment Commission determine if there were zero benefit. Mr. Swanson stated the council has the exclusive ability to determine the outlines of the district, Special Assessment Commission has no ability to alter the district, they could review a particular property within any district for any project to determine the extent of benefit.

Mr. Grasser stated that the city ordinance states that if you are within 300 ft,. of a sanitary sewer, you are required to tie into it, or would require a waiver to be in compliance with that part of the ordinance. He stated that there is going to be a cost to install the sanitary sewer, estimating $302,000, and the more people you exclude from participating in that cost, more heavily you load onto the remaining properties, that engineering is responding to a petition and this is perfect example of allowing development to occur before utilities come in, when development occurs property owners invest in infrastructure that may be of temporary type nature and how pay for the permanent one because pay for it twice, that it is in an area that has high ground water, in an area that is developing and as have more septic tanks and drain fields, will experience more problems with water, etc. and do have a health safety concern but is a project that needs doing.

Council Member Kerian asked if there would be any problem to go ahead and approve the engineer's report, create the special assessment district as that gets the word out to the property owners and direct them to prepare plans and specifications and would come back for approval July 22 to the Committee of the Whole and would give additional property owners an opportunity to come up and scope what the interest is looking for any special conditions. Mr. Grasser agreed with that and thinks it would be beneficial to get district created and gives mechanism to inform the people, talk to the Special Assessment Commission and this issue should be brought to them because they may make some considerations on how they assign benefits, but beneficial to gather that input for consideration and could delay it or hold, but even though not protestable, the council can adjust time period or stop the project.

Council Member Kerian stated she would make that motion to approve the engineer's report, create the special assessment district, direct engineering department to prepare plans and specifications and advertise for construction bids for Project No. 5375, District No. 414. Council Member Hamerlik seconded the motion.

Council Member Christensen stated they would be creating a proposed special assessment district, and if create the district we can't change it and that all the Special Assessment Commission can do is allocate the benefits, they can't give Mr. Warcup a waiver or tapping fee, and important that we create the proposed special assessment district, re-notice the project to the owners informing them of potential special assessment, let them know they have to connect within 300 ft., and let them come back and tell us and if want to change the lines because then we hand it off to the Special Assessment Commission and they will allocate the benefits based upon sq. footage, and more important that we call it a proposed special assessment district and people will have an opportunity to be aware.

Council Member Kreun stated that the petition came from the property owners and they are looking for a cost analysis, could create proposed special assessment district but if feel that Mr. Warcup's case may put a date certain that gives them a number of years in order to comply, and that way the other property owners would be able to accommodate what their goals are and delay these costs but would be brought forward and paid at a later time. Council Member Christensen stated we don't have a tapping fee policy in place as to how it should work; and if waived would mean that the special assessments are spread among everybody else for number of years and then reallocated; and that we have the opportunity here to change the district by doing what Mr. Glassheim said, making adjustment to the lines, but would rather have a temporary one so that they give those that might be affected an opportunity to ask council to change the line before making it permanent.

Mr. Grasser stated that one of the petitioners was Concrete Sectional Culvert and has a large land property and that 72% of the land area and not number of property owners - he stated an option for the council to consider is not to create the district but to refer the assessment district to the Special Assessment Commission for determination of benefit should the council decide to create the district as presented, would move forward and get input from the Special Assessment Commission and could move forward and notify property owners if they so desire.

Council Member Christensen stated that they create a proposed special assessment district and direct staff to notify property owners; Mr. Grasser stated they would not go through the official publications, but move forward on the individual notifications and talk to the Special Assessment Commission if that's the intent of that motion. Council Member Kerian and Hamerlik agreed to a friendly amendment to create the proposed special assessment district. Council Member Christensen stated another option would be not to run the lines down that street (adjust lengths of pipe). It was noted that costs would be considerably greater in the future and value of the property will not increase, but may diminish, and costs incurred later on will be much greater.

Council Member Glassheim stated that if made a resolution creating the district with the same boundaries if they would have the ability to change the boundaries of the district. Mr. Swanson stated that once the council establishes the boundaries, does not have the opportunity to alter.

Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 7 votes affirmative.

APPROVE BILL LISTING

Vendor Payment Listing No. 02-14, dated July 15, 2002, totaling $700,791.91, were presented and read.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Glassheim 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, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun, Gershman - 7; voting "nay": none. President Gershman declared the motion carried and the bills ordered paid.

COUNCIL MEMBER KERIAN EXCUSED

APPROVE MINUTES JULY 1, 2002

Typewritten copies of the minutes of the city council meeting held on Monday, July 1, 2002, were presented and read. It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Kreun that the minutes be approved. Carried 6 votes affirmative.

INTRODUCE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR

Mr. Duquette, administrative coordinator, introduced Charles Bunce, the new director of Human Resources, to the city council.

COUNCIL MEMBER KERIAN REPORTED BACK

MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS

1) Council Member Hamerlik congratulated Mr. Grasser about possible solutions to some of our water problems after heavy rain and hope get on the committee of the whole agenda in the future, important that we look at that; and have an individual in the audience, Matt Peterson, who just graduated from Central High School and working on his Eagles Scout, and will be leaving Grand Forks for St. Olaf's.

2) Council Member Glassheim questioned status on several items: status of Airport Committee (Council Member Brooks stated that Airport Authority leadership going through change) and will call meeting next week. Ethics Committee: let them know date, next Monday at 6:00 p.m.; and selection of membership to standby committees and asked when that would happen. President Gershman stated that would be the committee chairs and the president of the council and that will be done in the next day or so. Budget process: Mr. Duquette stated he and the city auditor have finished meetings with the departments and hoping to get preliminary set of numbers out to council early next week; and that the mayor would like to set up some smaller meetings with council members to give initial update but would suggest having a working session vs. committee of the whole only for the budget and will have information prior to that.

3) Council Member Christensen asked for status report on matter of substandard buildings and when start demolition. He stated in his neighborhood they have some issues as to Northridge Hills, appraisal process and would like status report. He presented info. re. matter of policy, that it is his understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled an 8% park ordinance, similar to ours, as possibly unconstitutional and would like a memo as to whether or not we have an ordinance that has been ruled unconstitutional by our Supreme Court and if we do, then either get rid of it or if exceptions to the Supreme Court decision vs. our continuance of that ordinance and would like that within 6 weeks.

4) Council Member Christensen stated he was concerned re. budget process and would like more than just a couple informal meetings with the mayor, but all of them to have an opportunity to participate in the process and should be doing that minimum of 3 to 5 times and if not raise taxes, then find where find other revenues to continue to provide the same level of services, and now is time to start deciding - we have a wage study committee that is reviewing our level of wages in this community and important to know what on-going revenues are going to be and continue to provide wages and benefits for the people that deliver the services.

Council Member Christensen stated that the listing of committee appointment, asked if there is a State law that requires us to have a council person on these committees, if not, then we may want to ask if we really want a council person, and would be happy to work with Mr. Brooks on that.

CONSIDER MATTER OF ATTORNEY/CLIENT CONSULTATION
ON PENDING LITIGATION AND ADJOURN INTO EXECUTIVE
SESSION

Mr. Swanson reported the motion would be to adjourn into executive session pursuant to the NDCC Chapter 44.04 for purposes of discussing pending litigation. It was so moved by Council Member Christensen and seconded by Council Member Kerian. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,

Saroj Jerath
Deputy City Auditor

Approved:
------------__________________________________________
Harold A. Gershman, President of the City Council

COUNCIL RECONVENES FOLLOWING EXECUTIVE
SESSION

The city council reconvened after the executive session with the following members present: Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 7.

RECONSIDER COUNCIL ACTION OF JULY 1, 2002,
AWARDING CONTRACT FOR GENERAL CONSTRUCTION,
PROJECTS NOS. 5317 AND 5377, UPGRADE LIFT
STATIONS 6 AND 22, AND AUTHORIZE REBIDDING OF
THE PROJECTS

Following the executive session, President Gershman stated we would now need a motion for reconsideration of the council's action on July 1, 2002.

Council Member Kreun moved that we reconsider the council's action dated July 1, 2002 (to award the contract to Smith Construction for general contract in the amount of $316,500.00, which is $61,244.00 less than the next lowest bid.) relating the portion which is challenged which is the general contracting portion. Council Member Christensen seconded the motion.

Mr. Swanson stated that for purposes of options the council could as discussed in the executive session, do nothing; could move to reconsider and then reject all bids and rebid and if you do that, you have the opportunity, if the fact warrants, for you to declare an emergency which would speed up the time frame from a normal bidding and also would have the option to identify the groups that would be allowed to bid, those being either those that submitted a bid or those that picked up plans as opposed to just any general contractor, that would a sub-decision of the second option; the third option would be to reconsider and award to the most responsive bidder which would have been ICS, Inc. He stated that the discussion to this point leaves him to conclude that what might be best given the time constraints that you have, the need for accommodating Simplot's industry needs, the need for accommodating a new wastewater treatment plant you have coming on line, the flows of the plant being down right now and the timetable of Simplot has to be down probably indicate you have a sufficient basis to declare an emergency and move forward with an expedited bidding process.

Upon call for the question to reconsider, and upon voice vote, the motion carried 7 votes affirmative.

Council Member Kreun moved to reject all bids and rebid the project, excluding electrical portion of the contract, and consider this as an emergency situation because of the timelines and send out bids only to the people that have previously bid this project. Council Member Brooks seconded the motion.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that the city attorney indicated the possibility of anybody that picked up bids, because of the nature of the concern that we had may be the reason they didn't bid, timeline, and what would be the implications if we include the other 3 or 4 bidders. Tom Hanson, WFW, reported they had 4 bids on the general contract and probably 3 other potential contractors. Mr. Swanson stated from our perspective it would certainly further eliminate or further reduce any risk you would have to a challenge, not sure as a practical matter why those 3 or 4 others didn't bid. Council Member Hamerlik stated that if there are some changes in the plans and specs. that they may bid, and would lessen the opportunity for more conflict, and would offer that as a friendly amendment - to allow any who had picked up the plans and/or submitted a bid. Council Member Christensen seconded the motion.

Council Member Brooks stated his concerns would be that contractors pick up plans and never submit bids, and if talking about making this an emergency and would be shorter time period, that we stay with the ones that actually submitted a bid because they would be able to go back and make modifications to what was submitted. and his concern would be that once they put that out and may say that not enough time, and those that submitted it are sincere about doing it.

Mr. Grasser stated that they discussed Mr. Smith's plan, and made a lot of sense when they could hit the summer shutdown and maybe doesn't make as much sense if the potential isn't as obvious if we have to catch one of the later shutdowns, but in discussions he has had with Mr. Hanson, WFW, we may on the next rebid, if do that, probably bid that as an option and actually get the lowest price because what might work better for one contractor may not work as well for the other, but if not bidding the exact same project as we did the first time, would be concerned about eliminating people who didn't bid because of the specific constraints on that job and if provide additional options, they may now wish to bid and would express some concern about limiting that to those who only bid the first go-around, and would withdraw that concern if we decided we want to rebid the exact original project.

Mr. Swanson advised that he didn't see that they have any downside to doing the bidding to those who picked up the plans, have nothing to lose, if they don't want to bid, they won't bid, and set the tight timetable so that they either have to get speed fast or have to have already done their paperwork and some other decision caused them not to submit it. He stated to only go part way still leaves you open for risk and may find yourself in the same position a month down the road, having the same type of litigation brought against you.

Council Member Kreun accepted the friendly amendment to the motion, and upon call for the question on the amendment and upon voice vote, the motion carried 7 votes affirmative.

Upon call for the question on the motion, as amended, and upon voice vote, the motion carried 7 votes affirmative.
Mr. Swanson stated he would advise counsel for ICS immediately in the morning of their action.

Council Member Glassheim asked how they were going to decide whether to bid which, engineering and the consulting firm will do that. Mr. Hanson stated they would bid both which were acceptable options and will bid both as an option and let the contract identify which one he's going to use but both would be acceptable.

Mr. Swanson stated they routinely bid options and that's the appropriate way to move forward, and in their position that's what should have occurred in the original bidding process.

Council Member Hamerlik stated he would hope that we stand ready to meet whenever at any special meeting, if there is something else that comes up and can call a regular council meeting if necessary or advisory so we get this moving, that there was a lot of press on this, and what is the procedure that as media has gone etc. and what should be done to notify. Mr. Swanson stated his recommendation is that you make that information available to the Public Information Center and if any of you are asked you certainly respond, questions will come tomorrow and respond accordingly, keep in mind that this may resolve the basis for litigation but until the litigation is dismissed it is still pending; that they could state that following executive session the council acted to reconsider the award of the bid and have passed a motion calling for an emergency rebid. Mr. Duquette stated that tomorrow they will start inquiring as to the results of what you decided tonight and that what will be providing them.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Kreun that we adjourn. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,

Saroj Jerath
Deputy City Auditor

Approved:
_____________________________________
Harold A. Gershman, President of the Council