City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Wednesday, January 2, 2002 - 7:20 p.m.

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Wednesday, January 2, 2002 at 7:20 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman (teleconference), Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 12; absent: Council Members Stevens, Glassheim - 2.

Mayor Brown announced that when addressing the committee to please come forward to use the microphone for the record, and advised that the meeting is being televised live and taped for later broadcast. He reported they will be going off the air at 9:00 p.m. but rebroadcast will be televised in its entirety.

PRESENTATION TO FINANCE DEPARTMENT

Mayor Brown announced that the City of Grand Forks has been awarded the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting by the Government Finance Officers Associa-tion of the U.S. and Canada; this award recognizes the Finance and Administrative Services Department and the Assistant Director of Finance and Administrative Services, Saroj Jerath, for the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in the area of governmental accounting and financial reporting and its attain-ment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management - this is the 15th consecutive year the City has been honored with this award. Mayor Brown congratulated John Schmisek and Saroj Jerath and all the employees of the finance and administrative services depart-ment for a job well done, and presented them with a certificate and a plaque.

PRESENTATION TO RETIRING FIREFIGHTERS

Chief O’Neill announced the retirement of two firefighters: Leonard Deleski who started in 1964 and retired at position of driver and recognized him for 37 years of service to the City of Grand Forks; and Ken Bakke who started in October, 1972 and retired as fire apparatus specialist safety officer and recognized him for 29 years of service to the City of Grand Forks. Mayor Brown pre-sented a certificate of recognition and gift to Mr. Deleski and to Mr. Bakke and thanked them for their service to the City of Grand Forks.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DISCUSSION ITEMS

It was moved by Council Member Christensen to move items 2.2, 2.3 and 3.2 of the agenda to hear those items in conjunction. The motion was seconded by Council Member Hamerlik. Carried 12 votes affirmative.

2.1 Civic Auditorium Proposal.
Daniel Eggen, President, and Marla Kalin, Vice President and Artistic Director, Starlites Center for the Arts, made a presentation of their proposal for leasing/purchase of the civic auditorium. Ms. Kalin stated for the last couple of years they have done 13 shows and do a variety of shows (mysteries, comedies, and popular musicals), and that Starlites is a federal and state non-profit corporation and dedicated to providing quality entertainment, and want to contribute to but not compete with the stability of the arts and theatre community and the Grand Forks and East Grand Forks downtown infrastructure as a whole. She stated their focus is on tourism, and targeting state-wide and Canadian tourism. Mr. Eggen reviewed figures re. tourism they have come up with, and Starlites has focused on in Cavalier over the last few years, the development of
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/01-02-02/Page 2

tourism - that there are an average of 68 tour buses per day that enter through U.S. Customs at Pembina, slightly under 25000 buses/per year coming from the Winnipeg and Canada area through Grand Forks and it is their job to stop as many of those people as possible and to share with other businesses and other theatre communities. He stated to meet the numbers they are talking about in this presentation, they will need to hit 4% of those buses; that Starlites has worked over last couple years with ND Tourism Department, Bismarck, with the Convention and Visitors Bureau, and would start working with downtown leadership group, First Night has been great, and a lot of things to be developed in the downtown area and want to keep going and expand on that.

Ms. Kalin stated they intend to partner with other local companies to promote awareness of the goods and services that are available in the area, much to stop and see; and want to arrange additional activities for the tour groups - to send downtown, to the mall, to keep them in town as long as possible, and intend to promote stability to other theatre organizations and contribute to the growth of the downtown areas. She reviewed benefit from this - they will increase business to the downtown, mall and local business areas, this will enhance sales tax and other revenues and start seeing influx of new money into the community, and creation of new jobs. She stated that Starlites wants to create a professional dinner theatre and use tourism as the primary customer draw, completely professional, pay actors and actresses, and realize their strength is in theatre and find someone who has special flair for food and partner with them to create a fantastic dinner theatre experience and dinner will be to an independent caterer, restaurant through a bidding process. She stated that where there are groups who want to rent a theatre, or tour shows or perform, will insure that they are referred to the appropriate places, such as the Alerus, the Fritz, Empire because it’s their intention not to compete. She stated they will be using both levels of the building and every area of it - main level will be theatrical public area, gift shop and concessions, etc. and lower level will be used for dressing rooms, customs, set building, rehearsals, etc.

Mr. Eggen stated over past couple years have done full-time production (one year 6 shows, one year 7 shows) and have some hard numbers based on numbers of actual building expenses vs. their royalties, salaries, etc.; that based on seating capacity of 500, numbers of income are based on a $25/per person income to the theatre of which the cost of the catering is not part of this discussion, that would be additional thing in the ticket price that is not involved in the building expense. He stated they have developed through expense coverage - that their budget is going to be $617,000 for this year and have looked at how pay for that - based on 6 productions each year and each production lasting 4 weeks at 7 shows per week for total of 28 shows per production.

He stated in their lease proposal they have talked about their payment being 50% of their gross ticket sales, approx. $216,000 for the City, or approx. $18,000/month. He stated their plan is to lease the building for a year with the option to purchase later or renew the lease, standard triple net lease to occupy as soon as possible in order to get this season going, and would like their first show to start in April of this year, Starlites to pay all the building expenses and option to purchase the building after a year or release it - that if the City is showing building to other people they would retain the right of first refusal, one of their concerns is that they don’t want to get into a venture like this and then relocate in a year. The single payment would be made on or before January 31 of each year, 50% of the gross profit which in the 50% fill rate is again $216,000+ and to purchase the building later at $1.5 million under the same arrangements. He stated there’s a great opportunity not only for them to grow and expand as a non-profit but for the City of Grand Forks to bring in a lot of new money and develop a lot of great partnerships with businesses downtown, and a lot they can contribute.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/01-02-02/Page 3

Council Member Martinson stated that they had talked about the repairs that are needed to the roof on the building, also a mechanical system, and asked if Starlites would take care of these items; Mr. Eggen stated they would.

Council Member Bjerke asked if they would be paying property taxes on that building, even if exempt from them. Mr. Eggen stated that if the non-profit is exempt from them that he would imagine they wouldn’t, but not sure. Mr. Swanson stated if they are a non-profit utilizing the property for non-profit activities, they would be exempt from real property taxes. Council Member Bjerke asked if they chose to make a condition of the lease or fee that there was a possibility that the City could recoup through fees - Mr. Swanson stated they could negotiate whatever level of rent to reflect payments in lieu of taxes or how would want to do that. Council Member Bjerke stated they would make use of the tables, chairs, etc. and if purchase, would want to buy those with the building; and if this would include the parking lots. Mr. Eggen stated they would and would be part of the $1.5 million (building, equipment and parking lots to the west and north.

Council Member Burke asked if they want to occupy this month but wouldn’t make a lease payment until next year; Mr. Eggen stated they want to occupy as soon as possible and first payment would be in January of next year and that would be in the interest of start-up. Council Member Burke asked if they would be willing to defer first payment until after the first quarter when generating revenue; Mr. Eggen stated they would. Council Member Burke stated with regard to right of first refusal if the City were to continue showing the building and looking for a purchaser and asked if they would be willing to make part of the agreement that if the building was to be sold to a for-profit operation, that they would convert their operation to for-profit and become a tax paying entity; Mr. Eggen stated he didn’t think that was part of their mandate to do that and if interferes with some of their other grant writing opportunities to expand, and would still continue to be a non-profit. Council Member Burke asked if they couldn’t create a corporation that owned the property and leased it to the non-profit and for-profit could continue to pay; Mr. Eggen stated perhaps they could but haven’t discussed that. Council Member Burke stated he was interested in seeing that being a property tax paying parcel; and Mr. Eggen stated he had no problem with that as a non-profit structuring some fees as they have discussed in that and should talk about that over the next few days. Mayor Brown stated that the property taxes on that building are supposed to be between $35-40,000 year, which would be dwarfed by the income of people shopping in our cities.

Council Member Gershman stated he has concern with relying on 50% of gross profit and would rather and better for the City if we had a monthly payment and would be more predictable for them and not base it on projected income, that is a bit risky for the City and would like that addressed; and that there is a triple net lease and that they would pay the utilities and maintenance over and above the proposal of $216,000 in rent. Mr. Eggen stated that was correct. He also noted that their main concern is start-up costs. Council Member Gershman stated they should fix the rent so the City does not bear the risk of snowstorms, etc. but have a steady stream of income. Mr. Eggen stated he would have no problem with that.

Council Member Brooks asked about special assessments; Mr. Swanson stated a non-profit is not exempt from the imposition of special assessments. Council Member Christensen stated a non-profit can pay property taxes, it is exempt but a condition of the lease could be that pay property taxes based upon the assessed value and on $1.5 sale, and would be $36,000 and that’s a non-issue. he suggested that they have raised several points and should appoint a task force to look at this along with Mr. Duquette and move it on and if can’t get it back on Monday’s agenda, then the
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/01-02-02/Page 4

following agenda, and would make that a recommendation and not have it on the agenda next Monday night but try to get it either to the Committee of the Whole two weeks from now to meet concerns of council members. Mayor Brown stated it was his intent to have Mr. Duquette, Mr. Schmisek, Mr. Swanson and two council members work with them on developing a contract or a lease after the council decides which way it wants to go. Mr. Duquette stated they could put together some details on a lease, review more specifics on business plan and answer some of these questions and do some of the financial background work that needs to be done as well.

Council Member Kerian asked how they believe they will fit with the current arts community to enhance that or divide the pie further. Mr. Eggen stated their group is very conflictive interest minded, not their intent to put anyone else out of business, that they have no intention of leasing or renting allowing their business to be used for something that can be done in another facility - that with their payment structure for leasing/renting as a non-profit they distribute the rest of their yearly profit to other entities - to take the remaining percentage of that profit and distribute it to other theatre organizations (Firehall, Empire) to bring everyone in the theatrical community here to an even starting ground and allow them to grow from there.

Mr. Eggen stated they have discussed bringing these buses to their place but putting ticket packages together that would sell their theatre and Firehall and Empire and the Fritz as a monthly or season pass to get these people to experience other organizations as well, and this gets other food establishments working since the buses come through in the morning, stop here to eat, go on to the casino and come back for show and dinner and then shop - even though shop stay here most of the day. Council Member Bakken stated concern that if some way that after the first year, where make payments upfront. Mr. Eggen stated he thought they could structure something like that.

Council Member Martinson stated that Starlites has some accounts payable in the city of Cavalier to different suppliers; Mr. Eggen stated they do have a number of private investors who are helping them start this up, and primary concern is making sure that all of that is cleared up.

Mr. Duquette stated he thought they could put lease together with Mr. Swanson’s and Mr. Schmisek’s assistance by next Monday, but wants to sit down and make sure that they get all the details very clear about lease arrangements, details clear about the business plan, and when money comes in it is very clear for the council and do necessary financial background work on the circumstance, and can bring that to the council to help with decision making. Mr. Swanson stated he has not been involved at this point, a lease of this nature is going to be a fairly comprehensive lease, that he will be drafting it in manner to protect the City and not sure if Starlites has legal counsel that is going to be capable of reviewing the lease on very quick order, because given his schedule between now and Monday, it may not get to their legal counsel until Monday morning; that a lease of this nature given dollar amounts you are talking about usually takes attorneys time to go through and look at language including indemnification and insurance provisions which have not been discussed. Council Member Christensen stated they have the sense of the council that we are favoring this project, that they can talk to their investors and Mr. Duquette will get the details, all points are good points, and Mr. Swanson can begin drafting the bullet points of what is going to be in the lease, and won’t happen by Monday.

Council Member Burke stated that perhaps they can work up some kind of letter or memorandum of understanding that outlines the points that they’ve discussed tonight and other points that you want to make sure that are understood so there’s no confusion and can take longer time to draw up the lease agreement, but having a letter of memorandum of understand it gives you the ability to go
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/01-02-02/Page 5

forward with your investors and some confidence about the ability to use that building while waiting on the final document. He stated that in addition to the dinner theatre, some other uses, workshops or using space in the building for lessons, etc. whether conduct with your own staff or lease space in the building for other people to use it, and if they have any other revenue generating thoughts about that building. Mr. Eggen stated its always been their platform in Cavalier to do music lessons and instruction in various different things, but being aware of conflictive interest, it would always be an intention to do things like music and piano lessons in the building pending conflictive interest - know that Scott’s Music are downtown and not in their interest to compete with them. He stated if they find there is a need that is not being met and appropriate to do so, they would look at doing it. He stated they do have the intention of letting the people of the SPA organization use the rehearsal space for their purposes without charge, and they would make the determination on the conflict; and those are things that can be worked into the lease. Council Member Bjerke stated his concern is to sell the building and up to them to manage the building.

Mayor Brown appointed Council Member Martinson and Council Member Christensen to serve on task force to assist with this, with Council Member Gershman as an alternate.

Council Member Hamerlik stated as this committee goes forward there should be be some negotiations that need to be discussed - the $1.5 million that we want to arrive at ($3 million facility), and if the building is sold and then resold for more within a certain period of time, that there be some provision re. that.

Mr. Eggen stated that a workable lease down the road in line with letter of agreement as discussed is a great idea, that he needs to stress the timeframe of this because typically in their development, they realize that the typical bus tours generally book their tours for a year at a time beginning in September and this is why they had pushed over the past few months to do this, bus bookings pushed back into the second week of January because of September 11 event and holding a lot of them back in order to do this and a letter of agreement helps them push that forward and helps retain those buses for this year.

3.2 Report on updated flood control project costs and financing.
The city auditor reported that when the cost change came in on the flood control project Council Member Christensen had asked for some idea of the sources and the uses that they are now at; and put together report that they have methods and ways within their current financing to fund the difference that they have come up with in this project - that he sent out two worksheets one from March, 2000 and one from last week with the differences in the project - and concentrate on worksheet for December 27 of 2001 with the new price tag of $410 million - and these numbers will change and will continually flow with it - and to let council know where we’re presently at. He stated this was done in the total amount because don’t have an idea what they may do on other issues you are going to discuss tonight and wanted to do with the worst case scenario with the total increase in there. He stated they take that $410 million with the State share, the federal share, East Grand Forks’ share and come down to an estimated total city cost of about $86,360,000 compared to $79,995,500 on our previous worksheet; they take out the dollar amounts that they have already funded with the 15 mills and funded a g.o. bond back in 1999 of $10.6 million; that they also anticipate with changes in valuation that they are going to be able to fund in perhaps 2003, varies with timelines of construction, another $3 million. He stated they have subtracted off the dollar amount for the bond issues that they sold this year for the sales and use tax and the construction
dollars that they received of about $11.7 million, original estimates talked about $11.4 but because of timing differences were able to generate more money to go to the construction account because of
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/01-02-02/Page 6

the way the market was. He stated that with looking at current infrastructure sales and use tax dollars and as other debt are being paid off, that we should be able to fund $9 million more which is our difference out of those dollar amounts - that it is going to be their decision whether a portion of that is paid in cash because we have a cash balance in that infrastructure account and we will as we move forward into 2003 and 04 and council will have options to fund part of it by cash, bond part of it, hang onto the cash and use that to fund other projects that you may wish, to hang onto the cash bond the $9 million and take the cash off the part to be special assessed - these are options that are open to council - that his goal is to show that the administrative side has looked at this and believe we have a funding source, that bottom line at this point will not increase the amount to be special assessed, and goal is to try to minimize as much as possible the additional impact to the taxpayers by using some of the current dollars, etc. He stated they still need to determine if there’s still the possibility by the mayor and administrative coordinator, visiting with our delegation in Washington to see if there are other sources of federal funding; that he was heavily involved back when negotiating with the State for the 45% up to $52 million - and that was based on a price tag known at that time, that we have to be cautious about how we present it of going back to the State and visiting with them - if we don’t ask, guarantee we won’t get any more from the State, and if ask, may get some more to help lower the burden locally - that’s an option and something that mayor and council have to discuss as a policy, whether to look at that and move forward and put some feelers out. He stated that with current dollars we can handle that $9 million that is our worst case scenario, and depending on how things shift or change - that within the Greenway betterment and greenway critical part of our growth in this community if we’re becoming a destination community and have to balance this - that now there is about $3.066 million of the $5 million that we haven’t obligated to specific projects, and that’s a policy decision council will have to make whether they want to look at those, hold some - and all of these decisions and everything we go through with this project are going to ebb and flow all the time and will try to flow with it as much as we can and stay on top of it. Our bottom line as you’ve instructed us is to try to maintain as little additional change to the citizens and the taxes that we can, and hopefully we can do that; and that this allows you some time also as things change and move forward to make your decisions as you have to.

Council Member Burke stated that to the extent that we would finance debt with additional mills on the property tax, would those be g.o. bonds (it would) but if dedicating a portion of the sales tax those would be different. The city auditor stated those are called revenue bonds. Council Member Burke asked if that would impact our ability to issue debt (no). The city auditor stated if they go with the g.o. bond method you will increase mills or have additional mills in order to pay it. Council Member Burke stated if we are going to have to find additional funding, would rather see it where people can see the dollar amount and that would be on the property tax bill to know exactly what its costing them.

Council Member Bakken stated he was not convinced that whatever numbers looking at today, are going to be the numbers we look at when this project is finished, that we are in a mild recession that some of these quotes are going to come in completely different than even a year ago. He stated that if we have the extra money that we could pay for it or bond for it, if at this time we might be better off to bond for it even if don’t need to because of the attractive bond rates today that we may not see again. The city auditor stated that we need to look at that; and another thing he needs to point out is that in looking at all of this on the sales and use tax, he projected being able to do this without any further growth in our current sales and use tax, but doesn’t think that’s going to happen, that
there is going to be growth in sales and use tax and hopefully there should be additional funding as we move out to that timeline that can finance other projects.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/01-02-02/Page 7

The city auditor stated that what they have to be looking at is just being aware that this is a funding source that you can go to and as you look at other projects and other expenditures, decide whether you want to keep this money sacred at this point, and doesn’t anticipate that we would have to sell this bond until probably 2003 or 2004.

Council Member Kerian asked in reviewing the use of the sales and use tax money for the $9 million, what the timeframe is for paying that off. The city auditor stated he set it up on a 15 year debt service and that amounted to about $975,000/year, and if project no growth in our sales tax, it would be about a $3 million cash balance in that fund right now; and by 2012 we would spend that cash balance down to about $1.8 million and then start building again.

Council Member Hamerlik stated his question is if have bids in on English Coulee and $4 million less than what the Corps predicted and some talking with those people, and if that has been finalized or has that changed in some way. Mr. Grasser reported that they accept those bids and evaluate them for conformity to all the requirements, and to his knowledge it looks like everything has passed the review so far, and not aware of anything that would trip that up from the Corps accepting that $15 million bid, and the Corps estimate was $19 million+ and are on track for awarding that. Mr. Grasser stated that the last time they talked about the floodwall betterments the $5.5 million they’re basically wiped out any dollars that we had left for floodwall betterments according to the budget. The city auditor stated that there’s $445,000 left according to his numbers.

Council Member Bjerke stated that with our millions of dollars in the bank, doesn’t know what the City is waiting for to spend some of this money, that building a dike and want to borrow money, that have over $2 million in excess sales tax, have over $2 million in Fund 2163 and building a dike to protect your town is an economic development, and could easily keep couple million out of the greenway betterment, don’t have the foot onto the wall, there is $8 million, and could find $333,000 for three years and get the last million; doesn’t know why we have to sit on all this money but doesn’t think the answer to all of our problems every time is to borrow more money - and with money in the bank what are we waiting for.

Council Member Burke asked Mr. Grasser with regard to the English Coulee bed, how the bid stakes up to the original cost estimates when back at $350 - Mr. Grasser stated he didn’t have that specific breakdown but it is somewhat higher if go back and compare it to the original $350 million because part of what happened on the north end they allocated some city betterment dollars and recognized that on the north end, they were incurring some additional dollars for the project cost -by the original concept talked about saving a bridge and replaced it with a box culvert and added some height and things to alleviate some concerns of our north end neighbors, and some of that wasn’t in the $350 million - its in part of the $410 million and somewhat of a change in scope in there, recognize that some of those dollars were going to go up from the $350 million - and the difference from the budget to the engineer’s estimate is somewhere between the $19 million and the $15 million but not sure where it’s at. Council Member Burke stated its going to be a changing target as go down the road but when talk about it being $4 million under budget, that’s the new higher budget and we have all these different benchmarks now and want to get a good sense of what we’re talking about. Mr. Grasser stated they look at the information Mr. Schmisek put together was the information they had as of a certain date and that date was prior to that bid, and
that’s why the Corps is planning on updating these numbers periodically because as we go through the project and as they receive bids and get additional information on land acquisition costs, etc. those numbers are going to continue to fluctuate but that trend was downward and wasn’t an
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/01-02-02/Page 8

unexpected upwards surprise from what the rest of it was.

2.2 Additional height on permanent flood protection project floodwalls.
Council Member Burke asked Mr. Swanson what procedure would be to bring up this issue for consideration at the next city council meeting; that the council voted on this issue on November 5, 2001 to leave the height at the additional 3 feet above the Corps plan, and would like to have that vote again when they were discussing the proposal from Mr. Grasser to go to a 2 ft. increase. Mr. Swanson advised that because the motion to reconsider was not made within the timeline - meeting following the initial action you cannot consider it under reconsideration; you would have the ability to move to rescind your prior action with that motion being acted upon next Monday or any subsequent meeting, there is not a timeline requiring that. He stated that if the motion to rescind passes, you have no action having been taken. It was noted that the action taken on November 5 would have been to reduce the floodwall because this council had previously voted on the 3 ft. wall. Council Member Burke stated in light of the new numbers we have, he wanted to have that vote with everyone having the full knowledge of what the new cost estimates are, however, it turns out is fine. Mr. Swanson stated that they could not have the vote on the motion that you’ve already acted upon, the vote you would have is on a motion to rescind - Roberts Rules identify that if there is notice given in advance of that meeting, a vote to rescind is one that requires a majority of the membership of the body, 8 members. Council Member Burke stated they would ask the city administrator to include an agenda item on the council agenda regarding a motion to rescind the vote of November 5, 2001, and it was noted that would be included. Mr. Swanson stated that without that advance notice it’s a two-thirds vote requirement of the council.

Council Member Burke stated he would also like that to take place with regard to the issue on item 2.3 - an agenda item to rescind the vote on the floodwall aesthetic design so that they could also have the similar type of vote on that. Mr. Swanson stated that under our procedural vote, a two-thirds vote would be 9, majority vote of total membership would be 8, so difference with or without the notice is matter of 1 vote. Mayor Brown noted to Mr. Duquette that they would like to have an agenda item to rescind additional height on permanent floodwall protection projects, and to rescind the floodwall aesthetic design for the next agenda.

Mr. Swanson noted that there is no publication requirement, but there is no prohibition from the council discussing the matters tonight - do not need a motion to rescind or a motion to reconsider in a committee of the whole to discuss the topics.

Council Member Brooks stated he does have a request for next Monday - that it would be good for the council to know what impact this is going to have on the timeframe of the project; and to remember that we’re on a tight timeframe. Mr. Grasser stated they can get that information in general terms and send out in an e-mail and hard copy.

Council Member Klave stated the numbers haven’t changed and it is still .004% of the entire project, difference in cost - that people asked the council to try to get their lives together since 1997 and when make a vote, then back up and relook and difficult for the citizens, and should continue, and to raise the concrete part of the dike is the smart thing to do.

Council Member Christensen stated he agrees with Council Member Klave, that this is $2.2 million over 20 years - $150,000, and we’re charged to protect this city, and hopes the council will stay the course and goes with the decision that was made in August, 2000 and in November, 2001 and hope make that decision again.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/01-02-02/Page 9

COUNCIL MEMBER MARTINSON EXCUSED

Council Member Gershman stated that the costs of this project are going to be in flux and will not know the actual cost until it is completed, and if keep revisiting issues every time we get a different estimate we will be revisiting certain issues on the dike and possible that never finish the dike, and agrees with those that want to leave it at 3 ft., and other reasons - that the language is extremely vague re. preliminary information and analysis, but if the river starts to overflow around East Grand Forks by the RR tracks where they are predicting it would go and Hwy. 2 and get an ice jam, then have serious problem and don’t want to preclude the city 5-10-15 years from now from utilizing possible innovative methods that may be developed over time that would allow us to install a temporary heightening of the earthen levees - not sure if some lightweight solution put up in place of clay - that the issue of Merrifield and I-29 and raising that, and when that highway eventually will be reconstructed, can envision the U.S. Government and the State and City requesting that roadbed be raised to allow us additional protection; and for those reasons does not wish to preclude any alternatives for the city in the future. He stated they need to have predictability on the council, to make decision and stay with it.

Council Member Burke stated that the report that we have from CPS, letter dated October 11, the design freeboard is not the additional feet that we are talking about on the floodwall, we’re talking about what is included in the Corps design - the Corps design specifies a level of protection and builds freeboard into both the dike and the floodwall, and when talking about using up a foot and a half or 2 feet of the freeboard, we’re still talking about there being another foot to 2 feet of freeboard in the Corps design before we get into either sandbags, additional clay or the additional height on the wall that we’re talking about. Mr. Grasser stated that what Mr. Weiland, CPS, is referring to is the design freeboard, the process that the Corps uses is that they design for a volume of water that’s going through Grand Forks - the computer models then predict a water surface elevation and then on top of that for risk and uncertainty, they add freeboard, and if you look at this freeboard it varies and gets higher and higher as you go south, and what Mr. Weiland is referring to in the elevations within the freeboard area, about the height of the water. Council Member Burke stated in his letter he says that overflow would begin occurring at 1.5 to 2.2 into the freeboard - that there would still be 2.1 ft. of available freeboard in the Corps design before we put additional clay on or before we put the additional 2 ft. or 3 ft. on the floodway. Mr. Grasser stated as long as they don’t mince words about specific location, your concept is correct.

COUNCIL MEMBER LUNAK EXCUSED

Council Member Burke stated that the freeboard we’re talking about is not sandbags, not the additional 2 or 3 ft. that we voted on November 5, it’s what is in the Corps design before we started adding on it. Mr. Grasser stated that is correct and if we want to raise that, we can with sandbags or raise it with clay - our intention right now is that we can move faster with clay, and if raise the clay part of it to match the floodwalls if go with additional height, we can do that with some other material; and possibly in the future somebody is going to invent something relatively cheap and quick and easy that could substitute for either clay or sandbags, don’t know what future technology might provide us.

Mr. Grasser stated the difference between clay and water., the clay and the concrete are at the same height; and current motion is to add 3 ft. of concrete to the floodwalls so the floodwalls will be 3 ft higher than the clay, but in reference to Mr. Weiland’s memo, he’s referring to the basic Corps design as it relates to the water elevation. Council Member Christensen asked what number tells
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/01-02-02/Page 10

him that the water is at the top of his clay, and after that has 2 or 3 ft. of protection that he will put dirt or something else along the 10 ft. so he can raise it so even with the cement. Mr. Grasser stated that design elevation is the water surface profile of 835.95, the top of levee (clay) is 840.06, the 3 ft. of betterments would put the concrete floodwall at 843.06 in this specific example. Council Member Christensen stated he can plan for the event and keep his vote where its at because here to protect the city. Mr. Grasser stated that the water elevations done by Mr. Weiland was based on water profiles without considering any bypass water around East Grand Forks, because the original calculations did not include that - that the really extensive study has not occurred to fully define what those elevations and water surface profiles would be.

Mr. Swanson stated that relating to item 2.2 the motion that you would be rescinding would not be your action on November 5, 2001 because at that time the motion that was made was to deny the proposed recommendation for additional height and you would be rescinding a negative; what you’re actually looking at is going back to consider the August 21, 2000 action in which 3 ft. increase in height was taken. Mayor Brown stated that Mr. Duquette would note that.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that if we rescind the motion in the year 2000, there was another motion that supported that, even though it was in the negative in 2001, and how do you handle the 2001 motion. Mr. Swanson stated that unless there are another set of minutes that he has not reviewed yet, the motion that he sees from November 5, 2001 was defeated, that motion was to reduce the height of the levee - and if there is different action that you’re discussing that he is unaware of, would review it, but your motion to rescind, should that be brought forward next week, would appear to him to go back to your August 21, 2000 action taken, not the November 5, 2001 action.

2.3 Floodwall aesthetic design.
Debbie Loyd, 17 Sandy Hills, stated that she has followed the dike history since 1997 and is staying at her location because of the floodwall, can live with that, and are doing this because it’s the best thing in the nature of our city - when they were given the opportunity they appreciatively took on being able to help design the wall. She stated she spent a lot of time going to cities looking at walls and gathered together their neighborhoods and talked about it extensively, looked at pictures that had been taken, and tried to envision this in a neighborhood, and their goal was to both vertically and horizontally break the wall as much as they could because felt that was going to be the necessity that would help not make it such an imposing structure within the neighborhood. She stated one of the things her area has asked for is to have the improvement on the flat wall by having just a slight curvature ( in three areas) feeling it would break up the massiveness of the two block area that the wall would cover and would help again with the vertical break in the wall, and would have added a little more dimension. She stated that every time this has been referred to, it has been as decorations - that they don’t see this as decoration - but see as a value added expenditure. She stated they respect that the council is trying to hold down costs within our city; that she would like to ask this body and those who have not wanted to support this, and asked them to support this, because she believes that some expenditures have value and need to consider that they will have this in their neighborhood for the next 100 years - will be an imposing thing and Corps has done a good job of designing it and have included the things they have asked for but the two small things they’ve asked for will clearly give an additional break - the medallions are not a
decoration but an augmentation to identify - that gives a namesake to where they live (will have some hills with sunbeams), that they are trying to make it be something that blends in to the
neighborhood and by adding that and rather than being an imposing structure - that is trying to be a signature saying this wall is a part of where we live, and is a very small part of trying to make the
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/01-02-02/Page 11

wall that is there for the protection of this entire city. She stated they are asking for something that is going to cost every residential taxpayer only $1.60 over 20 years ($0.08 year over 20 years). She
stated she doesn’t see that as a high expenditure for something value added. She asked council to support minimal cost that is going to make this wall be part of their neighborhood, that this is a betterment that they have to live with every day. Mayor Brown stated he finds it frustrating the council members spent time in communities to help you accept this wall across the street to protect the city and in good faith made this deal with you, and now considering taking away what was negotiated in good faith.

Council Member Burke stated that the point he is making with this vote, and doesn’t think they will overturn the betterments to the floodwall, is that they didn’t have the information that was available presented to the council so that they could make an informed decision; and he is happy to have the medallions and the arches there if the decision is made in light of all the available information at the time. He stated that the Army Corps had given their best estimate at that time but the council didn’t have it, and the issue is not whether or not the wall needs dressing up to make it more attractive feature in the neighborhood and enhance the value or keep from detracting from the value of homes - this is a matter of going back and doing it the way it should have been done with the information that was already available.

2.4 Budget amendment for Fire Department ($83,000).
Council Member Burke asked what advertising account has $83,000 in it. Chief O’Neill stated that’s account where they are including the grant monies.

2.5 Weapons of Mass Destruction Grant funds.
Council Member Kerian asked what this would mean to them in terms of liability, our resources not being available to our local community. Chief O’Neill stated they have been working with the State on establishing a regional weapons of mass destruction team - this process started couple years ago when State visited with all jurisdictions (law enforcement, health officials, counties, reservation areas, emergency managers, etc.) and determined where you might have a need where attacks might occur and who would be best prepared to meet those threats. It was determined that the four cities (Bismarck, Minot, Fargo and Grand Forks) would have a prepared team - that they have a hazardous materials team within the city fire department (and can go into the county; but don’t have the ability to travel beyond county lines and asking for the ability to travel outside of the county because if something were to occur on ie., Devils Lake, and would like to keep that event isolated in Devils Lake - have professional firefighters on staff and have best ability to train our people, can gather resources quicker than others and get on scene in relatively short time. He stated they would send out half dozen people with necessary equipment to isolate the incident (and if true incident would be relieved by federal authorities). He stated they have a lot of the equipment in place in the city already, and would replace some. He stated when they would leave the city of Grand Forks, they would leave enough staff and equipment to protect the city in their absence; when they make the decision to leave and go to a different jurisdiction, it would have to be a bone fide threat that’s going to be activated by department of emergency management in Bismarck.

Council Member Gershman asked if there would be any mechanism to recoup any costs to the City. Chief O’Neill stated everything hasn’t been completed, but there probably would be some memorandums of understanding drawn up with other counties, and would be working with the city attorney to do some of those things, and if expenses would try to recoup some of those losses (equipment, etc.); if private company caused problem, could recover from that company (or
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/01-02-02/Page 12

perhaps federal government), or State. He stated that the initial grant would be couple hundred thousand dollars and also looking for grant funds in the future to cover some of the training which can only benefit the city of Grand Forks.

Council Member Christensen expressed concern that we have federal funding to train a team and asked what happens when that money is gone, and the training has to continue and to increase the equipment needs. He stated there may be additional funding requests of future councils and no source of revenue within the fire department - general fund expenditure - and if no additional grants that we discontinue this and that would put the burden on the State of North Dakota to fund it and advance the revenues so that we can protect each quadrant of the state.

Chief O’Neill reported that there will be a fifth team - National Guard unit in Bismarck has already received funds and have purchased the equipment and that team would be on the scene after the city. He stated that they are already prepared in the city of Grand Forks with a WMD team, and have done it within the budget and within their department and have very dedicated people that feel it’s their duty to protect the citizens of Grand Forks and intent is on extending our training out into our trade areas.

Council Member Hamerlik asked if this would affect Minnesota. Chief O’Neill stated they haven’t looked across the river, that the jurisdiction responsible for hazardous material event in East Grand Forks is Moorhead; haven’t’ addressed Polk County or East Grand Forks, but have a mutual aid agreement with East Grand Forks.

2.6 Discussion of holding the committee of the whole meeting on the last Monday of months that
have five Mondays.______________________________________________________________
Council Member Hamerlik stated we’re getting in a routine for the listening public, and it gives us the flexibility on the fifth if we don’t put it in stone - to skip the fourth and go to the fifth, can make that decision several weeks ahead of time, but likes the flexibility to determine whether or not going to meet on the fourth or fifth or even meet on both, etc. and don’t need to determine now. Mayor Brown stated that it was brought up that people didn’t like missing that week before the council, and this is an option to help plan.

2.7 Land lease of Lots A and B, Block 1, University Park Addition (2403 University Avenue) to
Jerry and Teresa Harmon._______________________________________________________
There was no discussion.

2.8 Ordinance - tattooing and body art (Article 10, 13-1001: 13-1021)
Tom Tepley stated that his company does three different things, one is developing life style stores, stores called D Skates which are skate and snowboard stores and other extreme sports, and have an entertainment company that promotes skating events, concert events and is in three different states; he stated he has been in Grand Forks in a retail setting since 1979, and in the last year his sales are down; he stated his business is a life style store and focus on college age kids and one of the things they are putting in their stores is body piercing and tattooing and he has hired people that have certification, CPR, hepatitis B shots, etc. and make their environments very washable - when he first came to Grand Forks it was zoned and could do anything they wanted, that he came into the Zoning Commission and stated they needed to make it more health regulated and not so much zoning and that was his intent. He stated he reviewed the proposed regulations and nothing against the health issues but maybe clarification; and except for a separate outside
entrance - that you can’t do any kind of retail in a body piercing or tattooing salon, just do the
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/01-02-02/Page 13

service. He stated he could modify his building to do that, which he is willing to do, as long as the ground rules are all the same for everybody else. His goal was to break his one store into two, and if go with the present proposal in front of you, he has to break his stores into three but would prefer not to - he stated he would prefer if he had some sort of entrance between the service and his retail store, with no outside entrance.

Don Shields and Wally Helland, Health Department, stated that the ordinance is patterned after the National Environmental Health Assn. and also with a look at the Fargo ordinance, and stated that their concern after researching this topic is the cross contamination that’s likely to occur depending upon what types of mixed businesses that you might have with a tattoo and a body piercing entity in the back of several businesses, and recommended a separate outside entrance to eliminate that issue.

Council Member Christensen asked if ear piercing was included in licensing - Mr. Helland stated this will not cover ear piercing done at jewelry stores, etc. as long as they use the pre-sterilized single use items that are discarded - don’t intend to impact those people in the jewelry stores that are just piercing the ears.

Council Member Christensen asked if it was imperative that they have a separate entrance on the outside, or just a separate area internally within the space they lease. Mr. Helland stated their concerns are a space could be opened in an automotive repair shop or warehouse and would have to go through the other business to get to the body piercing/tattooing shop. Council Member Christensen stated that if they make an application for the license and you are charged with reviewing the premises before you grant the license, could deny it because of health reasons. Mr. Shields stated that they would look at the plans that were drawn up, saying that they don’t want them going through one store to get to another store if there is a potential in that particular retail environment for cross contamination. He stated it would be his preference to have it in Code so it would be clear to the businessman what they are discussing as opposed to interpretive issues.
Mr. Shields stated they are recommending to change the fee from $50.00 to $100.00.

Mr. Tepley stated his intent was to create a very clean working environment with either a separate doorway or passage way into that environment and have a retail thing in front. He stated his concern is the cost of modifying his place to have a separate entrance - and thinks that anybody who pierces beyond ear lobe should have a license.

Mr. Shields stated its on a gradient scale (exempts the cartilage on the ear), one’s a very low risk as opposed to piercing other body parts where could have a large risk. He stated their concern with the separate entrance is the cross contamination because you don’t know what kind of facility you have, need rules in terms of trying to keep this business separate, apart for the health and safety and for sanitation issues; that the more traffic you generate through an area you’re doing these procedures and the risk is increased, you’re also increasing the risk overall. Council Member Bakken stated he thought they should also look at areas that do ear piercing to some extent and be defined. Council Member Kreun questioned whether they could include an exemption for separate entrance or acceptable option; Mr. Shields stated they could look at that.

Mr. Swanson stated that they are repealing the existing regulations of tattoo’s but would be replacing Article 10 of Chapter XIII with the entire section which will cover both tattooing and body piercing.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/01-02-02/Page 14

It was moved by Council Member Christensen and seconded by Council Member Klave to consider item 2.13 at this time. Carried 10 votes affirmative.

2.13 Request for City funding from Marketplace of Ideas/Marketplace for Kids.
Terry Hanson, Office of Urban Development, stated that at the end of November he received word from the Adm. Coordinator that Marilyn Kipp. executive director of Markektplace of Ideas, was going to hold their event in Grand Forks and were looking for some assistance in funding the event; he suggested that she submit an application for the special events funding and to submit an application to the Growth Fund for assistance, he was bringing this before council to ask that the City fund Marketplace for Ideas which will be held January 9 and 10 out of the Grand Forks Economic Development Fund (fund where sales tax dollars go into to support economic development functions), and recommended that they fund Marketplace for Ideas in the amount of $30,000.

Ms. Kipp stated that their grant proposal includes both Marketplace of Ideas and Marketplace for Kids, Marketplace of Ideas is scheduled for next week, that they have a strong collaboration with the Greater ND Assn., the Quentin Burdick Center, Division of Community Services in the State of North Dakota and many other groups to put together an expanded program that is needed in this region of the state. She stated they have 98 classes scheduled, over 225 exhibitors that will be coming to Grand Forks to exhibit their various innovative ideas and assistance providers that will help the innovative idea presenters to build their businesses in the future. Marketplace of Ideas came to Grand Forks because only other location in the state that had the facility that they need for this event, and have been invited by the Chamber, the Grand Forks Development and other organizations to look at Grand Forks. She stated the planning has been outstanding, have had organizational meetings at every level to help them plan the curriculum that’s going to be offered, without the participation of the leadership at the Chamber and the City staff people with contacting various organizations to help plan their curriculum. The City and the Public School System have voted that they will have their Marketplace for Kids event at the Alerus Center on April 22, never had a marketplace for kids program in this region, the program started in 1995 with 600 kids participating in Jamestown state-wide, by 1998 they expanded that program to have an event in Fargo, and last year had 6 events totaling 14,000 4th, 5th and 6th graders from across the state participating in the events and this year adding Grand Forks to their schedule, the Public School System has voted that every 5th grader will be participating in the event and 6th graders also participating and will be doing a complete training for all the teachers on January 8. She stated they are asking the City of Grand Forks to partner with them, that they will waive their $10 registration fee, which has helped offset some of their rental costs, etc. and it is their goal to make sure they can offer this event to everybody that wants to participate and have a total open door; they don’t charge any fee for booth space and any young entrepreneur or innovator, or inventor can come and showcase their invention without any cost except for their personal time and out of pocket expense to get here.

Council Member Hamerlik asked if this also includes Minnesota (Ms. Kipp stated it does); and also noted that the request is shown for $25,000 and staff report is to allocate $30,000; Ms. Kipp stated there were two applications. He also asked what other cities have contributed to this when located in their cities that the total amount approx. the same ($25,000 to $30,000).

2.9 Request for 5309 Capital Assistance FY 2003 funds.
Todd Feland reported that they are asking for authorization to apply for a grant of $498,000, that they submit the application to the NDDOT, which is then submitted as part of a package for
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/01-02-02/Page 15

the State of North Dakota on requests from urban cities as well as rural entities. He stated they have proposed two fixed route buses and two multiple load vehicles they would put into the senior rider system. He stated that Council Member Bjerke’s questions were related to seating differences between the Class 700 (500,000 mile) and Class 500 (150,000 mile) buses - that they are proposing for the fixed route buses is to go with a 28 ft. bus as opposed to what they have purchased in the past which is a 35 and 40 ft. buses. He stated the 28 ft. bus has seating capacity of 25 seats and Class 500 has 21 total seats but if add in wheelchair riders, 2 in Class 500, get 17 riders; with the Class 700 would have 19 seats plus 2 wheelchairs; they would get rid of the 35’ and 40’ buses which are not wheelchair acceptable. He stated that maintenance on the Class 500 unit is required every 2,000-3,000 miles, and on Class 700 buses routine maintenance every 4,000-5,000 miles. He stated on fixed route buses between 70,000 and 150,000 miles before brake change, est. if go to a Class 500 would be between 40,000 and 60,000 miles.

COUNCIL MEMBER GERSHMAN EXCUSED

Mr. Feland stated between the Class 500 and the Class 700 relatively the same with seating and are a wash if look at over a 20-year period of time; one of his concerns is that we have been very fortunate that our Congressional reps. have been able to get money for the State of North Dakota where we have benefited for capital needs, and one of his concerns is that if that source of funding dries up, the City would not be able to replace their vehicles as often and if we’re going to buy something not knowing what future fiscal situation would be is to buy in certain situations a vehicle that’s going to last as long as possible but going to a smaller vehicle that’s more maneuverable and fits with the community that we have.

Council Member Bjerke summarized that if we take the Class 700 for 20 years and the Class 500 is the amount that it would take to replace them for maybe 5, save money in buying the Class 500 but savings would be lost in the maintenance and basically a wash in the amount of money. Operation and maintenance on the Class 500 more expensive, and typically trade in the Class 500’s at 100,000 miles. Mr. Feland noted that we use a Class 500 in the senior rider program. Council Member Bjerke stated that since we are buying a diesel, a 500, that we track it as far as maintenance so we have our own information. Mr. Feland stated after we receive funds, can go back in and reprogram if justified.

Council Member Christensen stated as part of their packet they received an ad telling about the different buses but asked about the bus proposing to buy - which has a 7-year life, 200,000 miles, and would like maintenance records of current buses, and would like to know the prices of some of the buses in magazine ad as to what they are buying, and if turning the bus in every 100,000 and is seeing in ad a smaller bus, which holds 15 to 20 capacity and maybe handicapped accessible, and would like to know cost. He stated he would like to continue working on perception - smaller buses so that people think we’re doing something about the size of the fleet and asked if someone from staff would get him some pricing information so they could begin the process of spending $150,000 or half million in buying 3 buses at 7 years, 200,000 miles, and rotate every 3 to 4 years and maybe get more than $5,000 per bus for trade; and would like to have that information.

Mr. Feland stated they want to get their application in for $498,000 and if at later time, they want to do something else they can re-program the funds and Mr. Foster has assured him that they can
re-program the funds, only make sure it is for public transportation and buying capital needs for public transportation.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/01-02-02/Page 16

Council Member Bakken stated that in going from a 40 ft. bus to a 28’ ft bus and are getting smaller, but difference between the 500 and 700 series pertains more to a long term maintenance issue than any other issue because it’s components that are involved in the 700 series are more dependable and cost less to maintain over the life, and have to be careful of when buying equipment of this kind on long term upkeep, save upfront but not over duration.

Council Member Hamerlik asked if doubling up on inventory for repairs if switching from larger bus to a smaller bus. Dale Bergman, Public Transp., stated currently they have GM buses, flexible buses, trolley, New Flyer buses and current ones which are under senior rider system, and looking at 5 different sets of parts that they need to carry on hand and inventory keeps climbing, when change to different vehicles, have to change inventory and if keep the GM buses and still repairing them, now will get rid of two buses that can’t even run on the road any longer because of severe maintenance that has to be done in order to bring up to road worthy standards, 21 year old buses, and beyond their effectiveness and have 3 1984 buses that are redoing bulk heads in order to make them last another 10 years - talking road salts, water that they run in, etc. and when adding all the parts in inventory and if get rid of GMs who will they sell items to, because most places getting rid of older 1979 or 1984 GM’s, and have to get rid of parts in order to pick up inventory for added new buses, and biggest problem they have now, not enough storage space for inventory. Council Member Christensen stated there is “just in time” inventory, Federal Express, UPS, and lot of people on-line and another way of doing business which is technological age where someone else will absorb that cost, the mfg. has those parts and don’t have to buy and store, and if buy new buses will have lead time to buy parts you will need on your 25,000 mile brakes/shoes - and questioned if that was an issue, and if try to downsize have to have mind-set that this is what this group as a matter of policy has suggested and ask for cooperation on this to make it work. Council Member Bakken noted several reasons why this doesn’t work - he called for transmission for a truck and as result had to call the mfg. who is building one and have sometime next week. Council Member Christensen stated we only have 7 buses and could run a yellow bus on the route for 10 days and rent from Dietrich’s and in emergency continue the route until received parts. Council Member Bakken stated parts are no longer readily available anymore. Council Member Christensen stated parts should be part of the criteria for purchase.

2.10 Request approval extension of the East Grand Forks Transportation Service contract.
Council Member Burke asked if this contemplates continuing to provide senior bus service to East Grand Forks at no cost to them. Mr. Feland stated this contract is only related to the fixed route service that is provided and does not include the senior rider system; he stated they currently pay for senior ridership through our own funds, the City of East Grand Forks is interested in migrating, changing what their senior rider in making that part of their dial-a-ride service, but currently do provide ridership to East Grand Forks as part of senior rider system without any compensation from East Grand Forks. Council Member Burke stated he would like to see the senior bus incorporated into this and that they pay pro-rider share, and understands they are interested in moving to the senior buses as their dial-a-ride but that’s not the case right now and in the meantime we’re providing service to East Grand Forks gratis and that’s not appropriate. Mr. Feland stated that we’re dropping people off in East Grand Forks and better model is for us to set it up as more of a trip basis and as have a dial a-ride if a metro ride between Grand Forks and East Grand Forks the cost is split between the two cities and would be a better arrangement than including that in this contract, and can have discussions with East Grand Forks and will work on
that in the near future. Council Member Burke stated if not as part of this contract that we’re not waiting until 2003 to implement it, that slipstream this in and do it fairly soon so that whatever the method is for compensation, EGF pays its share of that service. Mr. Foster stated they are talking
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/01-02-02/Page 17

about fixed route bus service, and if want to have another contract with East Grand Forks trip by trip for senior citizen service, then establish another contract and bring it back to this body, but talking about fixed route service as we have always since 1982 provided this service to East Grand Forks by contract, cost share.

2.11 Wastewater Treatment Plan superintendent contract.
There were no comments.

2.12 Second amendment to the City of Grand Forks, ND retirement savings plan.
There were no comments.

2.14 Pledged collateral report.
The city auditor reported they need someone to volunteer or Mayor can appoint someone to stop in their office to review pledges made by designated depositories of public funds. Council Member Bjerke will review.

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:

3.1 Night Bus monthly report.
There was some discussion relating to adding a transfer for night bus (transferring from fixed route).

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR COMMENTS
There were no comments.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Christensen stated he had four issues to present for follow-up: request for status report as to when they could expect the transfer of the L.M. Glasfibre building to the JDA; a status report as to when they could expect the treatment center in the old First Federal Building to be completed and occupied; a report when they could expect the replat of the Silverman home property so that property would be up for sale; and reminder to staff of request for preliminary estimate as to what it is going to cost to maintain the greenway once it is completed - recognizing that it won’t come on line until 2004 but is something that someone should have in their planning process as they figure how they are going to spend the dollars to take care of the greenway and was assured he would have something by March 1 of this year.

2) Council Member Kreun stated that tonight had discussion on the dike issues and to remind ourselves that very important to stay on task, even though go back and revisit couple issues, important that we go forward because what happens is going to cost us a tremendous amount of money within the community if we don’t do that, and to see if really worthwhile to revisit.

3) Council Member Brooks stated he had two items: in view of discussion at JDA meeting, thinks need to have meeting with Economic Development Corp. to have some of those discussions, where it
is more appropriate. Mayor Brown stated that those were the same comments they had in the
Growth Fund minutes and then had those comments again at this meeting when it has already been discussed.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/01-02-02/Page 18

4) Council Member Brooks stated that Monday was Joe Ford’s funeral, that he was very active in athletics and was a positive impact player and approached things from a positive standpoint; he gave major contributions to this city and will be missed.

5) Council Member Bjerke stated the 2002 budget that was passed didn’t have any money to purchase police cars and if that is still correct - the city auditor stated it was. Mr. Bjerke stated when they talk about public safety, and that this City funds the arts, but didn’t buy police cars.

6) Council Member Bjerke asked for an update on the wastewater treatment plant in two areas - status of construction and funding of cost.

7) Council Member Hamerlik asked to have the corrected minutes of Growth Fund in the packets for Monday, and in proper order so know what’s going on plus within the law (executive session).

8) Council Member Burke asked re. senior bus issue if we could add to the next committee of the whole agenda a presentation from staff on possible ways that we could include East Grand Forks in the funding of that operation, whether it’s staff’s recommendation or whether they have a chance to meet with East Grand Forks and come back with recommendation and give us a timeframe for implementation.

9) Council Member Burke stated we’ve had some issues in the past year where we haven’t been on the same page with the MPO, had staff reports and council action and found out that we didn’t have the right information or ran into problems with the MPO’s interpretation of what we wanted to do; that tonight’s funding on the bus refers to the fact that the MPO will transfer or transmit our request to the FTA; that when the MPO is going to get involved in something that we’re involved with, whether bus system or transportation plan with regards to streets and roads, engineering, etc., would like to see the staff report also be signed by the head staff person from the MPO so they are aware of what our staff is recommending and don’t have situation like we had with the trolley.

10) Council Member Burke asked if it wouldn’t be helpful to have a special meeting on the wastewater plant issue in the next month or so where staff goes through this program from top to bottom for us, gives chronology, work order changes, contract changes and tells us where we are on our timeframe and on cost and with regard to use of the product from the wastewater treatment plant and who might be interested in operating that or building that.

11) Mayor Brown congratulated all who made First Night such a tremendous success in our community; congratulated the finance department on their job well done with 15th recognition in a consecutive manner; and thanked the two firemen who retired for their faithful years of service to our city.
ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Kreun that we adjourn. Carried 9 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Schmisek, City Auditor