City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us

MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
August 12, 2002 - 7:00 p.m.

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, August 12, 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, Hamerlik, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 6; absent: Council Member Glassheim - 1.

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 commented on the following community weekly events:
1) he thanked the Air Force Base for spraying last Friday, despite bad weather spraying was effective and good compliment to our existing mosquito control program.
2) he thanked the Tops in Blue for coming to Grand Forks and thanks to Chamber of Commerce Golden Eagles for making this free event possible.
3) he stated he was a judge at the Chili Cook-off for Cat Fish Days and was an event where the whole family can participate.
4) he thanked the Jaycees for carrying through with the park called Jaycees Park, and parks are crucial to most of our families and children in the community and good job to the Office of Urban Development and the Park District for sheparding the project to success; and none of these events would be possible without the organizations and volunteers and thanked them.
5) this Thursday there will be a grand opening for the Continental Homes Learning Center, it's one of over 1000 neighborhood network centers in the country that brings technology to all populations of our community - congratulated the Housing Authority and local partners who made this happen.
6) he paid tribute to former council member Terry Bjerke, that if you want to support a community event or program, write a personal check, tonight here's his (Mayor's) $100 personal pledge to the KFJM radio station and are going to have a thing called "match the mayor" as a fund raiser to help this go, the program on Northern Lights is worth saving and thankful to those working to keep their doors open, including ND Public Radio and UND. He stated in talking about quality of life, focus on safety and comfort, but another part of quality of life is diversity and opportunity, and as leaders in this and as community members we need to do a better job embracing diversity because it breeds opportunity and vital to expanding our regional economy - losing Northern Lights would be a step in the wrong direction, and wanted to recognize that individual City employees have already pledged over $400.00 to this project and if you would like to make a pledge, can do this at www.ndpr.org/. and to participate as a community and make this happen.

3.1 The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City of Grand Forks for the year ended December 31, 2001 and the Independent Auditor's Report.________________
Council Member Hamerlik stated the audit committee met and recommended to committee of the whole that they have reviewed it. The city auditor stated they will be making a recommendation as the audit committee and there is a recommendation that will take place at the council meeting because full council will have to act on the motion to approve.

Council Member Brooks stated in terms of the audit report for a point of information, the terms of the general revenue prior to transfers in and bottom line of revenues and
Minutes /Committee of the Whole 8/12/02 - Page 2

expenditures, that expenditures exceeded revenues of $2.7 million. The city auditor stated that was correct, prior to transfers. because there were several revenues that were under what they had anticipated, including sales tax, licenses and permits, and also some of the building permits, fines and forfeitures, etc.

3.2 Final approval of the plat of Berg's Second Addition, Grand Forks County, North Dakota, being a part of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 151 North, Range 50 West of the 5th Principal Meridian (located west of South 69th Street between 24th Avenue South and 32nd Avenue South).
No comments.

3.3 Final approval of an ordinance amending the text of the Land Development Code, Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, Section XX-XXXX relating to banner display area(s) in the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota._________
Council Member Gershman questioned fees for permits - $100/yr. and if there was a renewal fee. Mr. Potter, city planner, stated this is a one-time fee. Council Member Kreun stated they discussed this at the sign committee meeting and at Planning and Zoning and discussion at council meeting earlier - at one time an annual fee and now became a one-time fee.

Mr. Swanson, city attorney, referred to section dealing with insurance and hold harmless, and understands the plan is that City crews would hang or place the banners, if that is the case not sure there is a particular need to require the filing of insurance, there would be reason to require insurance if somebody other than City staff were entering public r/w to hang or place the banners, but leave to their discretion. Mr. Potter stated that the City will not charge a separate fee for installation of the banners; Mr. Feland stated he was not sure what cost would be for the City to place the banners, that he did volunteer the street department to install them as part of pro bono effort, and told Gateway Assn. that the City would help them out in installing those banners; and assumes could do that in one night. Council Member Gershman stated he thought they should monitor that to make sure that it doesn't become overtime and become problem. Council Member Kreun stated this is a three-part partnership - Gateway Assn. business group, Chamber of Commerce and the City, and City's portion was to put the banners up and banners will be up permanently (only replace if damaged), that material very durable, fade resistant and should last for several years and majority should be one-time occurrence.

3.4 Final approval of an ordinance related to rights of way reservations for the plat of Heitmann Weg Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, lying in the easterly 350 feet of the E 1/2 of the E 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 35, T151N, R50W of the 5th Principal Meridian (located at South 62nd Avenue SE and west of L & S 3rd Resubdivision (aka Burke's Addition)._________________________________________
No comments.

3.5 Vacation of the alley right of way adjacent to Lots 1 through 20, Block 2, University Park Addition to Grand Forks, ND and an unplatted portion of the SW Quarter of the SW Quarter of Section 4, Township 151 North, Range 50 West of the 5th Principal Meridian (located south of 2nd Avenue North between North 23rd and North 25th Streets (extended).__________________________________________________________

Minutes /Committee of the Whole 8/12/02 - Page 3

Council Member Hamerlik stated concern over vacation of the alley that is by the EERC lot (from the back of Engelstad Arena 1 and is across from the Human Nutrition Lab) how will they clear the lot other than one driveway. Mr. Potter showed location on the map and need to take alley out as the building will go over part of that alley - that simply vacating the alley does not mean the curb cut will disappear, but until see the actual site plan which will detail where the expanded building will lie, look at their proposed future expansion and look at how they are going to deal with their parking, can we answer the question. Council Member Brooks stated this whole area is University land, and EERC part of the University, and assuming they have thought this through in their planning and involved in discussions and should have given some consideration to needs. Mr. Potter stated that the site plan is not yet in their office for review and has meeting with CPS tomorrow afternoon and will have a better handle on when he can expect it. He stated that until he actually sees the site plan with the EERC addition, won't know exactly how UND will deal with that issue, that next Monday if they accept Planning Commission's recommendation to vacate and set a public hearing which wouldn't be until the last meeting in September or first meeting in October.

3.6 (First reading) Ordinance to annex to the city of Grand Forks, Lot 1, less the Easterly
90 feet previously annexed, and Lots 2 through 6, Block A of a Replat of all of Blocks
1 and 2, LeClerc's Addition, Grand Forks, ND (located at 5616 Belmont Rd.)________
Council Member Gershman stated the property owner that wants to replat this can do what they want, but questioned calling the street Peyton Place Circle re. the TV show. Mr. Potter stated he was correct in the name.

Council Member Christensen stated when he was reading through the information, he noted one sentence, "..approval of a similar request for platting and land use designation would be routine in a PUD concept development plan in that the annexation of the small urban lots would be a condition of approval of the detailed development plan.); that this is a unique presentation to us and we don't have a PUD, normally this would be a PUD and normally if wanted to bring in a couple lots there that would be a concept development plan, but wants to make sure that all of us understand is by approving this you're not getting an annexation and by virtue of not getting an annexation, we're not subjecting this ground to special assessments for the dike; that if didn't approve this and came in as a PUD all of the land would have to be annexed and get special assessments for the dike - that this is a way around our zoning ordinances and our PUD and concept plan by people who know what they are doing obviously and bringing in a couple lots and rest not getting specials. He stated that this should comply, get PUD and concept plan and pay the specials as everyone else is doing - because exempting this property from special assessments for the dike.

3.7 Preliminary approval of a replat of all of Blocks 1 and 2, LeClerc's Addition, Grand
Forks, North Dakota (located at 6161 Belmont Road).__________________________
3.8 (First reading) Preliminary approval of an ordinance to rezone and exclude from the
A-2 (Agricultural Reserve) District and to include within R-1 (Single Family Residence) District all of Blocks A and B of a Replat of all of Blocks 1 and 2, LeClerc's Addition, Grand Forks, ND (located at 5616 Belmont Road.______________
Council Member Christensen stated his comments of 3.6 would be repeated for all three items (3.6, 3.7 and 3.8)

Minutes /Committee of the Whole 8/12/02 - Page 4

3.9 Preliminary approval of a Plat of Western Plains Addition to Grand Forks, North
Dakota, being a portion of the South One-Half of the Southwest One-Quarter of
Section 36, Township 151 North of Range 51 West of the 5th Principal Meridian (located north of US Highway 2 between North 62nd Street).___________________
Council Member Gershman asked if we have any control over what the building will look like or any construction requirements as far as aesthetics, because what we hear constantly is how that road looks coming from the airport and it bothers everybody, if there is something we could do that the building would be aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Potter stated if looking at some form of design control then have two options 1) establish some form of design review board for specific corridor and some form of design review control and develop standards for design of buildings as they did with downtown design review board; 2) basically go through the corridor and change the zoning ordinance so that all uses in that corridor would become conditional use permits - and conditional use permit process would allow you on a case by case basis to then review not only the permit but the type of building and what the building would look like. Probably the quickest way would be to establish the corridor and then go through and make a wholesale change to all the zoning districts that front now in that area and change the zoning ordinance so that all the uses become conditional use permits; and suggested process to do changes to the zoning ordinance with final approval by October 21 - and subject to Mr. Swanson's review.

Council Member Gershman stated we need to get our arms around that; there are conditional use permits out there that are coming due in a couple years and as mentioned earlier that we need to start notifying those people that we're not going to renew those, some won't, so that they can start planning - and if don't do something it will continue to get worse - that it's the gateway to Grand Forks.

Mr. Swanson stated he understands motivation and tends to agree with observations but your zoning code, despite what Mr. Potter says, does not have a zone identified as conditional use permit - that conditional use permit is an overlaid zone so take your normal zoning district and identify the uses for which you need to have a higher level of approval, conditional use permit. To convert wholesale zones to every use to a conditional use permit would probably not be upheld by the courts because you would not be imposing the same restrictions on the same use at a different location unless you have a very strong rational basis as to why one area you allow it without restrictions and in another area have greater restrictions. He stated there are avenues you can explore on how to deal with the concerns along Gateway Drive but not sure adopting conditional use permits is the answer for the problem. He stated it is a sensitive issue when dealing with changing the zoning distinctions and districts. Council Member Gershman stated that if the Mayor were to agree and there was consensus from the council, this is the time to start to review that and get a report from staff, Planning and Zoning - that this is important to come up with something over the next few months, perhaps bring the County in so finally get our arms around this. Mr. Potter so noted.

Council Member Christensen stated you are being asked to grant a conditional use permit to something they want to erect in an A-2 District but if going to propose I-2 in an A-2 it's spot zoning because it's not contiguous; that it doesn't appear to be contiguous to a B-3 District either so couldn't extend your zoning to B-3, unless you chose to run a strip all the way from your B-3 to your I-2. He stated he thinks it is time that we address our future use of Highway 2 and not allow the ad hoc construction of building because it's the gateway to
Minutes /Committee of the Whole 8/12/02 - Page 5

our community. He stated there is nothing to say that we can't create another zoning classification - "B-Highway 2 Zone" and have building restrictions located within that zone that you have to comply with and could have a design review committee within that district and also have to begin addressing how are we going to clean that corridor up over the next 10-15 years. He stated there is no reason for a conditional use permit within A-2, because once it is built, are you going to pull his permit or give him 5 years, etc. and now is the time to start this process because as this sits, you are spot zoning unless go with a conditional use and if go with a conditional use, know what those uses are.

Council Member Kreun stated when they go back to Planning and Zoning, would like some guidance from the council so know what going to request of us in the long range plan, but how proceed with which procedure as Mr. Swanson indicated. It could be brought individually or consensus brought forward with the minutes and brought to Mr. Potter's office.

Council Members Brooks and Hamerlik stated they were in agreement with addressing the cleanup of Gateway Drive.

Council Member Christensen stated he didn't know if the votes were there to approve this request with conditional use permit, unless knew exactly what the conditions were and how it was going to be monitored, but the whole idea of zoning and setting up areas of town for zoning is to encourage the construction of this type of use to be located in an industrial area, and the time has come to eliminate the I-2 zoning on Highway 2 and to focus that zoning on North Hwy. 81 where it can be used and Columbia Road north and plenty of area out there to develop and is all industrial; and that is something Planning and Zoning staff should be doing and for them to give council some ideas as to how they could legally create another zoning class if we have to, but thinks enough I-2 to deal with issues like this. He stated that zoning is to encourage utilization of your community in certain areas by not having industrial surround your community.

3.10 (First reading) Preliminary approval of an ordinance to rezone from A-2 (Agri- cultural Reserve) District to I-2 (Heavy Industrial) District for the west 1920.6 feet of the south 447 feet of the South One-Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 152 North, Range 51 West of the 5th Principal Meridian (includes Western Plains Addition and additional property). (this property is located north of US Highway 2 between North 62nd and North 69th Streets)._________________________
(With item 3.09)

Keith Danks, Jr. asked if it is good idea to make it more difficult to construct buildings, have another zoning area, not really going to find a lot of entrepreneurs that are going to speculate to build a building to store agricultural products (i.e., potato flakes) and get a conditional use permit, maybe tenant for year or two and then empty building; that the conditional use permits are limiting financing for funding. He stated that Highway 2 which is a prime location and even though a spot zone is very near Vern's Addition which is a large industrial area on Highway 2 and the reason he bought the property over a year ago was because it was on a non-weight restricted road and could bring in loaded trucks on and off the road at any time without any restrictions. He said he started this process in May in trying to get this building erected, and that he is disappointed if they can't get preliminary approval on this and willing to do all sorts of landscaping (steel frame new building) and
Minutes /Committee of the Whole 8/12/02 - Page 6

would look as good as buildings in Vern's Addition, and follow the zoning ordinance as written. He said all he wants is the zoning change and conditional use is not going to be conducive for what he wants to accomplish at that location. He stated he agreed that they need to clean up Highway 2 and thought that this would do that; and that this project and to rezone this property is the right thing to do for Grand Forks; that he has a tenant that needs warehouse space and this will accommodate their needs; that he bought the property, and spent over $10,000 cleaning it up (previously a go-cart track on a conditional use permit), and tried to use assets that were there - and only need to rezone this, and willing to listen if there is anyway they can get this accomplished - time is of the essence as tenant needs it this year.

Council Member Gershman stated this is something they all feel very strongly about on Gateway Drive, appreciate interest in developing in Grand Forks, and doesn't think that a conditional use permit would make any sense for Mr. Danks as an investor and not sure that's the direction they are talking about. He stated he would like to see a little more information.

Council Member Christensen asked who owns the property to the east of this. Mr. Danks stated a number of local people and a person from Wisconsin; and property to the west is a number of local and out of state landowners; that he has talked to all of them this past year and the City of Grand Forks owns the property of former Humane Society. Council Member Christensen stated that if what was given to Planning & Zoning was what was initially in their packet - appeared that the zoning was Mr. Danks' land and all the land to the west that was going to be brought in under I-2 and wouldn't have had spot zoning; but now clearly spot zoning, and a solution to get that done is to get to the people to the east to join in the request so don't have spot zoning. Mr. Danks stated that he owns property and initially he went along with the recommendation of Planning to go ahead and try to rezone all the property to the west, but right now has a good client and they are expanding in Grand Forks and asked if he could accommodate them with more space, bought this property, realized that he would require a conditional use permit and then realized that the conditional use permit wouldn't cut it because if would hinder the property too much - no one invest funds in a new building in Grand Forks to a specific conditional use, such as storing agricultural products and needs the property rezoned to what he requested and here tonight to try to move that process along and he is totally receptive to extensive landscaping, different type of facade on part of the building and would look nice but not a retail center, and as an alternative would be willing to accept a B-3 zoning. Council Member Christensen stated it would have to be contiguous unless they deviate from their rules - he also noted that several months ago they had people with conditional use permits which were granted for 10 years and he made a point that they should be on notice that their permit expires in August, 2004, that the 10 years is gone and if begin the cleanup of Highway 2, it has to start someplace and somewhere, and if continue to expand, you can't cleanup. Mr. Danks stated that if this is where it starts with Highway 2 cleanup, so be it and will live with it, but it comes at a high cost of enterprise and growth and that is unfortunate.

3.11 (First reading) Preliminary approval of an ordinance to rezone from A-2 (Agricultural
Reserve) District to B-3 (General Business) District Block 1, Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 and Block 2, Sunny Nodak Farms Addition to the city of Grand Forks, ND. (This property is located near the intersection of North 66th Street and Highway 2 frontage road.____
No comments.
Minutes /Committee of the Whole 8/12/02 - Page 7

3.12 (First reading) Preliminary approval of the Replat of all of Block 6, Congressional
First Resubdivision to the city of Grand Forks, ND (located on Selkirk Circle).____
No comments.

3.13 (First reading) Preliminary approval of the Plat of Edgewood Estates Addition to
Grand Forks, ND (located between Belmont Road and Angela Drive and between
62nd and 64th Avenue Southeast).________________________________________
It was noted this property is not within the city limits - is on the south side of 62nd Avenue South just west of where Heitmann's are building their new home. Council Member Gershman stated in looking at the map, where would the dike line be; that he knows people are building in there and to make sure when this is replatted, that there is no liability for the City; and if it is proper for us to replat something on the wet side of the dike. Mr. Swanson stated it is legal, and you probably would not be able to refuse and believes the plat will contain language that was devised from earlier plats with respect to utilities and services being made available on the wet side of the levee; Mr. Potter stated that was the standard language they have been putting in on plats to the wet side.

Council Member Christensen requesting information on item 13 on Planning staff recommendations and/or conditions - where it stated that "If additional R/W along Belmont Road is needed for flood control and the boundary of such has been determined, then
separate lots may be created at this time to accommodate the purchase and transfer thereof." ; that in his experience if property is platted it becomes more valuable than if unplatted, and would be concerned that if going to plat this, that we don't pay for this as platted or proposed residential, that we pay for as agricultural if we can. Mr. Swanson stated that it's all a question of the appraisal and expects experience would also indicate that an attorney can effectively create a counter-argument that because the property is within an area that is likely to be developed for a particular use and has already been identified in the year 2020 Plan as potential growth that already pushes the value up. If you want to litigate the issue, you can litigate it either in the form of valuation for acquisition, which he would prefer to litigate, or on a taking side because refused to timely rezone and plat property, and more appropriate method to take it is in is litigation if it is to occur to deal within the acquisition process, and thinks there has already been discussions with respect to this land or adjoining land on that. Council Member Christensen stated that he didn't want to do something that would cause the price to go up, and rather pay for it today in 2003 rather than 2020. Mr. Swanson stated that you're suggesting that you have an option today when the property owner is requesting you to replat it today - and Council Member Christensen asked by 13. is even on the report. Mr. Swanson stated he wasn't sure the final alignment has been finalized in that area, so the point that you can determine where within a survey line, the foot of the levee is going to go, but not been consulted on this issue.

Mr. Grasser stated the Corps has not defined the footprint in this area, one of our final areas of dike construction in Phase IV and just starting to look at the preliminaries, they've identified the route but not exact footprint, that part of what goes into that decision making is the drainage characteristics and how big ditch you have to build at the toe for drainage. He stated that he is not sure what you do with item 13. because you can't identify it to create the lot at this time.

Minutes /Committee of the Whole 8/12/02 - Page 8

Mr. Swanson stated you could if you want to pay for the easement now, thinks we're better off moving forward with the plat as presented and negotiating the matter; that item 13. doesn't know what it is intended to do, says nothing and means nothing.

There was considerable discussion relative to item 13. and why it was included as a technical condition. Mr. Potter stated that if the determination were not in place at the time it came to Planning Commission for final, then he would recommend 13. be stricken and would never be there as a technical condition on final approved. Mr. Swanson stated his recommendation is that you remove 13.

Mr. Swanson stated that he doesn't think the City has the ability to predetermine a taking without having some form of action, whether that be an offer of negotiation or starting eminent domain action, cannot take by easement or otherwise without compensating the property owner for that r/w. Council Member Christensen stated that if someone were to take a building permit and at a minimum there should be language on the plat something to the effect - maybe subject to taking for a dike and may lose part of this ground; Mr. Swanson stated he didn't disagree with that and in reading technical changes he doesn't find that the language is identified and doesn't see it on the plat itself because there is additional language talking about the extension of utilities and services. Council Member Christensen stated that Mr. Swanson should have a chance to look at this in light of what they have done in the past to make sure that the Planning Department is in agreement with our legal department, and his job will be easier when the time comes to take some of this ground for the dike. Mayor Brown stated that Mr. Swanson and Mr. Potter will work that out.

3.14 (First reading) Preliminary approval of an ordinance to rezone and exclude from the
B-3 (General Business) District and to include within the A-2 (Agricultural Reserve)
District, Block 1, Lot 1, Sunny Nodak Farms Addition to the city of Grand Forks,
ND. (This property is located at the intersection of North 69th Street and Hwy. 2).
Council Member Christensen stated this is proposed from B-3 to A-2 rezoning (old Westgate Marine) and why would they take this down from a B-3 to A-2, and if tearing the building down, and if this is contiguous to B-3 or spot zoned. Mr. Potter stated his understanding was that the building will come down, and doesn't believe that lot remains buildable, that after build the dike in there, etc. from the standpoint of the City in terms of maintenance and work with the English Coulee, and doesn't connect to any B-3 property, would have to deem it spot zoning. Council Member Gershman stated he hoped that staff could where the dike line or English Coulee Diversion is set, show that on all of these maps and make it clearer for everybody because it does impact decisions.

3.15 (First reading) Preliminary approval of an ordinance to rezone and exclude from the
B-3 (General Business) District and to include within the R-4 (Multiple Family
Residence, High Density) District, Lot N, Block 1 of a Replat of Lots C through I and
Lots K and L of the Replat of Lot 1, Block 1, OJ's Addition (located at 3700 13th
Avenue North).___________________________________________________________
This item was withdrawn.

3.16 Budget amendment (HL45, $11,945, 7/30/02) and Employee Tobacco Cessation Grant
Agreement (#03-298) with the North Dakota Department of Health, New Revenue._
No comments.
Minutes /Committee of the Whole 8/12/02 - Page 9

3.17 Budget Amendment (Food Class Revenue $1,715, 3/29/02 and $93.99, 7/31/02), and
Budget Amendment (CSCC Revenue $821, 5/29/02), New Revenue.______________
No comments.

3.18 Engineering services agreement for Project No. 5316, University Elevated Tower
--Reconditioning._______________________________________________________
No comments.

3.19 Create special assessment district for City Project No. 5375, District No. 414, Sanitary
Sewer along North 42nd Street from Gateway to 16th Avenue North, and 16th
Avenue North from 42nd Street to the terminus of 16th Avenue North Circle.______
Council Member Christensen stated in reading staff report that maybe 16% want the project but we're suggesting that because this project can't be protested out that we go forward with it, and asked why we have to do this and impose special assessments on people that don't want the special assessments or the project. Cindy Voigt, asst. city engineer, stated she has had calls from both sides, small percentage by area want the sewer and she proposed taking bids so can get actual costs, they had an informational meeting and two members showed up and ND Concrete sent her a letter and that they do not want the project to proceed because of the assessment process, that since the Assessment Commission hasn't met and can only give a guess on estimated cost and what the Commission may do, but if create the district can get the bids, have the Commission meet and provide numbers to the property owners and if still do not want it and costs unreasonable, the council has the power to stop the project. Some of the owners in the district want paving and some still need city water, all platted lots within the city and don't have city sewer and have gravel and this is the first step to getting that cleaned up. Council Member Kreun stated we've spent a lot of time on this project and some of the people now asking not to be included in this were the original petitioners, and changed because of the estimated cost and that we can get some actual costs and they can make their wishes known to the council. He stated there are some alternatives to this type of sewer installation and if costs prohibitive for them they can look at the alternative sewer installation systems to see if those would be in line with their cost prior to doing the street, and would want to get sanitary sewer and storm sewer system in prior to putting the street in, and would be glad to work with them on alternative methods as well.

3.20 Bids for Project No. 5293, 2002 Loop Detector bids.
Council Member Gershman asked what threshold of money that needs to come before council - and it was noted to be $30,000 and over that amount would need council approval. Council Member Gershman stated if we have a policy, follow that policy and if under $30,000 we don't need to bring to council.

3.21 Bids for Project No. 5334, Erosion Repairs at Southend Drainway and Ray Richards
Golf Course._____________________________________________________________
No comments.

3.22 Bikeway easement and temporary construction easement for Project No. 5382, TCSP
Greenway Trail Enhancements._____________________________________________
No comments.

3.23 Request for donation of lot by Habitat for Humanity.
Minutes /Committee of the Whole 8/12/02 - Page 10

Council Member Hamerlik stated that Habitat did project on 10th, 1300 block, and while it took some time, it was nicely done; that he went by project on 7th Avenue by a different group and is terrible; and asked when is termination of the project, Habitat has good track record and perhaps need completion dates. Terry Hanson, Urban Development, stated they will have to apply and get a building permit (6 months) and would have to have it completed within that time and this is new construction. He stated that perhaps they could enter into a contract for deed and hold some kind of deed restrictions on the property until it is completed, or receiving it back if not completed.

3.24 Urban Development director/Jobs Development Authority process.
Rick Duquette, administrative coordinator, stated that several meetings ago he reported that they put the hiring of the urban development director position on hold pending two pieces, first is what is the relationship with the Housing Authority, and the Housing Authority is going to move ahead and hire their own director, so we need to accomplish the job description change; second piece is how do we handle economic development - both economic development staff and urban development staff have mentioned there are some additional models they would like to look at or some ideas they want to bring forward to streamline our process and wants to get second piece answered before they move forward with hiring urban development director. He stated his goal is to hire an urban development director and made a suggestion about how to do this is to pass this on to the standby finance committee and incorporate members of the economic Development Corp. and their staff to look at how we do economic development as there are some other models out there that they want to approach. He communicated to the Economic Development Corp. on this and looking for their guidance and thoughts on this.

3.25 Request to authorize subcontract work on City-owned property.
Terry Bjerke, 5356 5th Avenue North, stated he was glad to see this item on the agenda and nice to see elected officials that obey the law - that if council members are allowed to work for the City there is a potential for corruption, we need a watch dog for the citizens; the longer you work together the more inclined you're going to be to protect each other and stated this is a debate on policy issue. He stated an area of concern is the performance of work, questions that city employee would go to a council member or his company and tell them the work is substandard, putting employees in a very compromising and poor position. He stated he finds it interesting that a group of people that have a deep affection for laws and controlling people's lives and how they live, seem to be reluctant to put any rules on how they conduct themselves - that he prefers to see a high bar and elected officials should be leaders and examples; another concern might be that we can't get enough people to run for the city council, doesn't believe that is true, and asked Mr. Swanson if he had ever brought a type of this item to the council before tonight. Mr. Swanson stated not of a subcontract nature but has seen disclosures and waivers on other issues. Mr. Bjerke stated he is confident there will always be plenty of people to be on the city council and if somebody has to make a choice between a business issue and council, and thinks that choice needs to be made; thinks the integrity of the council and people's opinions, whether right or wrong, are of the utmost importance and thinks they have an obligation to citizens to make it very clear what's going on, and there is nothing going on, and although that might affect some people, thinks that's a price that worth paying. No additional comments.

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

Minutes /Committee of the Whole 8/12/02 - Page 11

4.1 RFP for Historic Homes/lot Relocation packages.
Information only.

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR COMMENTS

Mr. Duquette had no comments.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Brooks stated Mayor referred to dedication of Jaycees Park and thinks it's a real success story where it was led by the citizens, lot of cooperation with Park Board and City staff, Urban Development, and effort that shows that citizens and committee format can work out a plan and put a success story together. Congratulates citizens for that.

2) Council Member Brooks stated that The Moving Wall (Vietnam Veterans Memorial) will be in town over Labor Day weekend (for about a week) and there are fund-raising efforts and donations can be sent to the Golden Eagles Club in care of Chamber of Commerce, and asked that they please take the time to go out there and honor those that are on that wall and remember their families.

3) Council Member Hamerlik asked Mr. Duquette for his progress on Springfest ; Mr. Duquette reported they are having a meeting this Thursday with the city prosecutor and members of the police department and try to get outline to the city council by the end of next week and to the community as to what they plan to do with this matter in the future.

4) Council Member Hamerlik stated that Council Member Gershman indicted there was a list of young entrepreneurs and asked if a list was available; Mr. Duquette stated he received the listing today and will have copies made and distributed to the council.

5) Mayor Brown asked status of the civic auditorium and asked what status was. Mr. Duquette stated we still own it - that he has had some recent interest again from community type groups - there was some discussion re. PSAP, Emergency Operations Center taking a look at it - both groups have been in there but nothing firm. Council Member Hamerlik suggested putting that building up for rent or sale on the marquee. Mr. Duquette stated they could and Economic Development Corp. uses it in their information on web site, and if wish of the council will do that.

6) Council Member Kreun asked Mr. Duquette if they could set date in week of August 26 as time to get Mr. Potter and Ms. Collings together for that off-street parking ordinance. Mr. Duquette stated he would; and noted to Mr. Feland their date that week for review of recycling and bidding process and specs. they put together.

7) Council Member Gershman presented several items -
a) if the City of Grand Forks is doing any planning to commemorate September 11.
b) he would like to congratulate Crimson Creek Collegiate Players and all of those involved in the production and performance of Jesus Christ Superstar at the Empire Tuesday through Saturday night to sell-out crowds every night and one of the best local production he has seen in Grand Forks, high level of talent and choreography.

Minutes /Committee of the Whole 8/12/02 - Page 12

c) he stated they want to get on top of the conditional use permits on Highway 2 and also as they drive around and lot of businesses in the city that letting some weeds get out of control and suggest that the citizens contact those businesses if they do business there and tell them it would look better if cut weeds, etc.
d) there are some substandard buildings on Mill Road as it connects to Highway 81.
e) he commended Mr. Kreun for bringing forward his disclosure, this is not a new issue and Mr. Kreun is following procedure and what was requested earlier and this is what should take place, that NDCC 40-13-05 where it says, officers not to be interested in contracts or work of municipalities, exception - and goes on to list the exception where it says, provided, however, that the foregoing shall not be applicable if unanimously approve by other members of the governing body of the political subdivision by a finding unanimously adopted by such other members and entered into the official minutes of the governing body to be necessary for reasons of the services or property obtained are not otherwise available at equal cost; and to him it appears that Mr. Kreun is following the legal procedure that has been set by this City and respects him for it and respects the process.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Gershman that we adjourn. Carried 6 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Schmisek
City Auditor