Print VersionStay Informed
MINUTES/COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Monday, April 8, 2002 - 7:00 p.m.__________

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, April 8, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Kreun - 12; absent: Council Members Bakken, Martinson - 2.

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

Mayor Brown reported on events during the past week:
1) Native American Awareness Week and culminated with Wacipi PowWow, that this is the 33rd year of the event and expected 3500 people to attend.
2) Pine to Prairie Girl Scouts Adult Award banquet was held last Friday and congratulated them for the work they do for our community and future citizens of our community.
3) Congressman Pomeroy was in town on Saturday with Congressman from Maryland from the House Appropriations Committee, that they got a chance to see our flood protection project first hand and they see how important it is we continue to work on securing funding for that project and thanked staff for helping that happen on Saturday.
4) GOP Convention was at the Alerus Center and he had the opportunity to welcome those attendees and thanked organizers for bringing people from all over the country and region to our community.
5) North Dakota and Grand Forks were represented over the weekend at the AAU National Middle School Team Wrestling Dual Meet in Indianola, Iowa, 46 kids from North Dakota made up two teams - 1 team finished 11 out of 24 and the other 22nd (incl. from Grand Forks John Bastings and Justin O'Neill).
6) weekend of April 13 have the NPRA Championship Rodeo at the Alerus Center.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DISCUSSION ITEMS

2.1 Refunding Bonds, Series 2002D-E, Advance Refunding of General Obligation (Hotel/Motel
Tax) Bonds, Series 1995A and Sewerage Reserve Revenue Bonds, Series 1994D.__________
Alan Erickson, Springsted, Inc., stated there are two issues for consideration to be refinanced, that they looked at current outstanding debts to see if way to improve and save some money:
1) the first one is $740,000 G.O. Hotel/Motel Tax Bond, 2002D, Advance Refunding of the $1.2 million Hotel/Motel Tax Bond issue that originated in 1995, there were some dollars in the debt service fund that will buy the size of the issue down and because of the current revenue stream being generated by the hotel/motel tax, they restructured the new debt service around that and were able to cut 6 years off of the bond, will pay off by the year 2009 and will save over a quarter million dollars in future value.
2) second issue was originally issued as Sewer Bond 1994B in the amount of $1.925, the refunding amount will be $1.090 and will give you about $30,000/yr in savings for total of over $100,000 of savings. These will be coming up for authorization next week and suggesting sale date of Monday, May 6.

He stated in a related issue that next week you will be receiving a resolution from your bond attorney, Mr. Endorf, to authorize you to take care of two other outstanding improvement issues, 1991B and 1994A, numbers and recommendations will be coming to you that the 1991B are callable later this year and suggesting to call them and pay them off as there is enough money in your debt service fund and that will save the City over $123,000; the 1994A bonds are callable in 2004 and suggesting you defease them on a partial basis with the amount of money in the debt service fund, and that will save $458,000 of interest over the course of the bond issue; both items are worth doing at the current time at the rate
Committee of the Whole - April 8, 2002 - Page 2

of the coupons that are being paid on those in the 6 to 7% range and reinvestment rates are in the middle 4's to 5% and your earning negative arbitrage in those so suggest you defease the one issue and call the other.

Council Member Lunak asked if money is actually saved or if cuts down on our payments; Mr. Erickson stated on the hotel/motel tax issue the City won't have to pay that much money and also by paying the bond off six years early will still have that tax in place and can either allocate those funds somewhere else or don't have the tax. He stated on the Sewer issue that is a direct savings, $30,000/year less that you have to pay out in debt service and that will go back into your sewer fund. He also noted that the City has bonds outstanding - bonds backed by the earnings in utility funds, have hotel/motel tax bond and majority of bonds are improvement bonds which are paid for primarily through special assessments to benefited property and also some sales tax bonds, Alerus Center.

2.2 Code of Ethics for elected officials.
Council Member Bjerke stated reasons for having a code of ethics: 1) several years ago heard about an open accountable government, this will make people accountable and protects the citizens of Grand Forks and elected officials in that if a citizen feels that something has happened that
could be unethical or illegal, there will be a procedure to file a written complaint and have it investigated, once investigation is finished the official will either go to court or his name will be cleared, this is a simple clear procedure to do this, and if this is passed that this ordinance should be given to every elected official. He stated the schedule is to discuss the draft ordinance, discuss again on the 22nd of April, make any changes and on May 6 have the proposed ordinance for vote.

Council Member Lunak asked if there were any conflict of interest rules now; Mr. Swanson stated in part of the materials sent out, there are some handouts that date back to 1994 that his office has prepared and those handouts discuss either attorney general's opinions or Century Code provisions relating to conflict of interest, the City Code does not contain a separate conflict of interest provision, however, there is a conflict of interest provision under State law.

Council Member Bjerke stated he would like to have the mayor go through the proposed ordinance section by section, any changes could be brought up on the 22nd. Mayor Brown stated we have a code of ethics in our oath to the citizens of the community and the State, we have laws in the Century Code that deal with infractions of that ethical behavior and sees this as a solution in search of a problem because he finds the council members of the highest integrity and put the citizens' interests first, wise with tax decisions and doesn't personally see what can be accomplished by something so restrictive
and watch the rules instead of government, of making decisions and casting dispersions and take focus off that we are here to do a good job, and that's his philosophy - that he would prefer to form a task force of 5 people from council to hash through this to see if we need broad interpretation of a code of ethics or an oath that says on his honor will do his best to do his duty. He stated do we want a code of ethics that's really straightforward or do we want to incorporate laws and punishments into our code of ethics; that he would like to see a broad structure for an oath of ethics rather than one that says you break this law, we're going to punish you, wants people to come forward to serve this community knowing we have faith in them and expect people of highest integrity to come forward.

Council Member Bjerke stated that if the council doesn't want to do this, then at the April 15 meeting he is requesting this to be placed on the agenda and they can vote by roll not to discuss the code of ethics and form your task force, but want to have on record by name each council member. Mayor Brown stated he would like this body to come up with a task force; and asked how microscopic do they want their code of ethics to be, that we have an oath that we take and we have a Century Code and if people
Committee of the Whole - April 8, 2002 - Page 3

break laws they pay the penalty. He stated that if penalties included in constitution it wouldn't embody the framework of our government and that is what a code of ethics should be, the framework where we go forward.

There was some discussion and it was noted that the ND State Legislators are covered under the NDCC; and that the U.S.Senate has rules based upon experience to try to guide its members as to what is allowable and what isn't, so will know where the boundaries are.

Council Member Brooks stated we need a code of ethics but it shouldn't be so binding so that only a few people voting on every issue, and if send to task force they could bring it back very quickly with a simple code of ethics that will apply here and give the council members some feelings of protection and parliamentary rules will guide that. He asked that Mr. Swanson give us a ruling by next week re. the chair giving up his seat to address one side or another on the issue being debated.

Mr. Swanson stated with regard to the question as to whether or not an item on the committee of the whole to appear on an agenda of the city council, that the mayor sets the order of the agenda, however, he does not find that the mayor has the authority to withhold an item considered by the committee of the whole from the city council unless it is for information only matter. Mr. Swanson stated it would be on next week's council agenda and whether vote would be dependent upon procedural motions or action the council would take.

Council Member Christensen stated that he doesn't think that whether this council votes to table on Monday or if vote to form a task force means that the members of this council or the members of a future council are against a code of ethics; that Council Member Bjerke's first statement was that some of us ran on the issue of open and accountable government and will point out that the NDCC specifically states 44-04.22 "that a person acting in any legislative or quasi legislative or judicial quasi judicial capacity for a political subdivision of the state who has a direct and substantial personal pecuniary interest in a matter before the board, council, commission or other body must disclose the fact to the body of which that person is a member and may not participate in or vote on that particular matter without the consent of a majority of the rest of the body." and that is the statute the mayor is referring to. He stated that if running for office before you file your petition, you are required to file a statement of interest on a form prescribed by the secretary of state where you disclose your financial interests and associations and institutions with whom you are a member; and that the proposed ordinance is not something that we should lightly vote on without due deliberation or study. He stated if the matter comes up to form a task force he would be in favor of that, or to table,

Council Member Burke stated the gist of what is presented to us is not to cast dispersions but to set a little higher standard for disclosure so that we can better judge for ourselves whether someone else has a conflict of interest, now it is self-policing and count on the good-will and the candor of our fellow members.

Council Member Glassheim asked Mr. Swanson to review the ordinance and give a comparison of how this differs from State law, if all of these things are clearly covered already then maybe we don't need it, but if it makes it more clear to the council members then might be helpful.

Mr. Swanson reviewed the draft ordinance: that the Purpose section he doesn't believe, except in the context of the Attorney General's opinions, there is a stated purpose for a code of ethics in the State of North Dakota, and stated that he has not cited all of the A.G's opinions; in Definitions: confidential information is one he has a concern with, that would not be consistent with provisions of the open
Committee of the Whole - April 8, 2002 - Page 4

records, open meetings law in Chapter 44 of the NDCC; definition for Benefit at one time had a blank rather than the $50.00, that is a policy decision, State law would only speak now in terms of direct or indirect benefit or pecuniary gain; the terms business, elected official, interest would all essentially be covered under present state law either in an A.G.'s opinion or in NDCC Definition and definition of matter of privilege would be somewhat new; disclosure statement has some continuing obligation that doesn't exist in present law. He stated that Prohibited Conduct would specify items that would define a pecuniary or direct interest with more specificity than existing State law would, however, other provisions 8. Communicating information concerning a matter subject to pending litigation, that is directly out of State Statutes, 4) entering into a contract with the city unless authorized by law is out of State Statute; there are a number of these that are worded differently but covered; and that he would describe Prohibited Conduct as a more detailed definition of most of the Century Code provisions. Disclosure and Recusal procedure, there is nothing in the Century Code or the City Code, we have by practice and history established an informal recusal procedure when one announces that they have a conflict of interest. There is no direct authorization for the city attorney to investigate violations and this was a subsection that he was concerned with when you get into the detail you will see that there are provisions for the city attorney can deem certain documents as not being public, that would not be allowable under present State law except in the course of pending litigation or pending criminal investigation. Advisory opinions, again the city attorney's office is vested with the authority to issue advisory opinion but he is not aware of any written provision in either State law or our local code in that regard, however, his office has always done that or made that service available, most often not in written form but orally and this would be a change or codification of some of the things they do already; there is some reference to non-public data that he has some concerns with; and that they have under State law and local code local penalty provisions so specific penalty in this section may not be required if you were to adopt that. He stated he could provide much more detailed analysis and comparative report if you would like but not prepared to go beyond what he has done tonight.

Council Member Glassheim stated he wasn't clear on conviction of violation of this chapter, who hears that or proceedings. Mr. Swanson stated that in some instances maybe municipal court, internal body to hear complaints, maybe entire governing body that would act upon that, and draft here would anticipate that the city attorney's office would prosecute and the only jurisdiction that would have authority over that would be in municipal court.

Mayor Brown asked council how they would like to proceed with this, is amenable to starting a task force to come up with a document that includes things that are not already included; that his opinion is that the Century Code covers your behavior.

After some discussion and comments Mayor Brown stated it is his sense that the council wants Mr. Swanson to see where this proposed ordinance overlaps the Century Code and bring that information back to council next week.

2.3 Substandard building at 621 9th Avenue North.
2.4 Substandard building at 720 North 4th Street.
2.5 Substandard building at 1002 2nd Avenue North.
2.6 Substandard building at 1003 2nd Avenue North.
2.7 Substandard buildings at 1121 1st Avenue North.
Bev Collings, Inspections, stated she is bringing forth 5 properties and reviewed what her department has done with the help of the health and fire inspectors as far as the substandard buildings; that they receive a complaint on a structure, investigate the complaint and work with the property owners to see what the condition of the structure(s) are and determine if substandard; they have put
Committee of the Whole - April 8, 2002 - Page 5

together the reports and have been working with the property owners and some owners are very open to having these houses or structures removed. Council Member Burke asked if she would indicate cooperation or lack of cooperation with property owners whether contesting your recommendation or cooperating.

621 9th Avenue North - portion of structure taken down. Property owner agrees with recommendation.
720 North 4th Street - garage at rear of property - property owner not present, and not in full agreement with Inspections, but has not heard from him for quite some time. Council Member Christensen stated this is next to a vacant lot and being put up for sale and whatever do to enhance the value of the lot would be favorable.
1002 2nd Avenue North - house on lot, property owner living in the house, and very concerned about the foundation of the house, which is affecting some the rest of the structure - home owner not in agreement with Inspections on this issue. Council Member Hamerlik asked what minimum qualifications are for safety reasons for living in a house; and if a timeline had been placed on this residence. Ms. Collings stated that in property where an adult is living - running water, sewer and a source of hot water, electricity, heat; and safety condition of an open foundation (no heat in bedroom upstairs), not up to Code as far as all issues but were dealing with the property owner to try to bring everything up to code, reached stalemate and are proceeding with substandard building because of issues. Ms. Collings stated she has asked the property owner for a timeline for his completion and he has not given one and have exhausted those efforts.
1003 2nd Avenue North - this house has been in poor condition and deteriorating over the last few
years, is boarded up and vacant, has several foundation problems and other structural problems, property owner has not had a lot of contact with us, neither negative nor positive.
1121 1st Avenue North - There are new property owners and have been very cooperative, previous owner was cooperative also but beyond his means to deal with it and he was starting to take
the structure down.

Council Member Hamerlik asked if all the property owners had been notified that the committee of the whole would be discussing their properties; Ms. Collings stated they were notified and given the report with the exception of pictures.

Daniel Nephew, 1002 2nd Avenue North, stated that he would have this finished this summer and was told that being it had taken this long that was unacceptable and would be discussed here; that the northend west side has been opened but was because he was working on it last fall, had personal issues that came up, then because of weather was unable to finish that, is for the most part enclosed; the wooden basement is under main structure of the house and is up to Code, that has sewer tile around it; sewer, electrical and water have been inspected; there is one room in the house that is not heated. He stated his timeline would be this summer as weather permits. He also noted that he has a fence around areas that are open but taken down when working on it. Council Member Gershman stated that when there is a property that is being worked on for such a long period of time affects the adj. property values; Mr. Nephew stated that his neighbor sold his property next door to him and received price he had requested, and that his property appraisal was $38,000.

Council Member Kreun stated that Inspections has gone above and beyond in most of these cases and to continue with this type of attitude that we should give one more chance and one more chance, what about neighbors that have to put up with this, and even if come to an agreement with this gentlemen on a timeframe, what is going to be the penalty at the end of the timeframe and it is not completed, this is the process that is supposed to take place and should utilize the process.
Committee of the Whole - April 8, 2002 - Page 6

Mr. Swanson stated they have a couple options, could hold your public hearing and continue it to a date certain to make a determination on whatever future date you find is appropriate before you make your findings, or can make your findings and issue an order but suspend the order until a given date and then rescind the order and if that is the method you want to employ, procedurally it can be accommodated.

2.8 Transfer of funds from Alerus to CVB.
John Staley, president of the CVB Board, and Dave Evenson, president of the Alerus Commission, stated that the two bodies have met and would be an interest to the city as a whole to transfer some of the dollars, $600,000, held in reserve for the Alerus, and transfer $100,000 at this time into financing the marketing plan that was presented in February and sees as a benefit of getting more people into Grand Forks and bringing overall commerce in which would help the Alerus as well all the businesses, non-profits and citizens as we try to establish and bring up the building of our community as tourist or destination spot, and want to move forward; that they have met with the city auditor and Mr. Duquette as well as administrative people at the Alerus, and feel would be safe to start that process.

Mr. Evenson stated that the Alerus Commission has voted on this at a joint meeting that they had with CVB and it was a unanimous vote that they would approve of the transfer of $100,000 to the CVB to support the marketing plan that was given to them by Simmons-Flint with the belief that as the city is being marketed and people brought into the community that would also have a great benefit for the Alerus Center.

Council Member Burke stated that sometime ago when he and several other members of the council were working on the rewriting of the CVB ordinance, one of the things they were moving towards was trying to find a way by getting Compass and Alerus involved, and Alerus staff was to find a way to save money through a joint administration, and asked what kind of savings in administration are anticipated because now understands they are going to hire another director for the CVB in addition to having the Compass person involved in that. Mr. Staley stated that payroll has been transferred to Compass out of the CVB and there will be savings there, the maintenance of the building is being handled under Compass with their staff and computers are now being upgraded with Compass staff, and a number of savings already taken place; and the $100,000 is to bring about additional efforts that were never in place before (billboards, magazine advertising, radio advertising, public relations and a big upgrade to modernize the web site that's typical of destination communities) and are also upgrading the overall functions - there is staff being added and that is being done with existing and other budget areas within the CVB and the idea is to get 4 sales people to the CVB sales force to go out and bring in conventions and savings is being plowed back into the overall production and capabilities of the CVB to do those things that we wanted to do. Council Member Burke stated he would like the comparison of the past and current years' budget and what you anticipate would be next year's budget and how that money is being used on staff, and where this money is going and if we have actually seen a savings on the administrative side and having more of that go to the promotional area of what the CVB does. He stated he was pleased that the Alerus Commission gave their opinion on the $100,000 but doesn't know that its their money to recommend because it is the City's money and been held by the City in the event that the Alerus was to have a greater deficit than it did in 2001 but not sure that the Alerus Commission has any standing to make that recommendation.

Council Member Bjerke stated he has the CVB income for 2000 and 2001 from the 2% hotel tax and in the year 2000 it was $269,172 and in 2001 which had 10 1/2 months of the Alerus and 3 months of the Engelstad was $274,539, thinks the CVB needs more money and its up to them to take it out of the sources they have, almost $300,000/yr in a 2% tax; there is a long range plan and if any discussion of creation of any type of new tax to help fund this plan of the CVB. Mr. Staley stated there was discussion
Committee of the Whole - April 8, 2002 - Page 7

of a number of additional revenues, as the building is paid off to redirect those dollars into additional marketing, there are a variety of betterments that they talked about and want to see the performance overall of the buildings they have and what kind of yields on sales tax, etc., nothing specific today but are looking at a variety of other sources. Grand Forks benefited for a lot of years of a strong Canadian trade and since the exchange rates changed not seeing that Canadian trade and we're gearing up and recommend that the capabilities of our institutions to attract those people and behave more as a destination community. We have on the line two public institutions whose bonds are backed by the voters and the taxpayers in this community (Alerus and King's Walk golf course) and if we do not get enough traffic in those two facilities taxes will go up because it will fall to our voters to cover the bonds and they view these dollars as investment to get these dollars back.

Council Member Bjerke asked what budget the $600,000 is from; the city auditor stated that will come from the money we have set aside in reserve for '02. He stated if you still want to hang onto $600,000 because you have a fairly long time left in the year depending on how things go out there, we did end 2001 in that fund 2163 with $1.7 million in the cash balance and have projected $900,000, so there is the opportunity for you if you wish to use $100,000 of funding from that source and still preserve $600,000 in case there is a need at the Alerus. Council Member Bjerke stated he didn't remember voting on putting $600,000 away for 2002, but perhaps something in the budget but doesn't remember the city council voting on the budget they approved to put $600,000 in reserve. The city auditor stated they would go back and look at that, that you never set aside $600,000 specifically in the 2001 budget but was part of the discussion that they should hold $600,000 and make sure that money doesn't leave that fund and keep the balance of $600,000. Council Member Bjerke asked for explanation of how by taking more money and spending more money benefits the average taxpayer if their taxes go up every year, which they do. Mr. Staley stated they are looking at other sources and there will have to be an on-going allocation to fund this level of marketing if you decide to do that, and the thought is to invest the $100,000, the $180,000, and in interim look for other sources and see what kind of benefits come to Grand Forks financially.

Council Member Gershman stated that its been about 3 or 4 years that the mill rate in Grand Forks has not gone up, and if add inflation to that, the mill rate has actually gone down and the services have maintained and in some instances have been enhanced. He stated that when he and other were on the task force to look at the CVB they had 3-quarter position selling the city of Grand Forks, and when you sell the city in the convention business you have to be years ahead of yourself because people book conventions 2, 3, 4 years in advance and one of the reasons that the occupancy in Grand Forks is not where it should be is because we didn't have the staff to be selling the city, that now they have re-structured and gone from three-quarter staff to 4 full-time sales people is what we need to do because we have huge investments that we need to protect; that to have an aggressive marketing plan you need to put some resources behind it, and will support this.

Council Member Kreun stated what they are asking for is very close to what they asked for in their marketing plan, and need to stay with our plan so that we can accomplish the goals - there is a benefit to Grand Forks in having a strong CVB in protecting our interests, and would be in favor of utilizing this money; and who benefits - that in the last 10 years mill levy has gone down 27 mills and added 15 back to cover our costs in the dike alignment, and if look at why your property value or tax might still go up, that probably because the value of your home is going up.

Council Member Burke asked if the Park District is being approached to contribute to the marketing fund for the CVB. Mr. Staley stated there is consideration of future revenues, right now the Park District has invested in putting up 3 billboards for King's Walk, which will help with bringing people to
Committee of the Whole - April 8, 2002 - Page 8

town as well as other advertising, and in the long run there will be dollars transferred in but will have to look at that- not at this time.

Council Member Burke asked if the Alerus is transferring any of its marketing dollars to the CVB.
Mr. Evenson stated at this point the Alerus Center is not transferring its marketing dollars to the CVB, but are coming before the city council asking that the council consider transferring $100,000 from that fund, they did not vote to pass but voted to be in agreement to come before this council; at this time there are no marketing dollars that are being allocated to the CVB, what is in the marketing budget right now that Compass put in there have already set their marketing plans in place for the year 2002. Council Member Burke stated that the City is spending several hundred thousand dollars in marketing through the Alerus and spending several hundred thousand dollars through the tax that the City collects and gives to the CVB for its purposes; that the Park District has a big stake in people choosing to come to Grand Forks and has the opportunity to contribute to the greater marketing of Grand Forks if it chooses to, that the citizens of Grand Forks have already contributed to marketing of the region through two different venues - the CVB through the tax that we collect from the hospitality venues and the money that we spend through the Alerus Center for marketing of the Alerus. Mr. Evenson stated that is correct but Grand Forks has fallen behind in the convention market, and made comparisons with the marketing budget for the Fargo dome and the Park District, that for promotion the CVB had a marketing budget of about $25,000, Fargo had a marketing budget in excess of $800,000, and asked how Grand Forks is going to going to compete against Fargo. Council Member Burke stated he takes issues with the population numbers and the dollar issues and the fact that we spend $25,000 on marketing from the CVB, was the CVB's choice because they had a budget of $400-500,000, they get a certain amount from taxes but have other revenues as well, there are choices to be made and before the council kicks in a third time to the marketing, want to see some other ways of getting funds.

Council Member Glassheim stated they believe the funds were put there for a specific purpose, it was a loss insurance policy in case the Alerus lost $600,000 and now being treated as though it was just put there and you could recommend that it be spent, but think of it as economic development money which we might have other uses for, it's not in a fund that belongs to the Alerus but belongs to the Growth Fund and except for loss by the Alerus it's not dedicated for Alerus purposes and not the way it was originally sold to us or set up. He stated from the presentation of the marketing plan he was surprised that they are coming back and asking us to fund it, and asked if the CVB is putting in $80,000 cash or what is that; Mr. Staley stated they looked at this plan and trying to figure out a way to do it, the $80,000 was in reserves as a lot of staff members left the CVB over the last few years and positions were not filled so these dollars have accumulated, and is cash money put in by CVB and that there is another $50,000 not shown here that the CVB put aside to help with buying down conventions that would come to the city so there was $130,000 from reserves appropriated into these efforts. Mr. Staley reported that the staff expenditures are being handled out of the other $400,000, on-going budget of the CVB will pay for the staff, and this is the replacement of the $25,000 that was used only for advertising. This is to set the foundation for a very professionally based plan that they think will work in the long run and to do it right the first time.

Mr. Evenson stated that with Simmons-Flint, which is a regional advertising firm has associates in Kansas City, Duluth and Calgary, and has recommended that we need to go 150 miles out to inform people of Grand Forks and the facilities that we have, that Aberdeen, SD is an untapped market that we've never looked, one of the things that we've never gone after is Winnipeg, and we are going in excess of 150 miles out to those areas to promote the city because when you travel 150 miles have much greater chance of spending one or two nights in a hotel, eating in restaurants, shopping than if drive from Fargo. One of the first things to do with any marketing is that you have to create your image first
Committee of the Whole - April 8, 2002 - Page 9

before introducing each event, and Simmons-Flint has suggested that we are going to go with the tag lines for the city and working on building an image for Grand Forks and have a lot of facilities at this time, have a new golf course, Engelstad, Alerus Center, greenway and to make them aware of it and to give this community an open image, we welcome you to our city. Mr. Staley said it is to create the image out there and to call attention to the community that there are things here that will direct that interest to specific sites for more details and that's the idea for upgrading the web page so we can link out into what each one of those other facilities are doing with their web pages and their brochures and advertising.

COUNCIL MEMBER LUNAK EXCUSED

2.9 First reading of an ordinance amending Section 8-1203 relating to route determination
authority._________________________________________________________________
Council Member Christensen asked Mr. Swanson if a provision for appeal to the city council if parties are aggrieved should be included; Mr. Swanson stated in the ordinance and in the resolution adopted last year, the appeal would go to the administrative coordinator and then to the council.

2.10 Public hearing on proposed amendment to 2003 Annual Action Plan (Establishment of
Storefront Rehabilitation Program) and approval of Program guidelines.____________
Council Member Hamerlik stated he had suggested that they go farther than Gateway Drive and maybe a block off either street, Washington or Gateway Drive, and that one of his concerns is there are some properties that aren't discounted from the opportunity to apply based on their address. Terry Hanson, Urban Development, stated the way this program is set up, they currently have an area within which they can apply this program, that area starts at the River on Gateway Drive and all the property that faces Gateway Drive going west to Washington, south on Washington, then to 17th Street, down 17th to 11th Avenue, 11th over to 15th Street, down 15th Street to 8th Avenue and then to the River, and the area that is currently covered is greater than what is facing Washington or Gateway. In order to implement this program they need the council to take this action and also to determine if that area is what the council wants and if they would like the area expanded they will start that process, this program can be in place prior to expanding that area. He stated they can do the storefront program in two different areas and phases, can do it within a designated area or on a spot basis - for the spot basis have to do a limited program, only health and safety issues, and if go out of existing indicated area, there has to be a health and safety issue, can address that issue with this program, and their recommendation is to initiate the program and fund it, as it is important to get this program started and give them direction on how far you want to extend the boundaries of the designated area ( if want to go a block north of Gateway Drive and north of Gateway Drive on Washington and north of Gateway on Mill Road, can do that, or all the way to 42nd Street on Gateway Drive and take all the property that faces Gateway Drive), they will include the expanded area and begin a study to get that area included in the designated area. Council Member Klave stated that there are some businesses on the other side of 42nd to the interstate and difficult to say where you put a stopping point, and asked that they give it some consideration.

Mayor Brown stated he hoped this included the Griffith's building and is a thing they need to look at as a responsible government body, what we need to do to help renovate and hope they qualify for this program. Council Member Brooks stated we have a Renaissance Zone downtown for that building.

Council Member Gershman stated the program would have more impact if it's in a more contained area so that there are some obvious results of this program, and if this becomes a yearly program, but maybe can take that money and have a multi-year program. Council Member Christensen asked if we could
Committee of the Whole - April 8, 2002 - Page 10

have the grant up to $20,000 rather than $10,000, and this would accomplish what Mr. Gershman suggested on a visual impact basis; Mr. Hanson reported that all applications come before the city council for final approval.

Mr. Hanson stated it is his intent to continue to bring this program back to city council for funding, through the CDBG Program they can contribute up to 30% of our annual budget towards programs such as this, and over the next few years that will be a substantial amount of funding; if we expand the area by doing a study and having public hearings and including more area, would like to do it all in one study and passed at one time. He stated there are 6 items he is asking for to set up this program again plus expand the area if that is what they desire. Council Member Kerian asked for map showing the area.

2.11 Plant filter emergency repairs and budget amendment.
The city auditor stated they will be changing the request, can spend the funds directly out of the capital project and won't have to do a budget amendment.

2.12 Change Order No. 7 for City Project 4815 and 4816.1.
No comments.

2.13 Location list for Project No. 5288, 2002 Sidewalk Repairs.
Ms. Voigt reported letters sent out by certified mail (listing for new construction and disrepair, complaints, etc.)

2.14 Consideration of bids for City Project No. 5315, Viking Water Tower Reconditioning.
It was noted that Advanced Engineering is consultant on the project at cost of $121,529, and no budget transfer needed as have funds in the capital project.

2.15 Bids for City Project No. 5322, District No. 5893, alley paving University Avenue and 2nd
Avenue North (North 12th Street to North Washington Street)._______________________
No comments

2.16 Approval of Grand Forks Renaissance Zone project GF-3, loc. at 312 Kittson Avenue.
Council Member Christensen asked if there was a Renaissance Zone Authority - Mr. Potter stated there is not, that decision was made by the city council when they established the Zone - the committee acts as a screening group to review the project and ultimate authority rests with the council. The owner is Trish Clayburgh and the business is called Mana Ola Center for Holistic Arts.

2.17 Compensation for members of the Board of Park Commissioners.
Council Member Hamerlik stated he was in favor of wording of recommendation - $100 per month.

2.18 Local support letter for State Low Income Housing Tax Credit Projects for developer
(Section 42 of Tax Reform Act of 1986).________________________________________
Council Member Bjerke asked for location in Congressional 1. Mr. Hanson stated this area of land is owned by Grand Forks Homes and is west of 53rd Street. Council Member Bjerke asked if a map could be included in Friday's packet. Council Member Burke asked if tax credits are federal income tax credits - Mr. Hanson stated that under Sec. 42 of the Internal Revenue Code it is low income tax credit, credits are allocated to the State by the federal government and developer will use and sell those credits to get equity into the project.
Committee of the Whole - April 8, 2002 - Page 11

2.19 Amtrak resolution.
Council Member Bjerke stated they have national security in there but everything has become national security since the 11th, and way of asking for monies and tie it into that.

2.20 Request for a statement of qualifications for professional services to evaluate biosolids
-treatment and disposal alternatives.___________________________________________
No comments.

2.21 Petition for a Replat of Lot 1, Block 1, Columbia Park Addition, Grand Forks, ND (loc.
east of S. 29th Street between 17th Ave.S. and 19th Ave.S._________________________
No comments

2.22 (Public hearing) request for final approval (fast track) of the Replat of Lot 1, Block 1,
Columbia Park Addition including a variance to the subdivision regulations of the Land
Development Code as it defines a minor subdivision, (loc. east of S. 29th Street between
17th and 19th Avenues South).________________________________________________
No comments.

2.23 Preliminary approval of the Plat of Southern Estates Third Addition (loc. west of South
-20th Street and North of 45th Avenue South)____________________________________
Council Member Kerian stated in the minutes Mr. Grasser talked if placing B-3 next to single family was a good planning practice and asked where B-3 is. Mr. Potter stated the B-3 is on the west is Columbia, east on 45th Avenue South, north on South 20th and west on 40th Avenue South - near current fire station on S. Columbia Road and near southend drainage ditch. He will send map in Monday's packet.

2.24 Request for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the zoning map to include
within the Southern Estates PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development
Plan, Amendment No. 2, all of Columbia Park 24th and 26th Additions; all of Southern
Estates First, Second and Third Additions and all of the unplatted portions of the West
Half of the Southeast Quarter and all of the unplatted portions of the Southwest Quarter
of Section 21-151-50 with substantive changes lying south of and adjacent to the Southend
Drainway (lying north of and adj. to 45th Avenue South and lying east of and adj. to
South 26th Street.______________________________________________________________
No comments

2.25 Request for preliminary approval of the plat of Heitmann WEG Addition (located south
of 62nd Avenue SE and west of L & S 3rd Resubdiv. (aka Burke's Addition).__________
No comments.

2.26 Request for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the zoning map to include
within the B-3 (General Business) District Lots 4 through 8, Block 2, Sunny Nodak Farms
Addition (loc. at 6367 Gateway Drive).____________________________________________
Council Member Bjerke stated he will be abstaining to vote on this next Monday - and also noted that the Church is outside the city limits and pays for outside fire protection.

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR COMMENTS


Committee of the Whole - April 8, 2002 - Page 12

Mr. Duquette stated that next Monday the Mayor may ask for a special city council meeting, that as of last Friday he, the finance director, the planning director and the city engineer were working with staff members of the UND regarding their infrastructure assistance request and have put together a working plan and will bring an agreement with the City and University of North Dakota next Monday for concurrence.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

9-1 Council Member Klave stated they had been dealing with Mr. Crary's property south on Belmont Road and when that would be on the agenda. Mr. Potter stated it will be on the agenda for the April 15 hearing. Mr. Klave also noted that he will not be at the council meeting on April 15 as he will be attending a Planning and Zoning Conference in Chicago.

9-2 Council Member Kerian asked if minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting were on the web site, and it was noted they are.

9-3 Council Member Kreun commented on the marketing plan from CVB and how it ties in with the article that was in the Downtown Experience; that the Chamber had Mr. Ned Hill come in and do some assessment about our community and made a comment - that Mr. Hill encouraged our city to bench-mark against similar size communities, keeping in mind the need to alter programs and activities that work well in the "grand cities" and alluding to with the marketing plan and stating "..when interviewing citizens of the grand cities last year Hill and his colleagues found our region often equate success to just plain survival.." One man they interviewed discussed how a business failed miserably and that everyone expected it, the business survived 10 years, and rather than celebrating the fact that the business contributed to the economy for 10 years, the culture in the region is to doubt and then criticize, the combination doesn't foster risk taking necessary for economic development - and commended the marketing plan and to get rid of the doubt in our minds and take risk and go forward.

9-4 Council Member Brooks asked if Mr. Swanson could send memo before next week from a parliamentarian standpoint - how the chair addresses a topic and how to do that within the guidelines of Roberts Rules of Order.

9-5 Council Member Brooks presented the matter of pledge of allegiance before the start of meeting, and would wait for word on that.

9-6 Council Member Bjerke asked for an item to be placed on the committee agenda on April 22 -that Chief Packett bring a report on what is going on with security at the airport, that we are going to be involved out there and how the reimbursement is going to work, and how affect our staffing and any other related issues to providing security at the airport.

9-7 Council Member Bjerke asked status of money for bridge that wasn't built and discussion of going to the greenway betterments, and asked if there was any truth that they are looking at fountains with that money.

9-8 Council Member Bjerke stated when they discussed cable t.v. contract, would like to look at having the Park, the School and the County televise their meetings for public information. He also stated for the April 22 committee of the whole, will bring up two tax related issues and how the City spends money, that he will do the work and the reports.

Committee of the Whole - April 8, 2002 - Page 13

9-9 Council Member Bjerke asked if the Board of Equalization meets tomorrow night, and for review. The city auditor reported the Board of Equalization meeting is required by State Statutes and is an opportunity for individuals to protest what their valuation are, start the meeting and take the protests at that time and they are referred to the committee of the whole for further discussion.

9-10 Council Member Stevens stated he has a newspaper for the Mayor to read, and will bring it to him after the meeting.

9-11 Council Member Burke asked what pending agreement with University (re. special meeting next week) and if that would be what they described in the letter to the University, and in agreement with what Mayor suggested in his letter; Mr. Duquette stated yes.

9-12 Council Member Burke stated what Council Member Kreun stated in not encouraging risk, it is not that we don't encourage risk, it's whose money is being risked here that some of them have an issue with.

9-13 Council Member Burke asked what "defease" mean - the city auditor stated it means - retire the debt or pay if off.

Mayor Brown stated he couldn't remember when he had enjoyed a council meeting more, that it has been said if you want to start a fight, you discuss politics or religion and the discussion of a code of ethics brings the best of both discussions to the floor - it has been said that honest men differ and emphasized the word "honest". He also noted that the Minneapolis Star Tribune had an article about our five-years since the flood.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Stevens that we adjourn. Carried 11 votes affirmative.


Respectfully submitted,



John M. Schmisek
City Auditor