[6:10] All
[6:22] right, welcome everybody to the board of
[6:24] equalization meeting for Monday, April
[6:26] 6th. If we get a roll call, please.
[6:28] Marine
[6:28] >> sure. Wigel
[6:29] >> here.
[6:30] >> Sowski here.
[6:31] >> Berg here.
[6:31] >> Lensky
[6:32] >> here. Fred Dolls
[6:33] >> here.
[6:34] >> Dean
[6:34] >> here.
[6:35] >> President Sandy
[6:35] >> here. We have a quorum.
[6:37] >> Thank you.
[6:39] Item 1.2 duties of the board of
[6:41] equalization. You're taking that one,
[6:42] Miss Lour. Please.
[6:44] >> I will try. I am not an attorney, so um
[6:46] you'll have to pardon my very um layman
[6:50] verbiage here, but as a board of
[6:52] equalization, um you'll hear appeals on
[6:55] property valuations. Uh you have the
[6:57] authority to increase or decrease the
[6:59] assessments for uniform uniformity. Um
[7:03] you will hear grievances from property
[7:05] owners regarding their valuation. Um, as
[7:08] a local board, your focus is on
[7:10] reviewing or our focus on um is on
[7:15] reviewing and correcting individual
[7:17] properties and their assessments within
[7:19] the city.
[7:21] Um,
[7:22] when a property owner appeals their
[7:24] assessment for overvaluation, they are
[7:27] asked to provide supporting evidence uh
[7:29] indicating that the assessed value may
[7:31] not reflect current market conditions.
[7:33] Um, evidence may include recent
[7:34] appraisals, certified fee appraisal or
[7:36] other relevant market data. Such
[7:39] documentation assists us and our
[7:41] assessing department and the board of
[7:43] equalization in conducting a thorough
[7:44] and informed um review. Uh we will hear
[7:47] the from the property owners at the end
[7:49] of our meeting. They can come up and
[7:50] address you with their property address,
[7:52] their name and property addresses. Um at
[7:54] the end of this and then we would
[7:56] reconvene um at a later date for the
[7:59] staff reports and our findings.
[8:04] Any questions on that?
[8:08] >> No. If you want to just go right into
[8:09] your any questions for Mur. Go right
[8:11] into one 1.3.
[8:12] >> Comments by city assessor.
[8:15] >> I have very brief comments here for you.
[8:18] Um, as you know, our assessing
[8:21] department is tasked with valuing all
[8:25] taxable property in the city of Grand
[8:27] Forks. Um, we analyze sales. We, um,
[8:34] look at the data to support our
[8:36] valuations. Market adjustments are made
[8:39] based on sales in the neighborhood. Um,
[8:43] we're charged with
[8:45] using that data collection through
[8:47] reappraisal and sales review and then
[8:50] analyzing to provide the estimates and
[8:53] value that are fair, reasonable, and
[8:54] supportable.
[8:59] This slide will show you that we uh did
[9:02] 2125
[9:03] residential properties for our
[9:05] reappraisal.
[9:06] In addition to that, we did 221 multif
[9:10] family prop um properties. They were
[9:12] between 5 and 18 units. We haven't done
[9:15] them in quite some time. So, we took
[9:17] that time and did a re exterior
[9:19] reappraisal with them. of the
[9:22] residential properties, 33% allowed us
[9:25] into their properties at reappraisal
[9:27] time. That's running consistent with
[9:29] over the years exactly. So nothing new
[9:33] there.
[9:36] This slide is showing you our valuations
[9:38] from the sales ratio data. You can see
[9:41] on the commercial side, our historical
[9:42] is 94.4%.
[9:45] Uh residential is 88.95.
[9:48] This slide shows the relationship
[9:49] between our assessed valuation and the
[9:52] sales prices for the commercial and the
[9:54] residential properties. Um, as a note,
[9:57] our commercial sales, we did not have 30
[10:00] sales. That is standard that we are
[10:02] required to have. So, we had to go back
[10:04] last year and supplement with those
[10:06] sales to um provide our sales ratio
[10:09] study. Um, interestingly that of the
[10:14] residential sales between 91 and 92% of
[10:17] the residential sales have sold for
[10:21] more than our assessment values were on
[10:24] them.
[10:25] You can see here how in um our matrixes
[10:30] of providing horizontal and vertical
[10:33] equity, we are within the ranges as
[10:35] prescribed by the um inter international
[10:38] assessing officers association.
[10:42] The trends that we're seeing is that
[10:43] inventory is still going to continue to
[10:44] be an issue. Um
[10:49] over the past five years in 2021 we had
[10:53] 750 usable sales. This year we have 573.
[10:58] So sales are less because inventory is
[11:02] not there. Um is my interpretation of
[11:05] it. Um so I think that breeds to a a
[11:11] note to the need for housing in our
[11:13] area. New construction. We had 15 new
[11:16] construction permits in 2025.
[11:20] Four of them were government properties
[11:24] between school, city um pump station,
[11:28] Altru, and a building out at the
[11:31] airport.
[11:33] The rest um so we've started um Cirrus
[11:37] Altra Sports Complex and the BMX
[11:39] buildings. Those have started this year.
[11:41] So next year or within the near future,
[11:44] we're going to have a Gristo, the
[11:45] Children's Museum and Brookstone. Um and
[11:48] residentially we had 85 new construction
[11:51] permits. Um that's still down a little
[11:53] bit from our high point, but um those
[11:56] are our numbers for current as current.
[11:59] This is giving you our preliminary true
[12:01] and full value. We have um increased a
[12:05] 4.03%
[12:07] from last year to this year. Um this is
[12:11] a reflection of
[12:15] uh where's my numbers?
[12:18] Um 1.47%
[12:20] in growth, 2.56%
[12:23] in revaluation. Um with regard to our
[12:27] taxable values,
[12:30] this is our showing our taxable value
[12:32] based on these preliminary numbers. Um
[12:34] our taxable value based on what we have
[12:37] today is 313,992,785.
[12:42] So you can see here our taxable value
[12:44] growth. Those numbers are different than
[12:46] what true and full value is but it's
[12:48] based on the the difference between the
[12:52] residential assessment rate and
[12:54] commercial
[12:57] and then we go into um the exemptions
[12:59] that we have. So these non-discretionary
[13:01] exemptions are the state prescribed
[13:03] ones. Um charitables, blind wheelchair,
[13:06] child care, those have remained fairly
[13:09] consistent. This is the discretionary
[13:11] ones, the new business pilot in TIFF. Um
[13:14] in two weeks or whenever we set our next
[13:17] board, we will have our annual report
[13:19] for you. Um you will see how this new
[13:21] business pilot in TIFF has increased
[13:23] about 43 and a half million dollars um
[13:28] from 25 and that's due because of uh
[13:31] Memorial Village 2 has been completed
[13:33] this year and then the remodel
[13:36] exemptions new home and builder.
[13:40] Um that is my presentation. It's over um
[13:43] very brief. Um but if you have any
[13:47] specific questions, I'd be more than
[13:48] happy to answer them. And I would say
[13:50] that um thank you to my assessing staff
[13:52] for what they do. Um they do a good job
[13:54] and I'm proud of what they what we have
[13:56] done. So
[13:58] >> sounds good. Uh Miss Lzer, I I got a
[14:00] couple questions for you, but I'll let
[14:01] um Mr. Oski go first, please.
[14:03] >> Yeah, I have a quick question on how we
[14:07] assess basement.
[14:10] So
[14:14] in the past five years essentially
[14:17] around the time that we had the 9 in of
[14:21] rain come through
[14:24] about that point we started seeing an
[14:26] influx of properties
[14:29] with no basement onslab or crawl space.
[14:34] they were selling for virtually the same
[14:37] amount as a full basement.
[14:40] We had to make an adjustment. We waited
[14:43] till we got some data in order to
[14:45] support what number that we were going
[14:47] to use. Um, when we finally had
[14:50] something of a data set, a paired data
[14:53] set, we used that information to come up
[14:57] with the number to add back in to the
[15:03] valuation. Our canvas system
[15:06] is has a base of a full basement and
[15:10] they're not the slabs are not or crawl
[15:14] spaces are not the full basement
[15:17] valuation.
[15:19] The data has showed they're about 85 to
[15:21] 90%.
[15:22] And so we've used that as a barometer
[15:25] and had to um implement it into our
[15:28] evaluations. Um, and it has proved
[15:33] I have not had
[15:35] a sale in the last two years come
[15:38] through where my valuation was over a
[15:42] sale price.
[15:44] And I have to list it I have to list it
[15:47] as a I can't list it as a full basement
[15:51] because it's not a full basement. And so
[15:53] when our system takes out value, removes
[15:56] value, I have to find a way that is
[15:59] supportable in our market to reflect the
[16:03] valuations that are coming through.
[16:05] >> I guess one of the complaints that I had
[16:07] is someone's, you know, assessment
[16:09] jumped up pretty high and then they
[16:12] contacted
[16:13] um the city and they were told because
[16:16] now crawl spa spaces are assessed at the
[16:19] same as a full unfinished business or
[16:21] basement. And I guess I don't really
[16:25] understand that when when you're talking
[16:27] about even crawl spaces. I I mean it's a dirt floor. There's not even any
[16:33] type of opportunity for people to do
[16:37] anything with their crawl spaces. A lot
[16:40] of these people who have crawl spaces
[16:42] have to find, you know, if their water
[16:43] heater goes down there and stuff, they
[16:45] oftent times have to buy special, you
[16:47] know, short and wide water heaters for
[16:50] their homes. And so I guess I I'm really
[16:53] confused about why, you know, we're
[16:56] assessing an unfinished B or an
[16:59] unfinished basement the same as a crawl
[17:02] space and and I find that really hard to
[17:06] believe.
[17:07] >> Messur, I think you just said it's not
[17:10] the same. Would you say crawlac% right?
[17:12] Is that what you're saying?
[17:13] >> Yeah. So it wouldn't be the same. Um
[17:14] crawl spaces and slabs are treated the
[17:16] same roughly. Is that where you're at?
[17:17] Okay.
[17:18] >> Yes.
[17:18] >> All right.
[17:19] And they're not the same as an
[17:20] unfinished basement. Then they're 85% of
[17:24] an unfinished basement.
[17:25] >> Sure. Council person Oski, I understand
[17:27] your concern and your comments. Um
[17:30] unfortunately our sales and our local
[17:33] market data doesn't s doesn't suggest
[17:36] that that's an um the case
[17:40] with and until we have more evidence
[17:44] um to support something different
[17:47] I will then make that adjustment but
[17:50] until I have some evidence to change
[17:52] that theory that market adjustment would
[17:57] I I would suggest is holding the course.
[17:59] So, is that 85% of an unfinished
[18:02] basement is was what a crawl space is
[18:05] being assessed at?
[18:06] >> Yeah. And I believe it was 90% that I
[18:08] used when I looked at crawl spaces
[18:11] versus slabs. I had a paired data set
[18:14] and the crawl spaces. Um,
[18:17] >> so it was 90% is the adjustment that was
[18:21] made.
[18:21] >> So, I have an unfinished basement and
[18:23] then I have a crawl but a crawl space
[18:25] and a slab are assessed equally.
[18:28] Correct. Correct.
[18:29] >> And they are 85% of what an unfinished
[18:33] basement
[18:34] would be assessed at.
[18:35] >> The values are telling us that it's
[18:37] that's
[18:38] >> but that's how we're going forward is
[18:40] that crawl spaces and slabs are assessed
[18:43] at 85% of what an unfinished basement
[18:47] would be.
[18:48] >> And they are depreciated along with the
[18:51] age of the property. They um
[18:58] I guess that was my only point. Okay.
[19:00] >> And you're using you're using market
[19:02] sales. You're not using Yeah. So this is
[19:04] the market that's saying that she has to
[19:05] keep it within uh the percentage
[19:07] required by the state. So it's it's the
[19:09] data
[19:09] >> and and I understand that. I I disagree
[19:12] that they should be assessed at 85% but
[19:15] obviously that's a decision that has
[19:18] been made. So thank you. And you're just
[19:21] again using market sales. So it's not
[19:23] really a decision that you get to make.
[19:24] It's a decision that's forced upon you
[19:26] by the state to be within the limits.
[19:28] >> I had to find a way. I had to find a
[19:30] method that was equitable across the
[19:33] board. Um and I can't treat 1970 crawl
[19:38] spaces and not make that adjustment when
[19:40] I'm doing it to 2000. I mean whatever age another one is where that
[19:46] might be different.
[19:47] >> You have to do the same. I find it
[19:49] important to do the same thing across
[19:51] the board so that we don't
[19:53] are consistent and in our values
[19:55] >> and you've had zero that have sold um
[19:57] for a market value less than the assess.
[19:59] So you've always had them assessed at
[20:01] lower and in fact in 2025 you had the
[20:04] entire every marketable sale added
[20:06] together at an arms length so they're
[20:08] not your brother selling it to each
[20:10] other. You were roughly 89 cents on the
[20:12] dollar as far as where you had it
[20:13] assessed versus what it sold for. That
[20:15] was my question. Okay.
[20:16] >> Yep. We actually just had a sale happen
[20:19] here a couple weeks ago, a 1970s
[20:22] build
[20:24] um on slab that and I'll be honest with
[20:26] you, those do concern me. Um but it sold
[20:31] for I have I'm still less than the
[20:33] valuation.
[20:34] >> Okay.
[20:36] All right. Any other questions from Miss
[20:38] Lazour? Otherwise, we'll
[20:40] receive formal protests.
[20:43] So, I would ask if um I do have um this
[20:46] afternoon I did receive
[20:49] um properties from at 1118th Avenue
[20:53] South, 717 Reeves Drive, 701 Demurs,
[20:59] 1127 South 12th Street, and 505 and 507
[21:03] North 3rd Street. Those provided us with
[21:06] an email or a phone call stating that
[21:08] they wanted to appeal their valuations.
[21:10] So, if there's anybody else here in the
[21:12] crowd that has a concern that they want
[21:14] to raise, now would be the time to
[21:16] please step up.
[21:17] >> Okay. And then you'll work um not only
[21:19] those, but the others, you know, between
[21:21] now and that formal hearing date is,
[21:23] you'll work to to resolve there as much
[21:25] as possible and then we'll have the
[21:26] hearing. All right. And you've got that
[21:27] over to finance those addresses.
[21:29] >> I will get them to them this evening,
[21:31] tomorrow morning. Yep.
[21:31] >> All right. Mr. Dar, if you want to read
[21:33] in 1.4 and then we'll open it up.
[21:35] >> All right. 1.4. then will receive formal
[21:37] protests and set the date to reconvene
[21:39] as the board of equalization.
[21:41] >> All right. So, if there's anyone that
[21:42] wants to add their address into that
[21:44] formal protest uh to be formally
[21:46] protested, uh please come forward to the
[21:49] microphone now.
[21:52] Don't all come at once.
[21:56] And if you if you already had been
[21:58] already um called by her, you wouldn't
[21:59] have to. We'll have that in the record.
[22:01] But if you weren't, please make sure you
[22:02] come up.
[22:02] >> Well, actually, I did call. So, I don't
[22:04] know why my name was on there. It wasn't
[22:06] our address wasn't on there, but uh
[22:08] >> what property are you at?
[22:09] >> 3712 Belmont Road.
[22:11] >> Okay. I was not aware of it, so my
[22:13] apologies. Thank you.
[22:15] >> And and I guess my first some general
[22:18] comments, I guess I know you guys have a
[22:20] really hard time to when there's such a
[22:23] lack of housing stock in this city that
[22:25] everybody's paying a lot more for homes
[22:28] than they typically would if there were
[22:30] a lot of housing uh house options for
[22:32] the people. In our case, uh I live in a
[22:35] house with 3712 Belmont. Um it was built
[22:39] in 1975.
[22:41] We've not made any improvements since uh
[22:45] 2012.
[22:47] And our taxes uh evaluations have gone
[22:50] up about 5.8% since 2017.
[22:55] And this year, um, I know there's not
[22:58] much you can do about this, but our, uh,
[23:01] evaluation went up over $100,000.
[23:04] Went up 28%.
[23:07] And it just seems
[23:10] kind of out of the ordinary.
[23:14] Um
[23:17] the uh
[23:21] I guess another comment some of the
[23:22] comps when we talked to the assessor's
[23:25] office was where homes that were built
[23:27] like after 1985
[23:30] and ours was built 1975. I don't know if
[23:33] that age but there's a factor homes don't last forever. You know a
[23:38] simple ranch which we're in uh maybe
[23:40] what a hundred years. So we're into it,
[23:44] you know, 50 some years already. So I
[23:47] don't know, our valuations start going
[23:49] down after a simple ranch because in
[23:52] another 40 years or so, this house will
[23:55] probably be torn down and rebuilt.
[23:58] Just some comments. Thank you for
[23:59] hearing me.
[24:00] >> Thank you, sir. And then we uh no
[24:01] decision will be made tonight. They'll get in touch with the assessor's
[24:04] office office and go from there. And
[24:06] then the final decision, what is the
[24:07] date that we're setting?
[24:10] >> Did you have
[24:10] >> I think we can go with two weeks. to
[24:12] April 20th.
[24:13] >> April 20th. So, you'll hear from her
[24:14] office in the meantime and then
[24:16] >> I did put some exhibits together to kind
[24:17] of illustrate this.
[24:18] >> Perfect. Yep. You can just leave that
[24:20] right there with Miss
[24:22] >> and that was 3712 Belmont Road. Correct.
[24:25] Thank you.
[24:27] All right. Next.
[24:33] Hi. I uh I live at 386 uh 44th Avenue
[24:38] South.
[24:41] um been seeing the typical increases in
[24:44] my tax property values over the last few
[24:46] years. However, from 2025 to 2026, I saw
[24:51] an increase of $37,000
[24:53] uh with not making a single um single
[24:56] change to my property at all. Um I did a
[24:59] little bit of investigating here. Um
[25:02] one thing that we did that our neighbors
[25:04] maybe didn't do is that we did allow for
[25:07] uh an interior inspection on our
[25:09] property. Um that's the only thing
[25:11] really we've done differently this year
[25:13] than we have last. And uh and I think
[25:16] that's partly the reason why I'm seeing
[25:18] the increase. Um I live in a modest 2700
[25:22] ft um twotory onslab
[25:26] and uh actually have two houses that are
[25:29] exactly the same as mine in my
[25:31] neighborhood. Um, I actually pulled all
[25:34] of the information here and noticed that
[25:37] this year I was assessed uh as a
[25:38] fivebedroom and not a four and also what
[25:42] appears to be two three stall garages.
[25:46] So, I'm just wondering if there's some
[25:50] uh some other look that we could take at
[25:52] this. Um, I'm just surprised at the
[25:54] increase I saw this year.
[25:55] >> Okay, we'll definitely take a look at
[25:56] it.
[25:57] >> Okay.
[25:58] All right. That's all for today and then
[26:00] they'll be in touch and then the final
[26:02] uh decision will be two weeks from
[26:03] today.
[26:03] >> Okay, sounds good. Would you like any of
[26:05] this information?
[26:06] >> We can get it when we come to you.
[26:07] >> Thank you very much.
[26:08] >> Thank you.
[26:09] >> And that was 3086 44th Avenue South.
[26:12] Correct.
[26:12] >> Correct. Very good.
[26:19] My name is Jean Dubois. D U B O I S G N
[26:24] E. I live at 234 Chestnut.
[26:28] The house was built in 1956.
[26:33] You have raised the assessment on my
[26:36] house $59,000,
[26:39] which is outrageous because I have not
[26:42] done anything to it from the last time
[26:44] an assess an assessor came. That was two
[26:48] years ago.
[26:50] So what I would like to do if possible
[26:53] is to have somebody come and physically
[26:55] assess
[26:58] how suddenly I'm paying or I'm going to
[27:02] be charged for $59,000
[27:05] more of house.
[27:07] Okay. I might add my wife and I are
[27:10] retired.
[27:12] We live off of social security and our
[27:14] pension and that would represent uh a
[27:19] chunk of what we live off of. Uh
[27:23] personally, I find it outrageous
[27:26] that suddenly a house that has been
[27:29] sitting there since 1956 is now worth
[27:32] over 40 over $400,000
[27:35] when Zillow doesn't even have it
[27:38] assessed at that. So, I'd really
[27:41] appreciate if the powers that be could
[27:45] look into this and um perhaps uh in some
[27:52] way change its uh view.
[27:57] Two bedrooms upstairs, a guest room
[27:59] downstairs, unfinished basement.
[28:02] Uh it's an old house, so if that can be
[28:07] done, I would very much appreciate it.
[28:09] Absolutely.
[28:10] >> Thank you, sir.
[28:15] » All right. Others, please, sir.
[28:23] Excuse me. Good evening, members of the
[28:25] board. My name is James Hayes, but I go
[28:27] by Jim. I'm a new resident to North
[28:29] Dakota and a new resident to Grand
[28:31] Forks. I came up to take a contract job
[28:35] with the space force working as an
[28:36] engineer on a satellite project and I
[28:39] need to be within a 30-minute drive
[28:41] because our operation is a 247
[28:43] operation. I need to be within a
[28:45] 30-minute drive. So, I looked all around
[28:46] to Northwood and Hatton and Laramore and
[28:49] decided to move here to Grand Forks. I
[28:51] bought a house at 17 Fenton Avenue,
[28:54] which is 109y old house. Along with it
[28:57] came a lot next to it at 21 Fenton
[29:00] Avenue. It's in the Riverside
[29:02] neighborhood. When I first bought the
[29:05] property, I realized it was two separate
[29:07] parcels. And I called the city a year
[29:09] ago when I bought the house in July to
[29:11] see what I could build on that smaller
[29:13] parcel. And since it's part of the
[29:15] original Riverside, Grand Forks
[29:19] development. It was so narrow and so
[29:22] long that I could not build anything on
[29:24] it. So there's no utilities on it, no
[29:26] residence on it, no mother-in-law suite.
[29:29] And so when I get a tax bill, I get two
[29:31] separate tax bills. One for the house at
[29:33] 17 and one for the empty lot at 21. Uh
[29:37] I'm being taxed on that. When I bought
[29:39] the house, there was two sheds. One was
[29:42] a neighbor's shed that I asked him to
[29:43] remove and one was a shed that was the
[29:45] previous owner of the house that I
[29:46] bought. So the only thing that I can do
[29:48] on that lot is to put a shed on it. And
[29:51] I'm being taxed at a what I think is a
[29:53] high tax rate. And if you're going by
[29:55] market sales on how to assess these
[29:58] lots, I can't build anything on it. The city says I cannot join the two lots
[30:04] because there's a easement. There's an
[30:05] alleyway that goes between the two lots
[30:08] that I have to
[30:10] do nothing on it and still be taxed on
[30:12] it. So it's it's really a unellable lot
[30:16] for development. So
[30:18] >> sir, did you want them to look at 17
[30:20] feton or just that just 21? They they're
[30:24] combined sort of.
[30:26] >> Yeah, I understand. Perfect. They'll be
[30:27] in touch with you.
[30:28] >> All right. Thank you.
[30:29] >> Yeah. Thanks.
[30:33] » And uh Miss Lazar, as you're reaching
[30:34] out to people, are you able to are you
[30:36] going to go right to the uh the property
[30:39] tax information? I'm just making sure
[30:41] you're able to reach out to them and and
[30:42] get a hold of somebody. What I would ask
[30:44] is all the property owners if they would
[30:45] meet up with my force um assessing
[30:48] people for phone numbers and emails so
[30:50] that we can reach out to them and make
[30:52] the appointments. We will do that.
[30:54] >> You want them to do that right now or
[30:55] are you saying yes please? Okay.
[30:56] >> Yes. Or when this meeting is over they
[30:58] can do that.
[30:58] >> Perfect. Okay. She will be on the
[31:00] hallway. Oh, you got a couple. Perfect.
[31:02] All right.
[31:04] >> All right. Any other uh um protests for
[31:06] this evening?
[31:10] » Couldn't hear me.
[31:14] Oh, sorry. Any other protests for this
[31:15] evening on item 1.4? Please. Yep.
[31:20] >> I uh own the property at 374 Payton's
[31:23] Place Circle and uh believe the
[31:26] assessment between last year and this
[31:28] year went up by about uh close to 16%
[31:30] which it seems a little high based on
[31:32] some market recent sales I looked at and other factors of market factors in
[31:37] this area. There weren't any
[31:38] improvements to the property. So, I'm
[31:40] assuming the reassessment and valuation
[31:42] is based only on the change in the
[31:44] market
[31:45] uh forces. And like I said, it seems
[31:48] like it's a little bit higher than what
[31:49] I've seen in my research.
[31:52] >> Sure. We'll take a look at him.
[31:54] >> Thank you. 374 Payton's Place circle.
[31:57] All right. Thank you, sir.
[32:00] Please, sir.
[32:13] Yes, please.
[32:19] » Good evening. Now, my name is Jerry
[32:21] Moran. Live at uh 605
[32:25] 24th Avenue South
[32:27] for a long time now.
[32:30] My spiel will be very short.
[32:33] We got the notice and uh saw that it had
[32:36] gone up $14,000 from last year.
[32:42] Due to illness in the family, we haven't
[32:44] been able to complete any projects this
[32:48] past year. So everything is the same.
[32:53] Being a retired on fixed income, both of
[32:56] us this December, that's going to be a
[32:59] chunk for us to swallow.
[33:03] That's about it. That's about it for me.
[33:05] >> Okay. Thank you, sir.
[33:06] >> What happens now?
[33:08] >> So, they're going to work with you over
[33:09] the next two weeks and then in two
[33:11] weeks, if they haven't resolved it,
[33:12] we'll have the final decision by this
[33:13] board here.
[33:15] >> Thanks, Bill.
[33:16] >> Yeah. Thank you.
[33:17] >> That nice gal standing back there, we'll
[33:20] get your phone number. Yeah.
[33:32] All right, just leave it open for a
[33:33] minute more or secure more seconds if
[33:35] anybody else.
[33:39] » All right. Um, so now we'll be looking
[33:41] for a motion to accept those protests
[33:42] and set the date for the um to reconvene
[33:46] as a board of equalization on
[33:49] >> 14 days April 20th.
[33:51] >> I motion.
[33:52] >> We got a motion. Do we have a second?
[33:54] >> Second.
[33:54] President Sandy. Motion from
[33:56] Oski, second by President Sandy. Any
[33:58] further discussion?
[34:00] Seeing none, all those in favor signify
[34:02] by saying I.
[34:02] >> I.
[34:04] >> Same sign. Motion carries unanimously.
[34:07] >> Thank you.
[34:07] >> Okay. Look for a motion to adjourn.
[34:09] Motion journalski. Second from Berg.
[34:12] >> All those in favor signify by saying I.
[34:14] >> I. Post. Same sign. Motion carries
[34:17] unanimously.
[34:28] All right, moving right along. We'll
[34:29] call to order the Grand Fork City
[34:30] Council meeting for Monday, April 6th.
[34:34] >> Give me a roll call, please. Marine
[34:35] >> Wel here,
[34:37] >> here.
[34:37] >> Berg here,
[34:38] >> Lansky
[34:39] >> here.
[34:39] >> Fredals
[34:40] >> here,
[34:41] >> Dean
[34:41] >> here,
[34:42] >> and President Sandy here. We have a
[34:44] quorum. Thank you.
[34:44] >> Thank you. Item 1.2, pledge of
[34:46] allegiance. Please rise.
[34:49] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[34:52] United States of America and to the
[34:54] republic for which it stands, one nation
[34:57] under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[35:00] justice for all.
[35:07] » All right. Uh item 1.3, mayor's
[35:08] announcements. Two announcements this
[35:10] evening. I just want to thank all those
[35:12] that attended uh the state of the base
[35:14] last week. A great turnout. But I think
[35:15] uh Colonel Rosal did a phenomenal job
[35:17] and our base is in great hands and only
[35:20] improving which is which is great to
[35:21] see. It was a a story of retention in
[35:24] the past and now it's a story of
[35:25] enhancement. So it's pretty exciting uh
[35:27] to get to be just a small part of that.
[35:29] Um one other announcement um uh with
[35:32] great sadness and I just want to offer
[35:34] condolences and deepest sympathies to
[35:35] the family of Jim Sheff. Um he had
[35:38] worked in the public works department uh
[35:40] in the street division as an equipment
[35:42] operator since 2017. So almost 10 years
[35:44] with the city and uh really unexpectedly
[35:47] he had passed away at just 46 years old.
[35:49] So pretty sad to see. I know he has a
[35:52] family he will be greatly missed. Um so
[35:54] just want to give my condolences and uh
[35:57] life is precious. So very sad to see.
[36:08] » Move on to item two awards presentations
[36:10] appointments and proclamations. All
[36:11] right. 2.1 is a proclamation. Fair
[36:14] housing month, April 2026.
[36:17] >> All right. We got that one attached. I'm
[36:18] going to move through the proclamations
[36:19] today. I know we got a packed agenda.
[36:22] So, go to the next
[36:24] >> 2.2 proclamation national public health
[36:27] week, April 6th through 12th, 2026 and
[36:29] presentation of the health champions
[36:31] awards.
[36:31] >> Awesome. That's also attached. I know we
[36:33] got a presentation uh right now from
[36:36] public health, so we'll we'll jump right
[36:37] into that. Uh for our champions award,
[36:39] do we got Oh, there we go. Perfect. I
[36:42] know Tess is coming
[36:44] as well. And I'm going to I think I come
[36:46] down for this part. Are we You ready for
[36:47] me?
[36:48] >> Uh, yeah.
[36:48] >> All right.
[37:08] Good evening, Mayor Bachensky, President
[37:10] Sandy, and members of city council.
[37:12] Thank you so much for the opportunity to
[37:14] speak this evening. My name is Sarah
[37:16] Odigard, and I'm a nurse with Grand
[37:17] Forks Public Health. As noted in the
[37:19] proclamation, today marks the start of
[37:21] National Public Health Week, an
[37:23] initiative led by the American Public
[37:25] Health Association to celebrate public
[37:27] health professionals, highlight the
[37:28] impact of public health services, and
[37:31] advocate for policies that create a
[37:33] healthier nation. I have the privilege
[37:35] of co-chairing our local National Public
[37:37] Health Week committee, and it's truly an
[37:39] honor to present the 2026 Public Health
[37:42] Champion Awardees. Before we begin with
[37:44] awards, I'd like to briefly highlight
[37:46] two free communitywide events happening
[37:48] this week. Both of which come with a
[37:50] chance to win a 12-month car wash pass
[37:54] generously donated by our friends at
[37:55] Ryel Chevrolet.
[37:57] First event, we have our healthy selfie
[38:01] challenge. Participants are invited to
[38:02] submit a photo to the discussion tab of
[38:04] our event on the grounds public health
[38:06] Facebook page promoting physical or
[38:09] mental well-being. Entries must be
[38:10] posted by 5:00 p. p.m. on April 9th to
[38:12] be eligible for the drawing, which will
[38:14] take place Friday morning. Second, we're
[38:16] hosting a roll and stroll event this
[38:18] Wednesday at 1 p.m. This statewide
[38:21] initiative encourages physical activity
[38:22] in honor of National Public Health Week.
[38:25] We'll gather at Town Square by the
[38:26] paddle wheel. So whether you walk, roll,
[38:28] or just come for the fresh air, we'd
[38:30] love to see you there. Additional
[38:32] details can be found on our Facebook
[38:33] page.
[38:35] Now to the awards.
[38:37] Um they are in order. So,
[38:42] our first award goes to Ashley Bane,
[38:46] assistant director of the UND public
[38:48] health program. Since 2020, Ashley has
[38:52] served as the de facto director and can
[38:54] continues to move the program forward in
[38:56] ways that are beneficial to both UND and
[38:58] Grand Forks communities. A few examples
[39:00] of her work include helping stand up
[39:02] UND's joint jurist doctor/master of
[39:05] public health program, updating UND's
[39:08] MD/Masters of public health program, and
[39:11] helping UND students engage in a host of
[39:13] community-based public health events
[39:15] with area health departments and health
[39:17] providers. Thank you, Ashley, for your
[39:19] leadership and for helping shape the
[39:21] future of public health.
[39:29] Next is a double. So, we're going to
[39:32] recognize Taylor Rested and Jamie
[39:35] Zuniga.
[39:39] Taylor and Jamie are with the Grand
[39:41] Forks H housing authority. They work
[39:43] tire tirelessly for those in our
[39:45] community that are experiencing housing
[39:47] insecurity. They lead the team at the
[39:49] nest on fourth to meet folks where they
[39:51] are, provide shelter, and work with many
[39:53] community partners to get clients
[39:55] connected with essential community
[39:56] services.
[40:00] Thank you, Taylor and Jamie, for your
[40:01] dedication and your compassionate
[40:03] service.
[40:12] We are pleased to honor Nancy O'Hara,
[40:14] director of development at United Way
[40:17] with a public health champion award.
[40:22] Nancy has committed to connecting people
[40:24] with resources and has consistently
[40:26] collaborated with Women's Way, a service
[40:28] that connects women to life-saving
[40:29] breast and cervical cancer screenings.
[40:31] Her efforts have strengthened community
[40:33] trust, increased screening
[40:35] participation, and improved access to
[40:37] pre preventative care, making a
[40:39] measurable disection
[40:42] outcomes. Thank you, Nancy, for your
[40:44] continued commitment and improving
[40:45] community health.
[40:52] And last but not least, we recognize
[40:55] Corporal Brian Samson, community
[40:58] outreach officer with the Grand Forks
[40:59] Police Department.
[41:03] Brian has demonstrated exceptional
[41:05] leadership in advancing community health
[41:06] through alcohol and tobacco prevention
[41:08] efforts. His collaborative approach has
[41:11] promoted responsible retail practices,
[41:14] reduced underage sales and number of
[41:16] fake IDs and increased community
[41:18] awareness awareness. His work
[41:20] exemplifies public health principles and
[41:22] makes a positive impact on the health of
[41:24] our community and the health of our
[41:26] youth. Thank you, Officer Samson, for
[41:28] your service and dedication.
[41:35] THANK YOU AGAIN AND congratulations to
[41:37] all of our 2026 public health champions
[41:40] and thank you again for um the time and
[41:42] space to honor these outstanding
[41:44] individuals.
[41:49] » Are city employees eligible to win those
[41:52] prizes?
[41:53] >> They are.
[41:53] >> Yeah. Good. Good to know.
[41:58] 2.3 is the 42nd Street and Demurs Avenue
[42:01] project update.
[42:02] >> Oh, was that a Was President Sandy going
[42:04] to win this award next year? I don't
[42:06] know.
[42:07] >> No, the prizes.
[42:08] >> Oh, the prizes. Okay. Oh, yeah.
[42:10] >> I If I could do something in public
[42:12] health, I'd certainly
[42:13] >> All right, moving on. Mr. Ko, please.
[42:16] >> Good evening, Mayor Bachinsky and
[42:17] members of the council. Uh tonight I'm
[42:20] joined here with uh Blue Weber and Chris
[42:23] Stall from Bolton Mink as well as Wayne
[42:25] Zacher and Michael Johnson from the DOT
[42:27] online. Um we've been making a fair
[42:30] amount of progress on this 42nd Street
[42:31] underpass project. It has been bid out
[42:34] and awarded by the DOT and so now it's
[42:36] time to give you all a uh project
[42:38] update. And with that, I'll hand it off
[42:40] to Blue.
[42:41] >> Perfect. Thanks so much. Thanks for
[42:42] having me tonight. So, one thing that I
[42:45] want to touch on before getting started
[42:47] is if we can just hold questions until
[42:50] the very end, uh we will have some time
[42:52] to answer questions about detour routes,
[42:53] all that fun stuff. And uh Mr. D is here
[42:56] to answer any of the smart person
[42:58] questions that I will not know the
[42:59] answers to. But uh before even getting
[43:01] started, I do want to just point to the
[43:03] fact that we have this as the 42D
[43:05] alliance. Uh it was a really important
[43:07] thing for us to talk about because this
[43:09] is a partnership. This is a massive
[43:10] project for the city of Grand Forks and
[43:13] I without the DOT and the city leading
[43:15] that charge. Uh we wouldn't be able to
[43:17] be where we're at. So just really wanted
[43:19] to kind of throw my hat out uh for all
[43:22] of those people who have made this
[43:23] happen. So some of these first slides
[43:27] are really just going to be recaps about
[43:29] what you already know, but why this
[43:31] project exists. Uh it's everything from
[43:33] delay to some safety issues, uh north
[43:36] south connectivities, especially with
[43:37] how the city is growing, especially with
[43:40] the 42nd corridor growing the way it is.
[43:42] Uh this is one of those projects that's
[43:44] just very necessary. Uh and it's been uh
[43:47] a long time in the making and so uh
[43:49] really nice to see it finally happening.
[43:52] Uh from there, I just wanted to kind of
[43:53] go over a couple big historic
[43:55] milestones. Uh earliest feasibility
[43:58] studies uh date actually all the way
[44:00] back to the '9s. that's how long this
[44:01] has been talked about. Uh as well as
[44:03] talking about what that right of way and
[44:06] property acquisition would look like.
[44:08] From there, it led into the
[44:09] environmental document. Uh and then most
[44:11] recently saw the FRA railroad grant uh
[44:14] be awarded. Uh and then that's where we
[44:16] came in to do that final design. Uh and
[44:19] what we're here tonight and really what
[44:21] uh the meat and potatoes of tonight's
[44:22] presentation is uh the upcoming
[44:24] construction window and what that looks
[44:25] like. So, uh, another brief recap. Just
[44:29] wanted to remind you all about the
[44:30] preferred alternative, which is this jug
[44:32] handle. So, uh, back in 2023, city
[44:36] council did approve the environmental
[44:38] document with two alternatives. One was
[44:40] a sunken intersection, uh, and the other
[44:42] one was this jug handle. Uh, the DOT
[44:45] then proceeded forward with uh, the jug
[44:47] handle alternative, the B1.
[44:50] Uh so some of the different final design
[44:52] uh notes that we wanted to make and uh
[44:55] inform you all on that are a little
[44:56] different from maybe last time you saw
[44:57] us were uh this wider median uh up on
[45:00] Demurs for a potential left turn lane
[45:02] over to that gas station uh which in
[45:05] turn actually widened the Demurs Avenue
[45:07] bridge uh and then some widening of the
[45:10] BNSF railway bridge to make way for an
[45:13] access and maintenance roadway as well
[45:14] as a third rail line. Uh just a reminder
[45:17] about this east jug handle that cuts
[45:20] over into Ray Richard's golf course. Uh
[45:22] and then this threequarter access on
[45:24] 42nd for the top tracer golf facility.
[45:28] And then uh a big point here is all of
[45:30] the utility work that has to go into
[45:32] this. This is everything from storm
[45:33] water improvements to the water main
[45:35] replacement and a lift station to make
[45:37] sure that uh there's not big puddles of
[45:39] water sitting down in there. And then
[45:41] this backage road uh culde-sac that does
[45:43] pres uh preserve some access uh for that
[45:46] gas station as well. So this is just
[45:49] really a nice overview for you all to
[45:52] see what that final design looks like.
[45:54] Uh so you can see where that backage
[45:56] road is. You can see what the
[45:57] intersection and the other intersection
[45:59] up on demurs will look like. And really
[46:01] just a nice way to see this.
[46:04] An important thing to talk about though
[46:05] is that landscaping uh aesthetics and
[46:08] the placemaking really making this not
[46:10] just another roadway but a very pretty
[46:12] project for town. Uh so some of the
[46:14] things that you're seeing here are uh
[46:16] the decorative lighting up on top. Uh
[46:18] these will be RGB lighting similar to
[46:20] maybe the Sorly Bridge. Uh and then as
[46:23] well as some decorative uh fencing uh
[46:26] pigmented concrete. Uh this really is
[46:28] you can see down underneath uh the
[46:30] overpass where you can see uh the way
[46:33] that it will delineate between sidewalks
[46:35] and where uh you're not intended to walk
[46:37] and what some of those form liners look
[46:39] like. So a lot of this prairie grass
[46:41] theme all the way throughout the entire
[46:43] project. Um but you can see from all of
[46:45] these different angles, it's going to be
[46:47] a really nice looking project for town
[46:49] as well. So, uh, these are just kind of
[46:52] those last angles showing what it'll
[46:54] look like, especially with those
[46:55] pedestrian facilities as well, cutting
[46:57] through. So, uh, a massive improvement
[46:59] to the area. So, this video is just to
[47:03] really show you how that intersection
[47:04] will function. So, how vehicular traffic
[47:07] will move through as well as what
[47:08] pedestrians will be seeing. So, if
[47:10] you're coming off of the interstate and
[47:12] heading to campus, for example, uh
[47:14] you're going to come east on demurs and
[47:16] then you're going to take a right at
[47:17] that intersection, come around on the
[47:19] jug handle and then actually go under.
[47:21] So, uh this is really just to show you
[47:23] all how that intersection and the other
[47:25] one will be functioning once people are
[47:27] actually moving through the area.
[47:30] So, construction phasing, we've broken
[47:32] this down into five primary phases uh
[47:35] really to make it as easy and simple as
[47:37] possible and really explain to you uh
[47:39] all the work that goes into this project
[47:40] once it starts getting underway. So, uh
[47:43] that first phase actually is going to be
[47:45] starting here in the next month or so.
[47:47] Uh this is really starting to set up
[47:49] everything for the shoefly. This is
[47:51] where we move that railroad over to the
[47:53] right so that way railroad access can be
[47:56] maintained all the way throughout the
[47:57] duration of the project. as well as this
[47:59] demurs bypass so that way you can
[48:01] continue having traffic move through. So
[48:03] you can see on the image on the right uh
[48:05] where that demurs uh bypass comes around
[48:08] and what that shoefly looks like. So uh
[48:10] that's these two first phases really
[48:12] moving into uh about middle of summer uh
[48:15] hopefully having that wrapped up by July
[48:17] 4th at the latest kind of thing. Phase
[48:20] two moves into uh where we start doing a
[48:22] lot of digging. So this is uh the bulk
[48:24] of most of the phasing. You can see here
[48:26] uh this is where we start doing a lot of
[48:28] earth work in this middle. Uh we start
[48:30] building out the actual bridges for
[48:32] demurs and the railroad uh and do a lot
[48:35] of water mane and storm sewer work on
[48:37] that as well. Uh from there uh we go
[48:40] into phase three where we remove that
[48:42] shoefly and that bypass uh and then this
[48:44] is where we move into the actual usage
[48:46] of that bridge and that rail line. So
[48:48] you can see that demurs traffic uh both
[48:50] on the rail and vehicular and pedestrian
[48:52] traffic is moving at all times. So, uh,
[48:55] from there we start to work on that, uh,
[48:57] 42nd Street jug handle and that back
[49:00] road, uh, backage road construction. And
[49:02] so, uh, this is where a lot of the work
[49:04] is going through to make sure that
[49:06] we're, uh, setting up for 42nd to be
[49:09] opened back up. And then from there, uh,
[49:11] phase five, where we're wrapping up, is
[49:13] you can see these two, uh, brown areas
[49:15] closer to the interstate and closer
[49:18] almost to the east side of the, uh,
[49:20] project area. That's where we start
[49:21] working on demurs itself being
[49:23] reconstructed in those areas as well.
[49:25] And from there then we get to work on
[49:27] all the fun stuff of the lighting uh
[49:30] striping site restoration project
[49:32] closeout. So uh intended to be uh near
[49:35] the end of next year.
[49:38] One of the big questions probably is
[49:40] what do the detours look like on this?
[49:41] Uh so what you'll see on the left side
[49:43] of the screen is phases 1B and two since
[49:46] phase 1 A doesn't really have any
[49:48] disruption since it's starting to lay
[49:50] the groundwork but phases 1B and two uh
[49:52] will still have access for that
[49:54] southbound on 42nd uh but not going
[49:58] northbound. So basically what it will
[50:00] have is access for demurs as well as
[50:03] 42nd going southbound. Uh from there
[50:06] phases three and four is where we move
[50:08] into uh just having demurs. So we do
[50:11] have a short closure of 42nd uh because
[50:14] that's when we're doing the underpass
[50:15] there and so the only traffic will be
[50:17] able to flow across across the new
[50:19] bridge.
[50:21] Um some important things to note just
[50:24] like uh Mr. Cranko already said uh the
[50:26] construction bids have been awarded to
[50:27] Ames Construction. Uh this is one of the
[50:30] foremost experts in this region when it
[50:32] comes to grade separation. So, we put
[50:34] down two examples uh of major projects
[50:37] that they've done in this Red River
[50:39] Valley area down in Morehead. So, these
[50:41] are huge grade separation projects, but
[50:43] I think it's important to note that
[50:45] because these two are maybe Minnesota
[50:46] based, they do have really good working
[50:48] experience working with the DOT. Uh the
[50:51] most recent was uh that big project in
[50:53] Bismar. Anybody who's visited uh the
[50:55] brand new interchange, Ames Construction
[50:57] was the ones who worked on that. So,
[50:59] very experienced when it comes to
[51:01] working with the DOT and know how to
[51:02] work on that.
[51:04] Uh, another piece that we wanted to
[51:06] touch on was just the Ray Richards golf
[51:08] course redesign. This was a really
[51:10] important piece of the project and
[51:11] something that we thought was important
[51:13] to bring to you all and share. Uh, so
[51:16] here you'll see some existing data based
[51:18] on uh, the PAR and the total yardage uh,
[51:22] and then what the new holes look like.
[51:23] So you can see that it goes from a 36
[51:25] down to a 33 and actually uh, adds a
[51:28] little bit of yardage. So uh, really or
[51:30] brings it down by eight. Thank you, sir.
[51:33] Uh brings it down by 800 uh yards uh
[51:36] with the new holes, but uh you'll see
[51:38] that these does have some uh remaining
[51:40] existing holes as well as some
[51:42] reconfigured holes. And you'll see the
[51:44] top tracer driving range and that green
[51:46] view development uh that I know are
[51:48] still being worked on, but uh making
[51:50] sure that that was at least accounted
[51:52] for on our project with things like that
[51:54] threequarter access.
[51:56] Um we are working on holding a public
[51:58] information meeting. So, uh, this is to
[52:00] share similar information to what you're
[52:02] seeing. Um, we are working on a date and
[52:04] time on that one, but I don't have that
[52:06] decided just yet. Uh, but it'll be very
[52:09] similar to what you're seeing today with
[52:10] just a little bit more information, a
[52:13] little bit deeper dive on, uh, some of
[52:14] those reroutes, things like that. And
[52:17] from there, I'm going to hand it off to
[52:18] Mr. Cranco.
[52:19] >> Right. Thank you, Mr. Weber. Um, sure, a
[52:22] lot of council members are looking at
[52:25] what is going to be the bottom line for
[52:27] the city when it comes to this project.
[52:29] Um, initially you may recall we ended up
[52:31] having the memorandum of understanding
[52:32] with the DOT discussing funding
[52:35] limitations that the city has towards
[52:36] this project and that was incorporated
[52:38] as part of the cost participation
[52:40] maintenance agreement which capped the
[52:42] city share at that 21.6 million uh which
[52:45] is a fairly unusual agreement. Typically
[52:47] it's a city has a fixed percentage share
[52:49] until federal funds are expended and
[52:52] then the city would have to cover for
[52:54] 100% of any overages. This was a an
[52:57] unusual and very fortunate for us with
[52:59] the uh the DOT where they agreed to cap
[53:02] the city share on it. Now, as part of
[53:05] that, if there were cost savings that
[53:07] were associated with that, we were not
[53:08] necessarily
[53:10] um guaranteed to see any of those
[53:13] savings. So, very much so appreciate
[53:15] that the DOT uh did elect to share the
[53:18] uh the cost savings that came in with
[53:20] that one. So right now our anticipated
[53:22] city cost share is about 17.9 million
[53:26] and that's being broken down between
[53:28] clean water SRF loans, drinking water
[53:30] SRF loans as well as funding out of our
[53:33] street and infrastructure fund 4815.
[53:36] Um overall we're looking at a potential
[53:39] local cost savings of about 3.7 million
[53:41] compared to what we were originally
[53:42] looking at. And you can see the uh the
[53:45] total project cost right now is looking
[53:47] at about roughly uh $81 million with the
[53:50] breakdown as you can see it below. Um
[53:55] and with that um once again would like
[53:57] to extend uh some appreciation and
[53:59] thanks to the DOT folks who have been
[54:01] working on this as well as folks from
[54:03] Bolton and Mink um as well as our other
[54:05] partners who have been working on the
[54:06] development of this project. Uh we do
[54:09] have Wayne and Michael Johnson on the
[54:13] phone in case you have any questions for
[54:15] the DOT. And with that uh we can open
[54:17] things up for any questions you may
[54:19] have.
[54:21] >> We'll start won't start with a question,
[54:22] just a comment. I just I think it's
[54:24] phenomenal the amount of people that
[54:25] came together to make this happen. This
[54:27] was talked about for 30 or 40 years and
[54:29] the fact it's come going to come to
[54:31] fruition this summer is pretty amazing.
[54:33] Um the fact that we got BNSF to come to
[54:35] the table for at least a little bit of
[54:36] money, that's great. So thank you. We
[54:37] appreciate that, BNSF. Uh the state, the
[54:39] federal government, um you know,
[54:41] obviously locally our our taxpayers are
[54:43] paying for a large portion of it, too.
[54:44] But, um it's a great project and it's
[54:47] going to be a great entrance to our city
[54:48] for the UND campus. Um and just overall,
[54:51] as you enter Grand Forks now, I think
[54:53] Demurs is going to be the place to go,
[54:54] which aligns perfectly with what we've
[54:56] got going on 42nd Street. So, uh just
[54:59] kudos to everyone that was involved to
[55:01] make this happen. It's it's pretty
[55:02] exciting that we're going to get to see
[55:04] this. And you're is that a guarantee the
[55:06] end of next year we're going to be uh
[55:07] fully operational and running up or is
[55:08] that the the hope end of 27?
[55:12] >> I believe right now the hope on that is
[55:14] to have everything complete and
[55:16] operational by the end of 2027.
[55:19] >> That's the hope at least at this point
[55:20] in time. We'll see uh we'll see how
[55:22] construction goes and what uh what we
[55:25] happen to find and how the weather get
[55:26] holds out for us during construction.
[55:28] >> I'm sure I won't hear about it on CAX if
[55:30] it's uh if it's not ahead of schedule.
[55:32] So great. Um, any uh questions for the
[55:35] team? I know Ken's got some. Yeah, Mr.
[55:38] Bean, please.
[55:38] >> So, just question on Ray Richards. When
[55:40] does that go down? Is it down for the
[55:42] whole two years or is it uh what's the
[55:44] timing of that?
[55:46] >> No way.
[55:47] >> Okay. Uh, I believe that is going to be
[55:49] closed for the duration of those two
[55:50] years that we're our project is going to
[55:52] be under construction as well. And a lot
[55:54] of that just has to do with the timing
[55:56] of our project, the timing for UND with
[55:59] their redevelopment as well. Um, I think
[56:01] there's still some details being worked
[56:02] out on that, but I believe that's the
[56:04] game plan at this point in time.
[56:09] » Uh, Mr. Wagel, please.
[56:10] >> Um, Mr. Bean, Mr. Larson was shaking his
[56:12] head back there when they said the full
[56:14] two years, just so you're aware. Um,
[56:17] I think for me, the biggest thing that I
[56:19] look at is public safety. And I think
[56:21] this is going to be tremendous for our
[56:24] law enforcement, our firefighters, um,
[56:26] being able to access uh, specifically
[56:28] Ward One where I live. um when there is
[56:30] trains coming, it often see fire trucks
[56:33] trying to race that train to either get
[56:35] to 55th or 42nd um so that they can
[56:37] access that north end. And so this is
[56:40] something that uh I appreciate um city
[56:42] staff and everybody else putting so much
[56:44] time and effort into.
[56:47] >> Thank you. I did see on one side 42nd
[56:48] Street will be closed for a little
[56:50] while, but it's already closed for a
[56:51] little while now anytime there's a train
[56:53] there. So nothing new.
[56:55] >> Any further comments, Miss Lky?
[56:57] >> Just a quick question. And why are we
[56:58] taking out a drinking water SRF loan?
[57:03] >> Uh, as part of the project, um, as as
[57:07] part of the project, in order to
[57:08] construct the bridge, we write, we have,
[57:11] uh, two 30-inch raw water lines that,
[57:14] uh, bring water from the, uh, the Red
[57:16] River and the Red Lake River to our
[57:18] water treatment facility, as well as a
[57:20] large reverse osmosis residual line as
[57:22] well. Um, right now where those are
[57:24] located, they're located right where the
[57:27] bridge would be constructed. So, we need
[57:28] to get those lines out of the way as
[57:30] well as a I believe it's a 20-in uh
[57:32] treated water line.
[57:39] » All right. Well, thank you for the
[57:40] presentation. We'll look forward to
[57:41] hearing more soon.
[57:45] » 2.4 is maximizing the use of North
[57:47] Dakota's natural gas resource report.
[57:55] Mayor Bjensky and members of the city
[57:57] council. I'm uh blessed we have Brian
[57:59] Kulk here tonight. He's the chief
[58:01] research officer right currently for the
[58:03] EERC. Um soon to be the uh president of
[58:06] Bismar State College. And so um he has
[58:10] helped lead this. I also want to give a
[58:12] lot of credit to the chamber and Barry
[58:14] Wilfort and the EDC and and Keith Lund.
[58:17] Um we've teamed up with the city and our
[58:19] two partners. uh Brian Caulk in the ERC
[58:22] along with uh the North Dakota Pipeline
[58:24] Authority and and Justin Kringstead. We
[58:26] work together on this report not only
[58:28] for Grand Forks for the region and
[58:30] Brian's here to give a give us an
[58:32] overview and natur um we do a lot of the
[58:35] things on on development as you know
[58:37] streets all the water related utilities
[58:39] but without natural gas um it's hard for
[58:42] it's it would be hard for this community
[58:44] to grow whether it's for residential,
[58:45] commercial or industrial. So, um, he's
[58:49] going to give us kind of a status update
[58:50] on that and then I'm going to ask Keith
[58:52] and Barry if they have any, um,
[58:54] follow-ups as part of the team. So, with
[58:56] that, thank you for being here, Brian.
[58:58] >> Thanks for the invite,
[59:00] >> Mr. C, please.
[59:02] >> Yeah. Well, thank you, mayor, and
[59:03] members of the council. I'm excited to
[59:05] be here today. Uh, mayor, you know, we
[59:07] presented this to you here a while back.
[59:08] Nothing has changed from that other than
[59:10] I just want to get the whole group, and
[59:11] if there's any questions, feel free to blurt them out, but it shouldn't take
[59:14] too long. I'll move through pretty
[59:15] quick. You know, the background, we do a
[59:17] lot of work with natural gas as it
[59:18] relates to oil production. We being ERC
[59:21] and I first talked with Keith and Todd
[59:23] and the team here, Barry, about how we
[59:25] could maybe potentially have more of
[59:26] that coming to the Grand Forks region.
[59:27] We were able to take some existing work,
[59:29] add a little bit on with no additional
[59:31] cost to the Grand Forks region to do
[59:33] some of this work. So, that's kind of
[59:34] the backdrop how we did it and how it
[59:36] all got funded. Just some definitions.
[59:38] In the natural gas production world,
[59:40] there's lots of different de
[59:41] definitions. You get your producers,
[59:42] your transporters. The way I look at it
[59:44] is the person that owns the pipeline is
[59:46] kind of like the truck driver. You know,
[59:48] they they own it, they can do what they
[59:49] do, but the stuff falling through the
[59:51] gas, that's somebody belongs to somebody
[59:52] else. Just because you own the pipeline
[59:54] doesn't mean you have access to what's
[59:55] moving down the pipeline. There's all
[59:57] kinds of arrangements on it. So, it's not as straightforward as you one
[1:00:00] might think in the world of moving gas
[1:00:02] around. Uh, everybody's got their
[1:00:04] fingers in the cookie jar on how to
[1:00:05] regulate it, whether it's their North
[1:00:06] Dakota PSC, the DMR, you've got federal
[1:00:10] of the pipeline authority. So when you
[1:00:12] deal about pipelines, a lot of people
[1:00:14] have a say in how they all work. And
[1:00:15] sometimes it's state jurisdiction,
[1:00:16] sometimes it's federal jurisdiction. A
[1:00:18] lot of the gas coming into Grand Forks
[1:00:20] comes in from the Minnesota side. So
[1:00:22] that brings in different areas. But it's
[1:00:23] uh once again, I'm trying to set up the
[1:00:25] complexity, but also it's something we
[1:00:27] need to take care of in North Dakota to
[1:00:28] make sure we use all of our gas so we
[1:00:30] can keep the oil production up. This
[1:00:32] slider here kind of shows a Justin
[1:00:34] Kingstead. Uh Todd brought that up.
[1:00:36] Justin's been mapping this stuff for a
[1:00:37] long time and you can see his estimates
[1:00:39] in the past. He's showing the numbers
[1:00:41] pretty reliable what we think is going
[1:00:42] to be in gas production and he shows a
[1:00:44] best a base case and and a low case for
[1:00:46] what what's coming. So there's going to
[1:00:48] be plenty of gas in North Dakota that we
[1:00:50] have to find a home for. Now how we can
[1:00:52] get it to different parts of the state I
[1:00:54] think is a challenge we're going to work
[1:00:55] through here. But some real numbers of
[1:00:58] natural gas production in the state are
[1:01:00] out there. Um a lot of gas processing
[1:01:02] plants are being built in the state. I
[1:01:04] was in a PSC a few years ago and at that
[1:01:05] time there was one in the state. You can
[1:01:07] look at the number now. There's a whole
[1:01:08] bunch of them. And so you got to take
[1:01:10] the gas and do something with it. Break
[1:01:11] it apart into when you have natural gas,
[1:01:13] you got your ethane, your propane, your
[1:01:15] butane, all different products. But you
[1:01:17] have to get one of these things to break
[1:01:18] them apart before you can move them down
[1:01:20] to find an audience or a home for them.
[1:01:22] This is an overview of the big pipelines
[1:01:24] that run through the state. And you can
[1:01:26] see up in, you know, great Grand Forks
[1:01:27] where we're at, there's not a lot of big
[1:01:28] lines that are headed up this way. And
[1:01:31] there's a a line that's being built from
[1:01:33] across the western part of the state in
[1:01:35] the lower part of the state that I think
[1:01:37] uh Keith has been I would say very
[1:01:38] diligent in telling me ways that we
[1:01:40] should get it up here. And I appreciate
[1:01:42] that tenacity. But I think that's the
[1:01:44] driver is you look at there's a natural
[1:01:45] area that you know we'd like to get most
[1:01:47] of the gas traditionally is flowing from
[1:01:49] northwest to southeast and that's
[1:01:51] because the markets have been in
[1:01:53] Chicago. Frankly the the gas contracts
[1:01:56] that were built back in the day were
[1:01:57] moving gas from Canada to Chicago. Then
[1:01:59] along the way, North Dakota started
[1:02:01] producing more, but that's how these
[1:02:02] lines got set up that way. So, if we can
[1:02:04] somehow get some need and demand up in
[1:02:06] this part of the woods, that's where you
[1:02:07] can divert more of the gas. Um, gas
[1:02:10] storage is also something that we're
[1:02:12] looking at at the EERC, salt cavern
[1:02:14] storage. So, you've got different areas
[1:02:16] of production. One of the challenges
[1:02:17] when you produce it, you got to do
[1:02:18] something with it. We were flaring gas
[1:02:20] in the state for years. We're down to
[1:02:22] almost zero on that, but you got to be
[1:02:23] able to use it or store it. And right
[1:02:25] now there's only one of those storage
[1:02:26] fields, but the western part of the
[1:02:28] state shows some promise. So if we could
[1:02:29] store it certain times of the year, then
[1:02:31] you could move it and kind of levelize
[1:02:32] your demand. So it's more of the
[1:02:34] holistic what we're thinking about for
[1:02:36] the state. Another number here showing
[1:02:38] not only is production demand is
[1:02:40] increasing throughout the state. We
[1:02:41] didn't see much gas used for power
[1:02:43] generation, but now base electric and
[1:02:45] other companies are using gas, natural
[1:02:47] gas for base load plants, for peaking
[1:02:50] plants. And so as we need more power in
[1:02:52] the state, gas has become an option that
[1:02:54] so far really hasn't replaced anything.
[1:02:56] It's just more of the addition. We're
[1:02:58] needing more power, so you use gas to to
[1:03:00] make electricity out of it. U the study
[1:03:02] that we drilled down a little bit deeper
[1:03:04] on was dealing with what Keith helped us
[1:03:06] get some numbers put together of the
[1:03:08] population in Grand Forks. As I referred
[1:03:10] to earlier, the the main line right now
[1:03:12] is a line coming out of uh Minnesota.
[1:03:14] Gas comes down out of Canada. A few
[1:03:16] years ago, we had a rupture in that
[1:03:17] line. It's a pretty bad deal. price of
[1:03:19] gas spiked. Electric XL Energy had to
[1:03:22] raise some of their costs, got past the
[1:03:23] to consumers. So, if we can get more
[1:03:26] ways to get gas into the region, it's
[1:03:28] good for everybody. It's a win across
[1:03:29] the board. The the bottom number to kind
[1:03:32] of put things in perspective, you I
[1:03:34] talked about all the gas that's being
[1:03:35] produced, but roughly, you know, 1.6% of
[1:03:37] the gas is being used in Grand Forks, so
[1:03:39] it's not a lot of it's being used, but
[1:03:42] we need to find a home for all of it,
[1:03:43] but just trying to show what we could do
[1:03:45] in in this region and other parts of the
[1:03:47] state. Um, this is kind of the current
[1:03:50] gas usage that's happening in the state
[1:03:52] to kind of show you where it's being
[1:03:53] used. And this next slide is a is uh Oh,
[1:03:56] I just went back to the Did I skip one
[1:03:58] here? That's our current one. And then
[1:04:01] there's some other areas that uh things
[1:04:04] that could switch to more natural gas.
[1:04:05] Maybe Keith, I'll defer to you if
[1:04:06] there's more questions about some of
[1:04:08] these companies, but these are companies
[1:04:09] that could be adding more gas usage to
[1:04:12] the region, which would basically double
[1:04:14] what you're using up here now. So that
[1:04:16] would then become more enticing to build
[1:04:17] some pipelines and come up this way. And
[1:04:20] then the uh I think I just talked about
[1:04:23] that a little duplication in here. This
[1:04:25] is showing that the next slide will give
[1:04:28] out some detailed numbers. But if we
[1:04:30] could bring in all kinds of you know
[1:04:31] transition some traditional coal users
[1:04:34] frankly to gas or bring in some other
[1:04:36] demand you could bring that demand up
[1:04:38] pretty high. But what that would mean is
[1:04:40] you know Crystal Sugar is a great
[1:04:41] operation. They've been using coal for a
[1:04:43] long time. I don't think they're in any
[1:04:44] hurry to to switch over, but who knows?
[1:04:46] What I'm getting at is there's some
[1:04:48] other things that if you need more
[1:04:49] electricity up here, if you look at
[1:04:51] other areas, there could be some
[1:04:52] significant gas that would come up here
[1:04:54] that would entice I think some pipeline
[1:04:56] companies. And I think to the I'm just
[1:04:59] going to get right to the last slide. I
[1:05:01] think the most important thing to think
[1:05:02] about is that I think my viewpoint is if somebody's willing to sign a gas
[1:05:06] contract, somebody's going to deliver a
[1:05:08] pipeline up here because they'll get a
[1:05:09] long-term commitment to build it and
[1:05:11] then you get your 10-year period, if you
[1:05:13] will. But there's a lot of other things
[1:05:14] that I think as a state and as a region
[1:05:16] we can do to educate people about what
[1:05:18] Grand Forks could bring to the equation
[1:05:20] of using more gas in the state. And as
[1:05:22] the mayor brought up in our previous
[1:05:24] meeting, I mean, getting the coalition
[1:05:25] in Grand Forks to educate people about
[1:05:28] what is potentially opportunity in Grand
[1:05:30] Forks because the natural gas production
[1:05:32] world, they think about gas moving
[1:05:34] northwest to southeast because that's
[1:05:35] where your big markets are at. So, it
[1:05:37] takes some switching of people's
[1:05:38] viewpoints that, hey, wait, maybe we
[1:05:40] could deliver some to different parts of
[1:05:41] the state. So, uh, I think that's
[1:05:43] probably my prepared remarks just to
[1:05:45] show you that there's plenty of gas out
[1:05:46] there. I think there's some opportunity
[1:05:48] and happy to answer any questions and if
[1:05:50] not let Todd follow through with the
[1:05:52] rest of the crowd. So happy to answer
[1:05:54] any questions.
[1:05:55] >> Sounds good. Any questions? President
[1:05:56] Sandy, please.
[1:05:57] >> Mr. Call, thank you. Uh, thanks for
[1:05:59] being here. Uh, interesting study. Um,
[1:06:02] so who do we buy our me personally? Who
[1:06:04] do I buy my natural gas from to heat my
[1:06:06] house?
[1:06:07] >> Chances are you buy it from Excel
[1:06:08] Energy,
[1:06:09] >> right? And so do you know what
[1:06:11] percentage of market share does Excel
[1:06:13] have in well I mean they have 100% in
[1:06:16] Grand Forks. What do they have across
[1:06:18] the state?
[1:06:19] >> Yeah, great question. Excel Energy is
[1:06:21] roughly North Dakota is roughly 4% of
[1:06:24] Excel Energy's business and that's
[1:06:25] electricity and gas. So I can't give you
[1:06:28] the exact number for gas, but Excel is
[1:06:30] actually a pretty small player in the
[1:06:32] gas world because the western part of
[1:06:34] the state MDU Resources is a big gas
[1:06:36] player. Basin Electric is a big gas
[1:06:37] player. Um, a lot of the different
[1:06:40] companies are there's just a lot. Excel
[1:06:42] is a small player, I guess, would be my
[1:06:44] answer in the state. They're a huge
[1:06:45] player in Grand Forks.
[1:06:46] >> Sure. We need to get other players
[1:06:49] interested in serving our community.
[1:06:50] Thank you, man.
[1:06:51] >> If I can just be so bold as to throw one
[1:06:53] more thing. Excel also delivers gas to
[1:06:55] Fargo and so I think it's not just Grand
[1:06:58] Forks. The the Viking line that comes
[1:07:00] down and I showed it that comes down and
[1:07:02] drops off in Grand Forks, that also goes
[1:07:04] to Fargo. So if XL would be willing to
[1:07:07] take more gas commitment in Fargo and
[1:07:09] Grand Forks, there's probably a pathway
[1:07:11] that might work.
[1:07:12] >> Sure.
[1:07:12] >> Thank you, sir.
[1:07:14] >> XL won't like that, but it's
[1:07:17] >> Any other questions?
[1:07:18] >> I have a question.
[1:07:19] >> Yeah, please. Mr. Van,
[1:07:20] >> a few years ago, I know we had a gas pro
[1:07:23] a problem with the gas transmission line
[1:07:26] and we just about ran out of
[1:07:29] >> gas here in town. So, we have no
[1:07:31] redundancy. Is there does that fit into
[1:07:34] the equation? somehow that we get
[1:07:36] another line so we have redundancy.
[1:07:39] >> I see Todd making a point. I think
[1:07:42] >> yes is the answer. I think it's how you
[1:07:44] build that redundancy and some of it
[1:07:46] people have backup heating but I think
[1:07:47] I'll defer if there's a better person
[1:07:49] than that.
[1:07:49] >> I I think there is, you know, um Brian
[1:07:52] talked about that, you know, bad winter
[1:07:54] day where um everything worked out and
[1:07:57] but it was a middle of winter. It was
[1:07:59] really cold out. Um there was a a mishap
[1:08:02] in Canada and we were very very close to
[1:08:05] being uh out of natural gas in this area
[1:08:08] and there were a lot of people that um
[1:08:09] have a lot of concerns with XL Energy
[1:08:11] with not a lot of answers but everything
[1:08:12] worked out. Um so I think redundancy is
[1:08:15] a big big deal for us too along with
[1:08:18] just overall growth and expansion um on
[1:08:21] that new line that um WBI is you know
[1:08:24] looking to build from as as Brian said
[1:08:27] from that northwest to the to the
[1:08:29] southeast. And maybe with that, Keith,
[1:08:32] you got some really great words on maybe
[1:08:34] on what's what's next from here on, you
[1:08:37] know, where do we take this information
[1:08:39] and really advocate um for Grand Forks
[1:08:42] in the region and and Keith's been doing
[1:08:44] a lot of the, you know, the gritty work
[1:08:46] and um I think he has the best elevator
[1:08:49] pitch on on where do we go from here.
[1:08:52] >> Okay, we're on. Um thank you Todd, Mayor
[1:08:55] Richinsky, members of the uh members of
[1:08:58] the city council. Um been a pleasure. I
[1:09:00] want to first recognize the ERC. Uh
[1:09:02] Brian just briefly mentioned that no
[1:09:04] cost to the city. The ERC is North
[1:09:06] Dakota's energy research center. And so
[1:09:09] I guess their thought process in terms
[1:09:10] of doing this work on behalf of the
[1:09:12] Grand Forks region is this is on behalf
[1:09:13] of the state of North Dakota. And uh
[1:09:16] really when you take a look at all the
[1:09:17] areas that additional natural gas uh is
[1:09:19] going to enhance throughout the state of
[1:09:21] North Dakota with existing pipelines and
[1:09:23] new pipelines, especially those that are
[1:09:24] coming across I94, um northeast North
[1:09:27] Dakota is the one area that is not
[1:09:29] enhanced without some additional work.
[1:09:30] So um I really appreciate Brian and the
[1:09:33] team at the ERC for doing the work. Um,
[1:09:35] you know, right now, just as a
[1:09:36] background, the, uh, WBI is developing
[1:09:39] the pipeline. They haven't made their
[1:09:40] final FIRK filing, which is the national
[1:09:42] filing that they have to do. Uh, but
[1:09:44] they're out there collecting interest.
[1:09:46] The state of North Dakota approved a
[1:09:48] $500 million, $50 million year gap
[1:09:50] purchased in order to move that project
[1:09:52] along. Uh, in next short order, we'll
[1:09:55] have an understanding of what amount of
[1:09:57] that is needed really to support the
[1:09:58] demand that they are able to get through
[1:10:00] those open season and firm commitments.
[1:10:02] Our hope is that there will be some of
[1:10:04] that resource left available to have a
[1:10:06] conversation with the state about
[1:10:07] potentially diverting some of that to a
[1:10:08] northern route. Uh no guarantees in
[1:10:10] life, but that's at least a thought
[1:10:11] process. Now, you may be referring to
[1:10:13] this Todd in terms of inviting me up to
[1:10:15] say some comments. And I take a look in
[1:10:17] terms of a positioning of a region in
[1:10:19] terms of natural gas. You know, at the
[1:10:21] very top of the that sort of ladder is
[1:10:23] there's gas here and now plug in and
[1:10:25] just, you know, go ahead and be
[1:10:26] successful. The second sort of layer of
[1:10:29] that is natural gas is coming. So
[1:10:32] business really uh organize and be ready
[1:10:34] when it does come. The third level of
[1:10:36] that is um we have uh pipeline companies
[1:10:39] that are willing to as long as there's
[1:10:41] demand and we have to convince them or
[1:10:42] if somebody wants to do a project they
[1:10:44] introduce them to pipeline companies and
[1:10:45] they work out the deal and it takes two
[1:10:47] or three years in order to develop it.
[1:10:49] Um and the last one is we don't have any
[1:10:51] gas available. So thank goodness we're
[1:10:53] not in that position. We have a we have
[1:10:55] a significant natural gas in our service
[1:10:57] territory. We would like it closer to
[1:10:58] Grand Forks and be able to demonstrate
[1:11:00] to industry that that is coming. So
[1:11:02] that's our goal. U maybe the last thing
[1:11:04] I'll say and Mr. Feland, if there's
[1:11:06] something that I missed you wanted me to
[1:11:07] say, please let me know. Um we visited
[1:11:09] with Justin Cringstead who is a North
[1:11:11] Dakota Pipeline Authority director over
[1:11:12] many many years. Uh and he's talked
[1:11:15] about for years, for that long time, uh
[1:11:17] the desire and the goal of finding a
[1:11:20] home for natural gas, which is really
[1:11:21] about the uh the expansion out of the
[1:11:23] Bach.
[1:11:24] um there's restrictions on flaring. If
[1:11:26] they don't find a home for natural gas,
[1:11:27] oil production decreases, and that's a
[1:11:30] big part of the state's wealth. He said
[1:11:32] number one priority is finding a home
[1:11:33] for natural gas, but number two is to
[1:11:36] use North Dakota natural gas to help
[1:11:38] grow North Dakota's economy. So, we have
[1:11:40] an ally as long as there's a business
[1:11:42] case to be made in Grand Forks. Happy to
[1:11:44] answer questions beyond that.
[1:11:46] >> All right. Thank you. Mr. Oski, you got
[1:11:48] a question, please.
[1:11:49] >> Yeah. Um first off, I support the
[1:11:51] pipeline. So that's really exciting
[1:11:55] news. I I do have some some questions
[1:11:57] though. Do you think that if the state
[1:12:00] of North Dakota invests or like even the
[1:12:03] city of Grand Forks, anybody invests in
[1:12:05] this giant pipeline, obviously it's
[1:12:07] going to cost us a lot of money. Would
[1:12:09] you see then that um homes that do use
[1:12:13] natural gas that their energy rates
[1:12:15] would go up or would we get someone else
[1:12:18] to compete against XL then? And this is
[1:12:21] just kind of for home ownership. I mean,
[1:12:24] I would I would hate to, you know,
[1:12:28] invest so heavily and then it just gets
[1:12:31] pushed off to the homeowner who
[1:12:33] sometimes struggles to pay some of
[1:12:36] their, you know, heat bills in the
[1:12:38] wintertime. And so I am concerned about
[1:12:41] that.
[1:12:43] >> I would say that the comments I'm about
[1:12:45] to make do not reflect the view of the
[1:12:47] ERC.
[1:12:48] >> Go ahead. I seriously I mean that but my
[1:12:50] time was on the public service
[1:12:51] commission is where I would answer do
[1:12:53] the best answer this question. XL is a
[1:12:55] regulated utility and so you can't just
[1:12:58] have somebody come in and use their
[1:12:59] space but they can always switch to
[1:13:01] propane or do other things but yeah
[1:13:03] there's certainly you could get other
[1:13:04] people to come in and do other things
[1:13:06] but it's going to come back to the cost
[1:13:08] to compete. I I think I would go back to
[1:13:11] that you just present options like Keith
[1:13:13] said to uh hey we we could use some and
[1:13:16] whether who delivers it in Grand Forks
[1:13:17] area you just get it the people aren't
[1:13:19] thinking about the usages up here and
[1:13:21] demand is there because if we don't get
[1:13:23] the gas used oil production will stop
[1:13:25] because the older a well becomes the
[1:13:27] more gas comes out of it and so they
[1:13:29] eventually you got to find a home for it
[1:13:31] but I guess I wouldn't as a foreign PSC
[1:13:34] guy I wouldn't bank too much about a lot
[1:13:35] of competition coming and you want to
[1:13:37] get somebody to use the of what you can
[1:13:39] and I think the biggest thing on natural
[1:13:40] gas is if you do the electricity from
[1:13:43] gas or coal or wind or whatever those
[1:13:45] things tie into your rates and all that
[1:13:47] gets rolled up in there.
[1:13:49] >> Okay. So before they kind of decide more
[1:13:51] on the pipeline then do these companies
[1:13:54] have to commit to building in Grand
[1:13:57] Forks? Is that kind of the direction?
[1:14:02] What I know from pipelines back to where
[1:14:04] I started the conversation where
[1:14:05] traditionally gas flowed northwest to
[1:14:07] southeast, you had companies in Chicago
[1:14:10] saying, "We need gas." They signed a
[1:14:12] 20-year contract with somebody up in
[1:14:14] Canada and they built the pipeline
[1:14:16] because they had a 20-year commitment to
[1:14:18] buy that gas. That's how it all started.
[1:14:20] So, you get somebody on the one end
[1:14:21] that'll buy willing to buy the gas for
[1:14:23] some long period of time. Somebody up
[1:14:25] here is willing to to to produce it, and
[1:14:28] they build the pipeline along the way.
[1:14:30] That's that first slide about all the
[1:14:31] different layers of of who does what.
[1:14:34] That's the way it all started. So you
[1:14:35] really if you got an anchored tenant in
[1:14:37] Grand Forks that said I'm willing to buy
[1:14:38] gas for 10 years, somebody build a
[1:14:41] pipeline. That's my viewpoint.
[1:14:43] >> Mayor Pinsky and Mr. Sowski, I'll just
[1:14:46] add the exercise on I94. I'll call it
[1:14:48] the route. Um the state of North
[1:14:50] Dakota's contribution was up to a half a
[1:14:52] billion, $50 million a year. That was a
[1:14:54] purchase gap. So they're buying gas
[1:14:56] before the market responds to that, but
[1:14:58] they still went had an open season.
[1:15:00] They're trying to get firm commitments.
[1:15:01] So they're going to have to have
[1:15:02] industry come to the table and say, "I
[1:15:03] want this before the pipeline gets
[1:15:05] built." So you have to have some level
[1:15:07] of u of commitment from industry before
[1:15:09] that happens. In the absence of I know
[1:15:12] people don't like the word subsidy when
[1:15:14] it comes to that, but in in the absence
[1:15:15] of that 500 million or $50 million a
[1:15:18] year, FK would require you to have the
[1:15:20] demand for the gas that's being
[1:15:21] transported. So um they're adding value
[1:15:24] to it. So hopefully there's time for the
[1:15:26] industry to respond. If that if there
[1:15:28] were to be a line come to Grant Force
[1:15:29] from any direction, there would have to
[1:15:30] be some type of industry commitment, I
[1:15:32] think, to get that project moving.
[1:15:34] >> I mean, I'm 100% on board with this. I I
[1:15:37] will not be supporting any tax
[1:15:40] incentives. So, just to have the
[1:15:42] businesses build within our community,
[1:15:45] but otherwise, I support the pipeline.
[1:15:46] So, thank you. and Mayor Bachinsky, I
[1:15:49] think this is maybe a council president
[1:15:51] Sandy as part of our legislative
[1:15:52] committee will be an important thing.
[1:15:54] Right now, the pipeline essentially is going to start up in the in the
[1:15:59] Bakan. It's likely going to go past
[1:16:01] James Town and their um their kind of
[1:16:04] their industrial park that you see along
[1:16:06] uh I 94. It's going to end up in Cass
[1:16:08] County um in areas and so the state of
[1:16:13] North Dakota is helping direct this. So,
[1:16:15] we're going to have to be persuasive to
[1:16:17] get um that pipeline to move north to us
[1:16:20] once it hits Cass County. And that's
[1:16:22] what we're that's what we're trying to
[1:16:23] do here. And so, we're not we have a
[1:16:25] redundant line. We have a line for
[1:16:27] expansion. And we're part of this North
[1:16:29] Dakota natural gas uh development. And even though it gets to the east of
[1:16:35] North Dakota, it's we we're trying to
[1:16:37] get it to the northeast also and trying
[1:16:38] to build our own case.
[1:16:41] >> All right. But I think I'll just close
[1:16:43] with, you know, bigger picture. We're at a place now where we're not
[1:16:46] constrained. But right now, we have
[1:16:47] tremendous capacity in water. We have a
[1:16:49] great water resource with the Red Lake
[1:16:51] River, the Red River. We got great egg
[1:16:53] production in the area. We got great
[1:16:54] workforce uh pipeline, I'm going to use
[1:16:56] that word, uh with UND and Northland.
[1:16:58] We've got all the things that can help
[1:16:59] add growth here. Natural gas is the
[1:17:01] thing we're going to butt up against
[1:17:02] first. And it's going to be for energy
[1:17:04] production process, whether heating
[1:17:06] process in these different industries.
[1:17:07] And it could also be residential at some
[1:17:09] point. So this is 5, 10, 20 years out,
[1:17:12] but this is us trying to get ahead of it
[1:17:13] rather than being so constrained that it
[1:17:15] stops everything else. So I appreciate
[1:17:17] the work. It's not easy doing things
[1:17:18] that are, you know, future and far
[1:17:20] outlook. Um, but it's still important
[1:17:22] work. So appreciate both of your work on
[1:17:25] this and uh let's continue continue the
[1:17:26] conversation, continue plowing forward.
[1:17:28] >> Mayor, could I just recognize Barry
[1:17:29] Wilford from the chamber? It's been a
[1:17:31] pleasure to work with Todd and Barry on
[1:17:33] this and Todd could have easily asked
[1:17:34] Barry to come up and and share the same
[1:17:36] information I did. So it's been a real
[1:17:38] team effort. Thank you.
[1:17:39] >> Yep. Thank you. All right. Thanks,
[1:17:40] Jensen.
[1:17:41] >> Good luck to new jobs.
[1:17:46] » 2.5 Grand Forks Housing Study Update.
[1:17:54] » I'm going to ask Mark Schill to come up
[1:17:56] here. Mayor Buchensky, members of city
[1:17:58] council. Again, a big thanks to uh the
[1:18:01] chamber and Barry Wilford and also um uh
[1:18:04] Keith London, the EDC. they help pay or
[1:18:07] they did pay for this particular study
[1:18:08] and I think it really leads well into
[1:18:10] what um council president Sandy is
[1:18:12] looking at convening later this month or
[1:18:15] early next month with the housing and
[1:18:17] this is really a baseline about where
[1:18:19] we're at with housing more to come but
[1:18:21] we thought tonight would be a good
[1:18:23] opportunity for you to kind of get a
[1:18:25] snapshot of where we're at with housing
[1:18:27] and then similar to what we did previous
[1:18:29] uh Barry and Keith if they would
[1:18:31] wouldn't mind coming up to provide some
[1:18:33] capstone comments um uh to fill in after
[1:18:36] Mark gets done. So with that, Mark,
[1:18:38] thank you for being here.
[1:18:41] >> Mr. Shell, please. Thank you.
[1:18:44] >> Uh Mayor Bachinsky, members of council,
[1:18:47] uh eight quick points for you tonight,
[1:18:48] focusing mostly on multif family and and
[1:18:51] rentals. Uh first one is uh the vacancy
[1:18:53] rate has shifted into a pretty clearly a
[1:18:55] tight market situation. Uh that's also
[1:18:58] with number two. Rent growth is pretty
[1:19:00] much skyrocketed in the last two to four
[1:19:02] years in the community. At the same
[1:19:04] time, construction of multif family
[1:19:05] units has been a bit below average in
[1:19:07] the 2020s. And one of the reasons for
[1:19:09] that is job growth has been pretty
[1:19:11] strong uh to the point where rents are
[1:19:14] now higher than Fargo and uh there's
[1:19:16] high rental churn in the community. Then
[1:19:19] finally, you know, this is an issue that
[1:19:20] is economically important to the city in
[1:19:22] a number of ways, both uh in terms of
[1:19:24] workforce, uh quality of life, um upward
[1:19:27] mobility, uh and uh the tax base, and
[1:19:30] also Grand Forks also absolutely needs
[1:19:32] single family houses. So, uh the first
[1:19:35] one here, you know, the average vacancy
[1:19:36] according to the apartment association
[1:19:38] survey is about 6.3% going back to 2008.
[1:19:42] Uh the most recent number is 3.55,
[1:19:46] fourth quarter 2025.
[1:19:48] uh but it's been persistently below 4%
[1:19:50] for four straight straight quarters
[1:19:52] which is unusual uh for the time that
[1:19:55] we've got that data. So on the bottom
[1:19:57] there, you know, you could say that
[1:19:58] below 6% could be considered tight uh
[1:20:00] for vacancy, below 4% very tight, above
[1:20:04] eight would be soft. And so looking at
[1:20:07] that data here back to 2017, um you
[1:20:10] know, it starts in 2017 above 9% real
[1:20:14] high. Uh but beginning at around 2022,
[1:20:17] it drops here below the
[1:20:20] uh standard average. And then as of
[1:20:22] 2024, early 2024 and all of 2025, it
[1:20:26] gets around that 4% mark and then four
[1:20:28] straight quarters down here uh below 4%.
[1:20:32] Uh so again, you know, pretty clearly
[1:20:33] low, persistently low. If you go back a
[1:20:35] few years, the lowest number I saw was
[1:20:37] about 2.2, but it didn't stand to take
[1:20:39] stay that low very long. Uh so this has
[1:20:42] been, I think, probably the most
[1:20:43] sustained period below 4%.
[1:20:46] Rent growth is high uh since early 2022.
[1:20:49] puts up rent prices is up 30%. Uh rent
[1:20:52] prices is up 19% in the last two years
[1:20:54] and since January 2024 and you look at
[1:20:57] the metropolitan level uh the two
[1:20:59] counties Grand Forks and Pulk County uh
[1:21:01] it's rent has grown three and a half
[1:21:02] times faster than the national number.
[1:21:04] So um it's really the highest rent
[1:21:07] growth in the region essentially the I
[1:21:09] would say the three-state region. So
[1:21:11] looking at that beginning here in about
[1:21:13] 2022, rent starts to accelerate
[1:21:16] uh really in 2024 it takes off pretty
[1:21:18] quickly. The other thing you see here is
[1:21:20] there's a seasonal factor here. It's
[1:21:22] rent tends to get soft at the end of the
[1:21:24] year uh sort of low in November,
[1:21:26] December and then and then take off
[1:21:28] again. So if you look at the same data
[1:21:31] here in the seasonally adjusted uh it's
[1:21:32] a smooth line uh pretty far straight
[1:21:34] upward. So the median rent here
[1:21:35] according to what's advertised on Zillow
[1:21:37] is uh 1201.
[1:21:41] Looking at growth uh starting in January
[1:21:43] 2022 again about 30% here uh you can see
[1:21:46] as compared to everywhere except Willist
[1:21:48] pretty high uh rent growth in the Twin
[1:21:50] Cities metro areas these are cities low.
[1:21:53] Fargo is about 20% in two years 21%.
[1:21:57] the 2-year period where it really
[1:21:59] accelerated in Grand Forks. Uh 18 19% uh
[1:22:02] and that's well above most the other
[1:22:05] places in the area. These are cities
[1:22:07] again
[1:22:10] uh looking at metropolitan areas again
[1:22:12] the two counties here compared to the
[1:22:14] other metropolitan areas who are
[1:22:15] thinking about competitiveness and who
[1:22:16] may want to move here as they evaluate
[1:22:18] different places. Here's where we have
[1:22:19] the three and a half times bigger than
[1:22:21] the national average down here. Five and
[1:22:23] a 5.4%.
[1:22:26] uh the United States and about 18 uh in
[1:22:28] two years here in the metro area.
[1:22:32] So at the during the same time this has
[1:22:34] happened uh construction has slowed a
[1:22:36] bit. So looking at HUD studies and other
[1:22:38] benchmarks you know the target for a
[1:22:39] healthy market might be about one or 2%
[1:22:41] growth per year. Uh Grand Forks
[1:22:43] according to the city's parcel database
[1:22:45] has added 601 apartment units in the
[1:22:47] 2020s. And so that's an average of 100
[1:22:50] per year. So just comparing uh if you
[1:22:52] were to say targeting 1% that would be
[1:22:55] about 666. So it's a little bit below
[1:22:57] that. Uh 2% target would be about 1300.
[1:23:02] Uh going back 15 years Grand Forks has
[1:23:04] average 181. Now there's a lot of ups
[1:23:06] and downs and heavy swings there but
[1:23:07] that's the average. I think 25 year
[1:23:09] average is about 165 or so. But since
[1:23:13] 2018 um if you were to target that 1%
[1:23:16] only two of the eight years have hit
[1:23:17] that 1% benchmark. But a couple years
[1:23:20] have been significantly above that. So
[1:23:21] as you see here, looking at again the
[1:23:24] year built of uh the number of units in
[1:23:27] the parcel database from the city.
[1:23:29] Here's your 601 in the six years in this
[1:23:31] decade of the 2020s. There's about 2100
[1:23:34] built in the 2010s, 1,400 here. So
[1:23:37] again, you know, averaging per decade
[1:23:39] around 2,000 except for the 1990s, which
[1:23:42] of course uh you know, we know what
[1:23:43] happened that time.
[1:23:46] Zooming in a bit uh year by year, here's
[1:23:49] your 15-year average of about 180 or so.
[1:23:52] Uh you can see again 2022 was a big
[1:23:54] year, but the several other years were
[1:23:56] low. Uh nothing in the database in 2024.
[1:24:00] So the last time that happened was back
[1:24:01] in the year 2000.
[1:24:03] So again, major swings. Uh this boom
[1:24:05] happened in 2013 and 2014 uh after a
[1:24:09] couple of really low years. And I do
[1:24:10] think that was one of the times when the
[1:24:12] vacancy hit about 2 and a half%. uh uh I
[1:24:14] think that was around the time just
[1:24:16] after the city had took a strong policy
[1:24:18] interest in housing at that time. So
[1:24:21] again it's what's important here is to
[1:24:23] view all these three things together. Uh
[1:24:24] vacancy has been persistently low, rent
[1:24:27] is rising really quickly and then this
[1:24:29] below average new supply. Importantly
[1:24:31] all three of these things are pointing
[1:24:33] uh in the same direction.
[1:24:35] Why? Well, one reason is job growth is pretty strong lately. uh just looking
[1:24:39] here at the last 5 years and of course
[1:24:40] this includes some rebound postco uh but
[1:24:44] several uh sectors are doing well and
[1:24:46] growing uh you know government a lot of
[1:24:49] these are state government jobs with UND
[1:24:51] uh coming back online that that was a
[1:24:52] big reason there's a lot of jobs lost in
[1:24:54] the late 2010s uh in this community uh
[1:24:56] in state government manufacturing is
[1:24:58] strong I think there's a good reason to
[1:25:00] believe that healthcare is going to be a
[1:25:01] lot stronger in the region in the next
[1:25:02] five or 10 years as well so that that's
[1:25:04] a big reason uh what's driving some of
[1:25:06] this demand
[1:25:08] Rents higher than Fargo. Uh right now
[1:25:10] it's 1201 as we saw. Um the city of
[1:25:12] Fargo it's around 1,100 at the 2count
[1:25:15] MSA level. Uh a little bit higher in
[1:25:18] Grand Forks at this point. Now that
[1:25:20] said, um Grand Forks is still lower than
[1:25:22] a lot of other places. So I think one of
[1:25:23] the conundrums the community or the
[1:25:25] market has faced is that rents are
[1:25:27] rising really quickly but at 1,200 it
[1:25:30] may not be enough to pencil uh or make
[1:25:32] profitable some new developments and the
[1:25:34] current rate uh in debt financing
[1:25:36] environment right so what this number is
[1:25:39] where it would work I don't know whether
[1:25:40] it's you know 1500800 something like
[1:25:43] that
[1:25:45] again comparing to the metropolitan
[1:25:47] areas uh a similar story so the US
[1:25:50] median rent is about $1,900 $00.
[1:25:55] Another way to look at this is to think
[1:25:56] about how much income does a renter
[1:25:58] spend on housing, right? So in the
[1:26:00] orange here in Grand Forks, your median
[1:26:02] renter pays about 28% of their income
[1:26:04] towards housing. Uh you can see you're
[1:26:06] compared to a lot of other places in the
[1:26:08] state. Uh it's high. So I think you know
[1:26:10] a typical standard would be 30% above
[1:26:12] 30% might be considered cost burdened.
[1:26:17] So you know some may accuse folks their
[1:26:19] community of Grand Forks of being
[1:26:20] obsessed with Fargo. Um, in this case,
[1:26:22] the reason why is is about
[1:26:24] competitiveness. Uh, if you look here in
[1:26:26] this graphic, the red side shows based
[1:26:29] on IRS tax returns, when people leave
[1:26:31] the Grand Forks County, where do they
[1:26:33] go? Uh, number one place is Cass County,
[1:26:35] number two place is Klay County, number
[1:26:37] three is Henipin. Uh, and so again,
[1:26:41] cost of living, upper mobility, um, home
[1:26:43] prices, rent prices in Fargo are
[1:26:45] probably are relevant to the local
[1:26:47] market.
[1:26:49] high rental churn. So about 60%
[1:26:51] according census data of renters have
[1:26:53] relocated or changed units uh between
[1:26:55] 2020 and 2024. Uh that's pretty high
[1:26:57] compared to the nation. So in an
[1:27:00] environment where rents rising quickly,
[1:27:02] more households in this community tend
[1:27:03] to get exposed to that market rise,
[1:27:05] right? They're if they're changing
[1:27:06] units, they have to pay that higher
[1:27:07] rent. So that exacerbates the problem to
[1:27:09] some extent.
[1:27:11] Rental housing is economically
[1:27:13] important. About a billion dollars in
[1:27:14] tax value, which is key. Um again,
[1:27:17] rising rent prices um is that decreases
[1:27:19] disposable income. That's important for
[1:27:21] local businesses uh particularly if
[1:27:23] you're in hospitality or retail or
[1:27:25] recreation, those kinds of things that
[1:27:27] depend on disposable income. And then of
[1:27:29] course uh in from a competitive
[1:27:31] standpoint, these high prices uh can
[1:27:33] constrict an already thin local
[1:27:35] workforce. So we look at the tax base as
[1:27:37] we saw from Miss Lazer earlier, you
[1:27:39] know, there's about 6.4 billion in local
[1:27:41] tax value in the community, about a
[1:27:42] billion in multif family buildings.
[1:27:45] Roughly half though, number one is
[1:27:46] residential houses. And so one of the
[1:27:48] critical problems in Grand Fork
[1:27:50] structurally is the very thin commercial
[1:27:52] tax base. And so about 1.6 billion in
[1:27:55] commercial buildings, another billion in
[1:27:56] multif family. Uh but again, half or
[1:27:58] more than half are in homes. And so uh
[1:28:01] the residential homeowner in Grand Forks
[1:28:03] tends to bear a higher share of the
[1:28:04] burden of paying property taxes than a
[1:28:06] lot a typical place. Looking at it by
[1:28:10] year, um, down here in the last 15
[1:28:12] years, there's been about 343 million in
[1:28:14] new value created in multif family
[1:28:16] housing. That's almost 40% of all multi-
[1:28:19] multif family housing value. So, what
[1:28:21] has been built recently has contributed
[1:28:24] significantly contributed to the tax
[1:28:25] base. If you look at it by ward, uh,
[1:28:29] number one ward for apartments is w 6
[1:28:31] with about 3,200. Uh, the fewest are W 2
[1:28:34] and W five. and then uh sort of evenly
[1:28:38] distributed. The highest value
[1:28:39] apartments by tax value are in W 5 at
[1:28:42] about 117 per unit.
[1:28:46] Another key here is the number of single
[1:28:48] family homes that are rented. Uh in
[1:28:50] Grand Forks, there's about 10,000 total
[1:28:52] single family homes. Of that, again,
[1:28:54] according to the city's database, 768
[1:28:57] are rented. It's about a little under
[1:28:59] 8%.
[1:29:01] But when you look at it by ward, of
[1:29:02] course, as you'd expect, you know, quite
[1:29:04] a few are in W, too. So 600 of those are
[1:29:06] in W 2. Um this is also a large single
[1:29:10] family home ward
[1:29:13] and that's about 25% of all homes in W 2
[1:29:15] are currently being rented. Uh
[1:29:19] a little bit less in some of the
[1:29:20] adjacent north end neighborhoods around
[1:29:22] four or 5% uh but then in the south end
[1:29:24] it's it's fairly slim.
[1:29:28] One key here is uh the types of houses
[1:29:30] that tend to be rented. Right? So here
[1:29:32] you have an estimate of the the median
[1:29:37] yeah the median value of all the
[1:29:39] property that is owner occupied single
[1:29:41] family those are about 316,000
[1:29:44] those that are rented are at about
[1:29:45] 160,000 right so as you'd expect um the the homes that are being rented are
[1:29:50] in a critical middle to middle lower
[1:29:52] part of the market about half the value
[1:29:55] roughly one implication for that is you
[1:29:58] know more apartments that would you know
[1:30:00] we know a lot of these are students
[1:30:01] renting these more apartments might help
[1:30:03] relieve some of the pressure uh in the
[1:30:04] north end neighborhoods on uh the single
[1:30:07] family home rentals.
[1:30:09] Last piece here is, you know, you hear
[1:30:10] in the community a lot, we don't need
[1:30:11] more apartments, we need more houses. Uh
[1:30:13] it's really a false dichotomy. Both
[1:30:15] things are true. So looking at the
[1:30:17] cities, uh from Miss Lazer, their arms
[1:30:19] length transactions, the median sale
[1:30:22] price was about 295 in 2025. That's 232
[1:30:25] a square foot. Both numbers are up
[1:30:27] pretty considerably, pretty steadily
[1:30:28] over the last few years.
[1:30:31] one key uh the volume of transactions.
[1:30:33] So these are transactions that are
[1:30:35] listed that hit the market that the
[1:30:37] assessor's office determines to be quote
[1:30:38] unquote arms length. Uh and so basically
[1:30:42] uh the the volume of sales have been cut
[1:30:44] in half at around 330 or so in the last
[1:30:46] few years compared to the high 600s uh
[1:30:50] prior to 2020. So if you take this 325
[1:30:54] divide it by 12, there's about 29
[1:30:55] transactions a month. Earlier today,
[1:30:57] there are 63 listings of houses, condos,
[1:31:00] and town houses. So that means there's
[1:31:01] about 2.2 months worth of supply, which
[1:31:04] by any account would be considered low.
[1:31:06] I think you often hear 6 months of of
[1:31:08] inventory would be good. 6 months in
[1:31:11] this case, it' be about 170 listings in
[1:31:13] Grand Forks would be a quote unquote
[1:31:14] more uh stable, healthy number.
[1:31:17] Home price growth again really since 20
[1:31:20] early 2024. Again, the same story you
[1:31:22] see in the rentals uh up significantly
[1:31:26] broken by tier. Here's the same line
[1:31:28] median. This is about the 20th
[1:31:29] percentile home and the 80th percentile
[1:31:31] home in the Grand Fork City. Similar
[1:31:34] trends for each up significantly in the
[1:31:36] last two years compared to the other
[1:31:38] communities. Here's the Grand Forks
[1:31:40] line. A little bit steeper slope,
[1:31:42] growing more a little bit more quickly
[1:31:43] in Fargo, West Fargo, and Bismar.
[1:31:46] Again, at the metropolitan level, the
[1:31:48] two counties, uh, the one-year home
[1:31:50] price growth was leading the region,
[1:31:52] 6.4% and Grand Forks very soft
[1:31:55] nationally in the last year, uh, 2% uh,
[1:31:58] national home price growth. And so,
[1:31:59] again, another key takeaway, this this
[1:32:01] entire region is doing outperforming the
[1:32:03] rest of the country, but Grand Forks is
[1:32:06] at the metro level is seeing some of the
[1:32:07] highest growth. Looking at again this
[1:32:10] particular two-year window where uh
[1:32:12] prices have exploded. Grand Forks is at
[1:32:14] the top there about four times faster
[1:32:16] than the US average of 3% growth. Uh
[1:32:20] similar story to uh the apartment piece
[1:32:23] still not to the point where it's
[1:32:24] pricing ourselves out of you know the
[1:32:27] market. Here's the the national number
[1:32:28] median of 361. Grand Forks is about 100K
[1:32:31] lower than that but starting to approach
[1:32:34] some of these. Uh
[1:32:37] and then finally, I think as we saw with
[1:32:40] uh you feel for the folks u with the
[1:32:42] protesting at the board of equalization
[1:32:44] here, we're looking at those same tiers,
[1:32:46] the median and lower tier in Grand Forks
[1:32:48] in,
[1:32:50] you know, a couple years here. Uh it's
[1:32:52] really two-year growth is leading the
[1:32:55] region in middle to middle lower homes
[1:32:58] are up significantly up higher than
[1:33:00] really anywhere else uh across the part
[1:33:02] of North Dakota and Minnesota. So, um it it really shows uh critically though
[1:33:08] these home price thing uh trends align
[1:33:10] really closely with the the demand on
[1:33:12] rentals as well. So, again, you know,
[1:33:14] it's pretty clear in those top three uh
[1:33:16] metrics aligning that that uh the rental
[1:33:19] market's tight. Big reason for that is
[1:33:21] the job growth and at the same time
[1:33:23] you're seeing a very similar pattern in
[1:33:24] single family homes.
[1:33:28] With that, happy to take any questions.
[1:33:32] >> Any questions for Mr. Still, I think
[1:33:34] there's some positives and there's some
[1:33:36] tough parts, too. Obviously, we have a
[1:33:37] growing community that people want to
[1:33:38] move to, which is Gary, Indiana, their
[1:33:41] house prices are going down cuz nobody
[1:33:43] wants to live there. Um, that's not
[1:33:44] happening here. So, that's a positive.
[1:33:46] Uh, but with that being said, um, you
[1:33:48] know, if you own a home, the value is
[1:33:49] going up. If you're trying to get into
[1:33:50] home ownership, um, you're in rentals,
[1:33:52] you're really squeezed, particularly
[1:33:54] when inflation's hitting hitting you on
[1:33:55] the other side, too. Um, any questions
[1:33:58] for Mr. Shill?
[1:34:00] It was so good you left us speechless.
[1:34:02] So, I guess that's all we'll we'll need
[1:34:04] from you tonight. Did you have anything
[1:34:05] else to add to that, Mr.
[1:34:06] >> I don't know if Keith or Barry on behalf
[1:34:08] of the EDC or chamber had any additions.
[1:34:13] >> Number one, I want to thank they help uh
[1:34:15] support the funding for this um that I
[1:34:18] think we can all use as a community. So,
[1:34:20] thanks to your organizations.
[1:34:23] >> Hit the mic.
[1:34:26] >> Yep. Uh Barry Weler with the chamber.
[1:34:28] Um, when our board talked about housing,
[1:34:31] um, we really looked at this study and
[1:34:33] partnering with the EDC and funding the
[1:34:36] study for really three reasons. Um, I
[1:34:38] think, you know, first of all, you look
[1:34:39] at how tight housing has become in our
[1:34:42] community. Um, we were hopeful that
[1:34:45] getting this really detailed, well
[1:34:48] doumented information out would help
[1:34:50] developers look at the opportunities
[1:34:53] that are in our community to invest in
[1:34:54] additional housing and make some
[1:34:57] investments in our community. And I
[1:34:59] think that this type of data will
[1:35:01] certainly help them do that. And then
[1:35:03] number two, the city council and other
[1:35:06] units of government have some levers
[1:35:07] that they can pull. I think 10 12 years
[1:35:10] ago when the city made some timing moves
[1:35:13] on its special assessments. Um and I
[1:35:15] think some of those things really helped
[1:35:17] from a making lots available
[1:35:19] perspective. There are some additional
[1:35:21] levers the city council could do in the
[1:35:23] rental and also in the single family
[1:35:25] home area. And I'm hopeful that uh
[1:35:28] Council President Sandy, I understand,
[1:35:30] may be considering having a blue ribbon
[1:35:33] task force on housing that would be put
[1:35:35] together and we would look forward as a
[1:35:37] business community to participating in
[1:35:38] that. Um because there's certainly I
[1:35:40] think I think just these numbers show
[1:35:43] that it really merits taking a deeper
[1:35:45] dive into this whole housing issue as a
[1:35:47] community. And then number three, um, at
[1:35:49] the chambers annual meeting in January,
[1:35:52] one of the priorities that the governor
[1:35:54] laid out was his interest in doing
[1:35:56] something this upcoming session related
[1:35:59] to housing. And I think having this data
[1:36:02] and this baseline information and having
[1:36:05] our community going through the process
[1:36:07] of really looking at this with some real
[1:36:09] depth will prepare us for the 27
[1:36:12] legislative session and whatever may be
[1:36:14] talked about and testified on and come
[1:36:17] out of that session. So those were
[1:36:19] really the three reasons the chamber
[1:36:21] really felt that this was critical to be
[1:36:23] involved in and thank Mr. Shill um the
[1:36:26] EDC and also the city administrator and
[1:36:29] the mayor and others for helping
[1:36:30] participate in this. So, thank you,
[1:36:32] mayor.
[1:36:33] >> Thank you.
[1:36:35] All right. Any other questions or
[1:36:36] thoughts?
[1:36:37] >> I'm just just thanks for getting this
[1:36:39] information. I think we've been talking
[1:36:40] about it for a while and I'm glad
[1:36:42] everybody got together and gives us a
[1:36:44] little bit better information as we plan
[1:36:46] for the future and and uh just want to
[1:36:48] reach out. Thanks.
[1:36:52] Yeah, Mayor, I was just going to add one
[1:36:54] uh thought uh on the uh vacancy rates.
[1:36:57] There's been a lot of debate about what
[1:36:59] the vacancy rates are and whose numbers
[1:37:01] you should you can believe and whose you
[1:37:03] can't. Um fact is I appreciate that
[1:37:06] we're using the same groups vacancy
[1:37:09] rates over time to show how things have
[1:37:11] changed. Doesn't matter of what if the
[1:37:13] numbers are exactly right. The trends
[1:37:15] are very relevant and I appreciate that
[1:37:18] Mr. and looking forward to working more
[1:37:20] with you here in the coming days.
[1:37:23] >> All right. Thank you.
[1:37:24] >> I have a quick question.
[1:37:25] >> Oh, you caught him before the buzzer.
[1:37:26] All right, Mr. Oski, please.
[1:37:28] >> Um,
[1:37:29] who paid for this study? Was it the
[1:37:32] chamber
[1:37:34] >> or
[1:37:35] >> and the EDC, not the city of Grand
[1:37:36] Forks?
[1:37:37] >> Correct.
[1:37:38] >> Didn't pay for this. I Okay. So,
[1:37:40] recently, probably within the past two
[1:37:42] years, we've had multiple studies on and
[1:37:46] presentations given on this exact same
[1:37:49] information. So, I'm just kind of
[1:37:51] wondering how many and obviously we
[1:37:54] didn't pay for this as a city, but how
[1:37:56] many different, you know, studies were
[1:37:59] we're going to perform and how many
[1:38:02] different times we're going to get the
[1:38:03] same info kind of just
[1:38:06] presented by someone else.
[1:38:11] >> I guess I don't I can answer that. It
[1:38:13] depends how often do you want it. I
[1:38:14] think it was pretty nice that we didn't
[1:38:15] have to pay for this one.
[1:38:16] >> Well, I think it's great that we don't
[1:38:17] have to pay for this one, but I know we
[1:38:19] comprehensive and I think it's
[1:38:21] >> and so I'm just wondering how many more
[1:38:24] studies different studies we're going to
[1:38:26] get done on the exact same thing.
[1:38:28] >> Well, the data changes. I mean, if we're
[1:38:30] making the data, you know, driven
[1:38:32] decisions, I think we'll have to update
[1:38:33] it um as we go. I mean, that's pretty normal. If someone else wants to
[1:38:37] keep paying for it, I think we we follow
[1:38:38] that track.
[1:38:38] >> I agree with that. I agree with that. I
[1:38:40] hope Barry continues to pay. So,
[1:38:42] >> perfect.
[1:38:45] All right. Thank you. Well, that's it
[1:38:46] for item two. We'll move on to item
[1:38:48] three, public uh hearings and second
[1:38:49] reading of ordinances.
[1:38:51] >> 3.1 determination of protest for project
[1:38:54] number 9010.1
[1:38:56] through 4 districts number 799.1
[1:39:00] through4 2026 mill and overlay. Uh we
[1:39:03] have received no protests in finance on
[1:39:06] any of these. I can read all three of
[1:39:08] them or three of them here and before we
[1:39:10] open the public hearing. The first one
[1:39:12] project 9050 uh district 797 reconstruct
[1:39:16] 5th Avenue South Demurs Avenue to
[1:39:18] Washington Street. The second project
[1:39:21] number 9060 District 798 reconstruct
[1:39:25] 17th Avenue South Columbia Road to South
[1:39:28] 20th Street. And the third projects
[1:39:30] 8850.02
[1:39:32] District 801 South 34th Street paving
[1:39:35] and street lights 45th to 47th Avenue
[1:39:37] South.
[1:39:39] >> All right. Thank you. you. I'm going to
[1:39:40] just open the public hearing for all
[1:39:41] three. So, if it's 3.1 A, B, or C, if
[1:39:43] you want to speak, please come up.
[1:39:48] Mr. Lich, please.
[1:39:53] Thank you, Mayor um Lensky, President
[1:39:55] Sandy, council members. Uh my name is
[1:39:57] Chris Lipch. I live over at uh 4299
[1:40:00] Crystal Drive. Uh if some of you may
[1:40:02] know who I am, I've uh recently moved
[1:40:05] here from Grafton. I served 14 years on
[1:40:07] the city council in Grafton. So, I'm
[1:40:09] envious of all of you from sitting up
[1:40:11] there and listening to these wonderful
[1:40:12] things going on today, getting my civic
[1:40:14] leadership juices flowing again. Um,
[1:40:18] maybe a glutton for punishment. Uh, so,
[1:40:20] uh, I'm here to talk, uh, not to be in
[1:40:23] protest of of, uh, specific district 801
[1:40:26] project 8850.2,
[1:40:28] but I am here to talk about, um, first
[1:40:31] of all, a hardship that I had suffered
[1:40:33] through, uh, researching this project.
[1:40:35] Uh there's a little bit of bureaucratic
[1:40:37] inertia, maybe a little bit of red tape
[1:40:39] because when I was trying to find
[1:40:40] details about the project of 34th Street
[1:40:43] that is west of Discovery to go all the
[1:40:45] way to 47th, that was difficult. Uh I do
[1:40:47] have to say I'm not speaking negatively
[1:40:49] about any one of the staff or any one of
[1:40:51] the departments because they were all so
[1:40:53] awesome to work with. Uh but I am
[1:40:55] speaking more so about how I got
[1:40:58] directed in so many different
[1:40:59] directions. Um instead of one-stop shop
[1:41:02] trying to figure things out. Granted, I
[1:41:04] know Grand Forks is a large community
[1:41:06] and there's a lot of moving parts, but a
[1:41:08] little bit of history here. I'm speaking
[1:41:10] specifically of 34th Street from 40th
[1:41:12] Avenue where the roundabout is west of
[1:41:14] Discovery all the way that's going to
[1:41:15] the brand new 47th uh street or 47th
[1:41:18] Avenue interchange uh that's coming off
[1:41:20] of I29. But this project specifically is
[1:41:23] only paving 34th um from 45th to 47th.
[1:41:28] Um there's a little bit of history. I
[1:41:31] did speak to a couple of the community
[1:41:32] members that are living over in that
[1:41:34] area. There's a few of them that were
[1:41:35] said that they were led to believe that road was not going going to be a
[1:41:38] through street. Um I find that hard to
[1:41:41] believe because even in my research I
[1:41:43] could find that there was conceptual um
[1:41:45] and a plan a master plan that was put
[1:41:47] out there. Um but there was no real
[1:41:49] details that was uh speaking of the
[1:41:52] intersection of 34th and 47th. So, you
[1:41:56] know, the current situation that is um
[1:41:59] going on over at Discovery, and I have
[1:42:00] to go back four years because I was
[1:42:03] teasing um with the mayor uh about the
[1:42:07] drag race and uh Discovery families that
[1:42:10] were driving by my house that cuz I live
[1:42:11] right on the corner of uh Crystal and
[1:42:13] 43rd. And thankfully, they put a speed
[1:42:17] sign in there, but when I've been mowing
[1:42:18] lawn, I've seen it register 50 mph. Um,
[1:42:21] so from Colombia to my house, which is
[1:42:26] approximately a block and a half, people
[1:42:27] are getting to 50 miles an hour to get
[1:42:29] to the school to pick their kid up.
[1:42:31] Let's remind you, at between 2 and 2:30
[1:42:34] when school lets out at 3:15. So I have
[1:42:37] some intimate knowledge about that
[1:42:38] stretch. But then when I've been talking
[1:42:40] to the people over from 44th, 45th, 46th
[1:42:44] or over 44th mainly those areas, uh
[1:42:48] folks were are seeing the construction
[1:42:51] and what's going to be going on over
[1:42:52] there, but there people were still
[1:42:54] wondering how is that going to get all
[1:42:55] the way through. So in my research, I
[1:42:58] found that uh where we're at today is
[1:42:59] there's a good project planned. Uh I I'm
[1:43:02] not saying that the project needs to be
[1:43:03] stopped. I'm not trying to protest it
[1:43:04] out. I think it's a really good project.
[1:43:06] I spoke with planning and zoning uh Mr.
[1:43:08] Brooks and I do not want to get in the
[1:43:10] way of anything that's going on there
[1:43:11] because uh as you just heard the housing
[1:43:13] study, there needs to be homes and
[1:43:15] there's I think uh 16 or 12 homes that
[1:43:18] are supposed to be going over there or
[1:43:19] even more. Um uh but I do want to go
[1:43:22] back to something that the mayor said
[1:43:23] earlier um that you guys in the city
[1:43:27] have dealt with this so many different
[1:43:29] times and I think you're at a point
[1:43:30] right now to maybe make a decision on
[1:43:33] this project so you're not having to
[1:43:35] relive this problem that you're reliving
[1:43:37] at Phoenix Elementary at um Shrader
[1:43:41] Elementary at Kelly at Lewis and Clark
[1:43:44] where you have a uh I think it's called
[1:43:46] a classified road going right next to a
[1:43:48] school. Granted, when you talk to
[1:43:49] engineering, they're really good at
[1:43:50] building roads and they really do want
[1:43:52] that classified road going to a school,
[1:43:54] but when there's a lack of enforcement
[1:43:56] and there's a lack of uh controls that
[1:43:59] are going on around those schools and
[1:44:01] you have people parking in the middle of
[1:44:03] the road when they're picking up and
[1:44:05] dropping off their kids, there's a
[1:44:06] safety factor. And I know you've all
[1:44:08] heard it at every one of those locations
[1:44:10] that I've I just announced or just spoke
[1:44:12] of because I've been paying attention to
[1:44:14] your guys' city council meetings for the
[1:44:15] last four years. And I know safety is on
[1:44:18] everybody's radar. So your engineering,
[1:44:22] like I said, is top-notch. They're doing
[1:44:23] a really good job of putting together a
[1:44:25] road that's going to go from A to B,
[1:44:26] 40th to 47th.
[1:44:29] But from what I've learned so far, and
[1:44:31] you guys will learn from the project,
[1:44:33] there's no uh stoplight that's going in
[1:44:36] on 47th to control from 47th to 34th.
[1:44:41] Granted, putting stop lightss everywhere
[1:44:42] and stop signs everywhere. I know from
[1:44:45] being on a city council that's not the
[1:44:46] answer. But actually designing that
[1:44:49] intersection could help minimize or slow
[1:44:52] down the traffic or do something to
[1:44:54] prevent the excess traffic going north
[1:44:58] from 47th to 40th through the roundabout
[1:45:01] going to get their coffee brew or their
[1:45:04] 2x4 at the big boxes down that way.
[1:45:06] Because we all know coming off of the
[1:45:07] interstate, you're going to choose the
[1:45:08] le the path of least resistance. And if
[1:45:11] you only have one light and no other
[1:45:13] stop signs from 47th interchange and I29
[1:45:18] to those two places that I was was
[1:45:20] alluding to, I'm pretty sure that people
[1:45:22] are going to start taking that route. So
[1:45:25] what I would strongly encourage is I I
[1:45:27] don't think this project needs to be
[1:45:29] stopped, but I think there needs to be
[1:45:30] more force for foresight to look forward
[1:45:32] so you don't have this problem coming
[1:45:34] back like you've had Phoenix, like
[1:45:37] you've had Kelly, like you've had, you
[1:45:40] know, Trader and all of these different
[1:45:42] schools make the change now so you don't
[1:45:45] have to worry about it later. And I
[1:45:46] think when you look at it, the
[1:45:48] conceptual report that came from Bolton
[1:45:49] and M from December 27th of 2023, there
[1:45:52] was three options. Uh one of the options
[1:45:55] has been kicked out and that is the uh I
[1:45:57] think it's the stop light or the fully
[1:45:58] controlled intersection because you
[1:46:00] can't have that according to the DOT
[1:46:01] rules. Now the proc the project is
[1:46:03] looking at 3/4 of an interchange which I
[1:46:06] don't think that's going to minimize or
[1:46:08] slow down the traffic coming off of the
[1:46:09] interstate. I've said it to a couple of
[1:46:12] different people
[1:46:14] being on city council before. I had to
[1:46:16] work with some engineers and they told
[1:46:17] me about velocitation. And velocitation
[1:46:19] is when somebody's driving at 80 mph on
[1:46:21] an interstate and they come off of the
[1:46:23] interstate and they come on to 47th.
[1:46:26] Now, they don't know or realize they're
[1:46:28] not going to be able to drive down to
[1:46:30] 35, 40, 25, 20 in a school zone. I don't
[1:46:35] know if that velocitation or that factor
[1:46:38] is being even considered. when you're
[1:46:39] coming down 47th, you're going to go
[1:46:41] right past the 38th um which is going to
[1:46:44] be a controlled structure, but you're
[1:46:46] going past 38th to 34th than going north
[1:46:49] to your desired location. I'm I'm not
[1:46:51] saying everyone's going to be doing that
[1:46:52] because 38th might be the most desired
[1:46:54] off-ramp off of the interstate, but we
[1:46:57] are going to have more traffic in that
[1:46:59] area. So, what's the solution? I wish I
[1:47:02] had the big brains like the people at
[1:47:03] your engineering firm, your engineering
[1:47:05] departments have. Um, I don't have the
[1:47:08] answer for this, but I do know that the
[1:47:09] concept report did suggest the right in
[1:47:11] right out or the 3/4. And I think the
[1:47:14] 3/4 intersection is going to be pushed
[1:47:16] forward. I think the right in and right
[1:47:18] out would be the better option.
[1:47:20] Ultimately, the best option in my in my
[1:47:22] view would be no interchange there and
[1:47:26] have 38th and 30th, but that would be
[1:47:28] stopping progress and I don't want to be
[1:47:29] that person. Thank you for your time and
[1:47:32] I do stand for any questions.
[1:47:35] Thank you.
[1:47:42] All right. Any other anybody else for
[1:47:43] the public hearing item 3.1? Either A,
[1:47:45] B, or C.
[1:47:50] All right. We'll close the public
[1:47:51] hearing portion and I'll open up to
[1:47:53] council for thoughts, motions, comments,
[1:47:55] whatever they please. Miss Oowski.
[1:47:57] >> Yeah. Um, I think we should look into
[1:47:59] what that guy said and make sure that,
[1:48:01] you know, we're doing the right thing, I
[1:48:03] guess, around a school. Um, we do have
[1:48:07] some issues with more of the North End,
[1:48:09] elementary, older schools, and so I
[1:48:11] guess I would like to see
[1:48:14] those issues addressed or looked into.
[1:48:17] I'm not 100%
[1:48:20] sure about the project, but I mean, I
[1:48:22] support the project, but I'm not that
[1:48:26] familiar with it. I haven't looked into
[1:48:28] it too much, but I do think that the
[1:48:30] children should be safe. So, if we could
[1:48:33] do our due diligence on that, I guess.
[1:48:36] So,
[1:48:36] >> we're, you know, it's it's the second
[1:48:38] reading, so this would be the final
[1:48:39] hearing for it tonight. I don't know if
[1:48:40] Christian or um uh Mr. Danielson or Mr.
[1:48:43] Grasser wants to touch on this subject
[1:48:45] where we got today. I know it's been a
[1:48:47] lot of concepts over the years and and a
[1:48:49] lot of work to get to where it is today.
[1:48:51] Maybe give us some background um on how
[1:48:53] we got to today.
[1:48:55] >> Good evening. Uh mayor, members of city
[1:48:57] council, boy, it's hard to uh when you
[1:49:00] start looking back in the past. I'm
[1:49:03] going to go back before the interchange
[1:49:04] itself was uh at least approved on the
[1:49:07] uh the last uh studies that we did two
[1:49:10] or three years ago with the with the
[1:49:11] DOT. I think everybody assumed and
[1:49:15] figured the roads that are are coming
[1:49:18] south, namely uh Columbia Road, 34th
[1:49:21] Street, and 38th Street, will all
[1:49:23] basically come keep going south and
[1:49:26] mirror what's going on on on 32nd Avenue
[1:49:29] South. So, you've got a traffic signal
[1:49:30] on 38th, got traffic signal on 34th,
[1:49:33] you've got actually a traffic signal on
[1:49:35] 30th, and another one on, you know, on
[1:49:37] Columbia Road. we tend to put signals in
[1:49:40] a little more often than than maybe the textbook um
[1:49:45] traffic engineering would suggest. So
[1:49:49] with that, again, it was originally
[1:49:51] envisioned, I think, on engineering and and the MO, and there's no detailed
[1:49:56] drawings that that really get into those traffic signal designs when you're
[1:50:00] 20 years out or 10 years out, uh even
[1:50:02] sometimes 5 years out. But anyway, I
[1:50:05] think everybody would would have assumed
[1:50:06] that those uh again those signalizations
[1:50:08] would occurred as I just just got done
[1:50:10] talking about when the when the uh fast
[1:50:13] forward then or reversed back to about 3
[1:50:16] years ago when the DOT really got into
[1:50:18] the the u uh study on on the 47th
[1:50:21] interchange
[1:50:23] and and I will mention this interchange
[1:50:25] thing goes back decades literally when some of those original concepts
[1:50:29] came about when the DOT came in uh they
[1:50:32] said you know we're going to get pretty
[1:50:34] strict here on on where we have
[1:50:36] signalized intersections coming off of
[1:50:37] interchanges actually any place. And so
[1:50:40] that's when we really learned I think as
[1:50:42] a community that said the DOT um
[1:50:48] essentially would have liked to have had
[1:50:49] the signalization at 34th Street because
[1:50:52] that would have given the dis the more
[1:50:54] optimum distance they were looking at
[1:50:55] from the interchange and split between
[1:50:58] Columbia Road and the interstate. We if
[1:51:01] you remember we pushed back on that. We
[1:51:03] said we don't think we really want to go
[1:51:05] that far down the line for our first
[1:51:08] intersection. We were successful in
[1:51:10] getting the DOT to work more towards
[1:51:11] what they consider their very minimum
[1:51:13] spacing for the first signalized
[1:51:15] intersection. And that that was 38th
[1:51:17] Street. And then they said, you know, in
[1:51:20] between there there really wasn't enough
[1:51:22] space then to put another signalized
[1:51:24] intersection, you know, all the way to
[1:51:25] Columbia Road because obviously you had Columbia Road signalized.
[1:51:30] Um, and yeah, they looked at different
[1:51:32] concepts about right in, right out,
[1:51:34] different spacings. Right in, right out
[1:51:36] doesn't need quite as many uh spacing
[1:51:38] between them as a as a 3/4 does. And
[1:51:40] again, reminding a 3/4 um allows a right
[1:51:44] in, right out, and a left in. It
[1:51:45] prevents the through traffic from that
[1:51:48] that's that would be going across the
[1:51:50] street.
[1:51:51] So what we ended up landing on with the
[1:51:54] IGR that interstate justification report
[1:51:56] and some of those um studies was the
[1:51:59] signal on on uh 38 38th
[1:52:03] the 3/4 on 34th Street. Uh and we did
[1:52:07] that again want we didn't want that to
[1:52:09] be an open intersection because of the
[1:52:10] traffic potential for the school etc. Uh
[1:52:13] there's a there's a pedestrian uh going
[1:52:14] to be a pedestrian uh walkway at about
[1:52:17] 32nd
[1:52:20] Street and then there there will be uh
[1:52:23] another 3/4 at probably at 30
[1:52:28] what is that? 30th Street. Sorry if you
[1:52:30] don't look aren't looking at a map.
[1:52:32] Basically I'm walking I'm walking
[1:52:33] everybody back towards Columbia Road. So
[1:52:35] we've we've got a series of 3/4
[1:52:37] intersections and that's been important
[1:52:39] for the development concept. uh you know
[1:52:41] as is people are going to be developing
[1:52:43] and allowing uh access uh along the way.
[1:52:46] Um it's kind of a compromise I guess in
[1:52:49] my mind on on the 3/4 intersection
[1:52:51] versus the full intersections and that's
[1:52:53] kind of where we're at today. Um we have
[1:52:56] invested the classification system is
[1:52:59] important. It's it's uh your main roads
[1:53:02] are on the section lines that would be
[1:53:03] like Columbia, Washington, etc. Um 38th
[1:53:06] kind of is except that the interstate
[1:53:08] took up the actual section line. Um
[1:53:13] I'm probably doing a little bit too much
[1:53:15] rambling, but I'm giving you a lot of
[1:53:16] background. Anyway, we are where we're
[1:53:19] at. The city paid uh 80% of the cost to
[1:53:21] 34th Street because we recognize that
[1:53:23] was planned to be a through street and
[1:53:25] actually plan on going through 30 47th
[1:53:29] and on South. Quite frankly, uh, in our
[1:53:32] some of our last concepts, uh, as we've
[1:53:34] talked about staff, I think 38th
[1:53:36] Street's going to continue south. 34th
[1:53:38] Street, I'm not sure that we, uh, will
[1:53:41] fund that as a classified street because
[1:53:43] it's going to be cut off from going
[1:53:45] through on 47th and it's essentially
[1:53:47] going to be cut off going south at at
[1:53:49] Maryfield Road. I think some of the same
[1:53:50] things. That's another discussion, but
[1:53:52] it it just points out that I think we we
[1:53:54] are looking at the the traffic on 34th
[1:53:57] Street probably carrying less traffic
[1:53:58] than we had originally thought, you
[1:54:00] know, 20 years ago. Um, again, just
[1:54:03] because of how that that would have
[1:54:05] carried multiple miles of traffic back
[1:54:08] and forth. That's getting cut off now on
[1:54:10] 47.
[1:54:11] >> So, longer term, not having it
[1:54:13] signalized means you're not going to
[1:54:14] have north south traffic on there. You
[1:54:16] can't go left if you're heading south.
[1:54:18] So longterm, you're not going to pick up
[1:54:20] anything south of 47th
[1:54:22] >> on that route.
[1:54:23] >> Not a 3.
[1:54:24] >> So that's where you ended up with a 3/4.
[1:54:26] >> Okay.
[1:54:27] >> Uh the schools I that that's a that's a
[1:54:30] problem no matter where it's at. This
[1:54:32] the the parents tend to overwhelm the
[1:54:34] streets. There's only so much I think
[1:54:35] enforcement you can practically do there
[1:54:37] when I know we have been uh uh
[1:54:42] on Discovery. I know they they tried to
[1:54:44] get in much more uh drop off parking
[1:54:46] there and and there is quite a bit more
[1:54:47] drop off parking than a lot of the
[1:54:49] schools. It's still not enough. You've
[1:54:50] got those peaks. You got that 15-minute
[1:54:53] craziness on, you know, on either end.
[1:54:55] Uh and sometimes there's people parking
[1:54:56] out on the street for it's it's amazing
[1:54:58] how early sometimes people will park uh
[1:55:00] to get on the street.
[1:55:03] Nobody's come up with a solid answer for
[1:55:05] that. I can give you the easy answer
[1:55:07] from engineering is is is don't put them
[1:55:10] on those classified streets. I do that
[1:55:13] tongue and cheek because they they need
[1:55:15] those classified streets to get the
[1:55:16] buses and some of that some of that uh relatively easy access to the school.
[1:55:22] So, I think it's a compromise. We need
[1:55:24] to live with uh what we live with and uh
[1:55:27] I mean it's it's it's been functioning.
[1:55:29] I think the actions we've taken on 47th
[1:55:31] with uh 34th Street are reasonable and
[1:55:34] prudent and have cut down from what I
[1:55:36] would have originally thought. You know,
[1:55:38] if you'd asked me 10 years ago, I think
[1:55:40] it's there's going to be less traffic on
[1:55:41] there now, I think, than what I had
[1:55:42] originally envisioned.
[1:55:45] And
[1:55:45] >> I will point out, I'm not going to give
[1:55:46] it away completely, but other than being
[1:55:48] the city engineer, I do see Mr.
[1:55:49] Grasser's parcel listed on this. So,
[1:55:51] you're pretty darn close to this
[1:55:52] intersection. So, you got a pretty good
[1:55:53] feel for it, huh?
[1:55:55] >> No comment. question
[1:55:59] before you wander away. Are we doing
[1:56:02] right turn lanes on all
[1:56:06] I
[1:56:07] >> of these inter
[1:56:09] so
[1:56:10] uh I mean right now we're only building
[1:56:13] up to 34 street but but we are set up I
[1:56:15] mean we're envisioning those that we are
[1:56:17] building we're building right turn
[1:56:18] lanes. Those that we're envisioning are
[1:56:20] going to have right turn lanes.
[1:56:21] Certainly the the uh all the signalized
[1:56:23] intersections
[1:56:24] >> there's only one signalized intersection
[1:56:26] but there are three intersections. I
[1:56:27] want to make sure we're putting in the
[1:56:28] right turn lanes. some of the other
[1:56:30] ones. Uh uh I'm gonna have to Are we
[1:56:35] getting at every single one? I I hate to
[1:56:38] take
[1:56:38] >> Yeah.
[1:56:39] >> make an absolute comment.
[1:56:42] >> This is This is his last time in front
[1:56:43] of council, too, so he's got to be He's
[1:56:44] got a perfect record in 30 years. Don't
[1:56:46] blow it on the last one.
[1:56:48] >> All the right turn lanes will be there.
[1:56:49] >> Thank you.
[1:56:50] That's excellent.
[1:56:52] >> All right. Any other comments?
[1:56:54] Otherwise, we'll look for action on item
[1:56:55] 3.1.
[1:56:57] Got a motion to approve from President
[1:56:59] Sandy. Do we got a second? Second from
[1:57:01] Vene. Any further discussion?
[1:57:05] Seeing none, all those in favor signify
[1:57:06] by saying I.
[1:57:07] >> I.
[1:57:09] >> Same sign. Motion carries unanimously.
[1:57:12] >> Thank you.
[1:57:14] >> Okay. Item four, citizen comments. Any
[1:57:16] comments this evening, Miss Lmark?
[1:57:18] >> I have two. Uh, Jod LMK.
[1:57:26] » Mr. Lumpy, please.
[1:57:28] >> Good evening,
[1:57:30] Mayor.
[1:57:31] >> I think we got it. We're going to have
[1:57:32] you over with that one. We got you.
[1:57:34] >> Go to the go to the other
[1:57:35] >> Why?
[1:57:35] >> That's our That's the protocol. If I
[1:57:37] don't follow it, then I'll you I'll hear it from these guys. So,
[1:57:40] >> all right. Good evening, Mayor Council.
[1:57:43] Just a couple concerns about property
[1:57:45] assessments
[1:57:47] in the city here.
[1:57:50] And I'm a little nervous, but so
[1:57:55] when the elected officials
[1:57:58] get their assessments done by the
[1:58:00] department of assessment,
[1:58:04] I think that's a little bit of conflict
[1:58:06] of interest and maybe you should look at
[1:58:08] a third party. I mean, it's just my
[1:58:10] thought. Not saying there is any
[1:58:12] conflict or anything, but there there
[1:58:14] could be. And also with
[1:58:19] when uh
[1:58:22] a property tax exe is emptying of
[1:58:24] improvement.
[1:58:29] So when somebody applies for that, the
[1:58:32] council votes on that. Correct.
[1:58:36] And
[1:58:37] so I'm there too. If it's an elected
[1:58:40] official,
[1:58:42] maybe it should be a third party and not
[1:58:45] I mean I but that might be sentry code
[1:58:48] where the city council does it. I don't
[1:58:50] I'm trying to read off the thing I got
[1:58:52] from the assessor's office.
[1:58:55] So, and then
[1:58:58] there's a few other concerns I had with
[1:59:01] the assessing process and I've I've had
[1:59:04] some meetings with uh Tammy. So,
[1:59:08] she's 65% transparent.
[1:59:12] That's that's my thought. So, thank you.
[1:59:16] >> Thank you,
[1:59:20] » Andrew Kraick.
[1:59:29] Mr. Crossley, please.
[1:59:34] Thank you. Um, I'm here tonight to talk
[1:59:36] about the two pilot requests for CK
[1:59:37] Commercial in the Domain, asking for
[1:59:39] 5-year, 90% pilots. This would equate to
[1:59:42] almost $2 million in property tax
[1:59:44] savings for the domain to build a very
[1:59:46] large, high-end luxury apartment complex
[1:59:48] with amenities. I emailed you all the
[1:59:50] drawing from the neighborhood meeting.
[1:59:53] The domain shows two golf simulators,
[1:59:55] four bowling al lanes, an indoor pickle
[1:59:58] ball court, an indoor basketball court,
[1:59:59] and an indoor fitness center, plus
[2:00:02] outdoor pickle ball courts, putting
[2:00:03] green, cornhole, and ample hangout
[2:00:05] space.
[2:00:07] Take all those amenities, buildout
[2:00:09] costs, space, maintenance expense over 5
[2:00:11] years. That's going to add up to
[2:00:13] probably more than $2 million. Why are
[2:00:15] you considering giving them nearly a $2
[2:00:17] million tax exemption? You say the
[2:00:19] public purpose for these tax incentives
[2:00:21] is housing. You haven't objectively
[2:00:23] proven there is a need. But if there
[2:00:25] truly is, it doesn't mean you should
[2:00:26] approve these with all the extra
[2:00:27] amenities that compete with businesses
[2:00:29] like mine. Cut out the amenities and
[2:00:32] then you don't need the incentive. Or do
[2:00:34] they need the incentive? Because they
[2:00:35] need a competitive advantage to pull
[2:00:36] renters from other complexes. How is
[2:00:39] that fair to all of their apartment
[2:00:40] owners? Dakota Commercial would have
[2:00:42] over 60% of my golf simulator capacity
[2:00:45] covered with their tax incentivized
[2:00:47] projects. If you approve this, add these
[2:00:49] two to the three in Memorial Village,
[2:00:52] which is milking a 20-year incentive.
[2:00:54] And yes, this is competition. It's
[2:00:56] unfair competition.
[2:00:58] Did you ask Mr. Gost about the Southern
[2:01:00] Valley, North Dakota Supreme Court case
[2:01:02] I brought up in the last public hearing
[2:01:03] in relation to adding in clauses to
[2:01:05] exclude things like golf simulators? He
[2:01:08] chimes in when it helps your objectives,
[2:01:09] but he doesn't chime in when it may give
[2:01:11] credence to a public comment. A great
[2:01:13] example is when Mr. Waggle stated at the
[2:01:15] last meeting that anyone could go online
[2:01:17] and see who owns an LLC. That's
[2:01:19] incorrect. Why didn't Mr. Goststead
[2:01:21] correct him? There is no visibility to
[2:01:24] LLC ownership or investors. All we see
[2:01:26] on the Secretary of State site is who
[2:01:28] the registered agent is. Mr. Ritterman
[2:01:31] is the registered agent for the Beacon.
[2:01:33] It doesn't mean he's responsible for the
[2:01:34] debacle of Epic. You most certainly can
[2:01:37] add a clause so they cannot include golf
[2:01:39] simulators or other competing amenities.
[2:01:42] Why are you okay with competing with
[2:01:43] Albatross, Red Ray Lanes, Play at Pickle
[2:01:46] Ball, Altru Sports Complex, Shoot 360,
[2:01:49] Choice Fitness, and all other fitness
[2:01:51] centers? CK Commercial appears
[2:01:54] different, maybe limited or no
[2:01:55] amenities, but don't sell it as a
[2:01:57] low-income project. Despite Mr. Feland's
[2:02:00] request of Baker Tilly to adjust the
[2:02:02] narrative from their original report to
[2:02:03] the now posted revised report, there
[2:02:06] still appear to be only nine affordable
[2:02:07] low or near low-income units of the 45.
[2:02:10] Mr. Mr. Waggle asked Mr. Ritterman
[2:02:12] during the last meeting if he'd build
[2:02:13] these if he didn't have the incentives.
[2:02:15] Sounded like he said no. That's good
[2:02:17] enough for you guys. That's how you call
[2:02:19] bluffs. Ask your poker opponent if he
[2:02:21] has pocket aces. He says yes and you
[2:02:23] fold. Until you guys shut off the tax
[2:02:25] incentive faucet, why would any of these
[2:02:27] guys say they can build without when it
[2:02:29] means they lose out on millions of
[2:02:30] dollars. Please join Mr. Osowski and
[2:02:33] start saying no to these unfair tax
[2:02:34] incentives.
[2:02:35] >> Thank you, Mr. Crossnik. I got to cut
[2:02:37] you off there.
[2:02:38] >> Thank you.
[2:02:40] That's all I have tonight.
[2:02:42] >> All right. Thank you. Okay. We'll move
[2:02:44] on to
[2:02:44] >> There was one comment uh submitted
[2:02:47] online.
[2:02:47] >> Okay.
[2:02:48] >> That's good chance to see that. All
[2:02:50] right. Perfect. Thank you.
[2:02:53] Move on to action items.
[2:02:57] I know 521 I was going to pull. Any
[2:02:59] other items council wants pulled for
[2:03:01] further discussion?
[2:03:02] um 510,
[2:03:05] 516, 518, 519,
[2:03:10] and
[2:03:13] or when we vote on 520, we're just going
[2:03:17] to po postpone. Correct. So, that'll
[2:03:19] just be like if we vote yes on that,
[2:03:22] we'll just postpone.
[2:03:23] >> Yeah, we probably wouldn't take any
[2:03:24] action on 520.
[2:03:25] >> Okay. Then it can just stay in there if
[2:03:27] we're just going to postpone it.
[2:03:28] >> Well, I just Right now, is anybody
[2:03:30] Everybody's okay with postponing 520.
[2:03:31] So, we won't take any action. We'll list
[2:03:33] that as our We won't vote on that.
[2:03:35] >> So,
[2:03:35] >> Oh, we're not going to vote on it? No.
[2:03:36] >> Oh, okay. Then just 510, 16, 18, and 19,
[2:03:40] please.
[2:03:41] >> 510, 516, 518, 59. Perfect. Any other
[2:03:44] ones council wants pulled for more
[2:03:46] discussion this evening?
[2:03:53] All right. Um, look for a motion then to
[2:03:56] approve items 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5,
[2:04:00] 5.6, 6 5.7
[2:04:03] 5.8 5.9 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 57
[2:04:13] and that would be the list.
[2:04:16] >> Motion to approve.
[2:04:16] for Miss Berg. Do we
[2:04:18] have a second? Second from President
[2:04:20] Sandy. All those in favor signify by
[2:04:22] saying I.
[2:04:23] >> I post same sign. Motion carries
[2:04:26] unanimously. Why don't we just Why don't
[2:04:28] we have a just have a quick vote on 520
[2:04:30] to postpone that then we'll get to the
[2:04:31] list. Everyone's okay with that.
[2:04:32] >> Um I motion to postpone 520.
[2:04:35] >> Perfect.
[2:04:36] >> We got a motion from Oselki second from
[2:04:37] Bird. All those in favor signify by
[2:04:39] saying I
[2:04:40] >> oppose. Same sign. Motion carries
[2:04:42] unanimously just to clean that up. So we
[2:04:45] would have Miss Thor said 5.10 5.16 5.19
[2:04:48] and 5.21.
[2:04:50] >> 18. I pulled 18 and 19.
[2:04:52] >> 5 10 16 18 19 and 21.
[2:04:56] >> 21. Perfect. All right. 5.10 plans and
[2:04:58] specs for project 9064
[2:05:01] district 800 paving 27th Avenue North Washington to North 36th Street.
[2:05:06] >> Thank you. Any comments or just ready to
[2:05:08] vote?
[2:05:08] >> Ready to vote.
[2:05:09] >> Motion to approve from Berg. Second from
[2:05:11] Vice President Wigel. Seeing no further
[2:05:13] discussion. All those in favor signify
[2:05:14] by saying I.
[2:05:15] >> I. I.
[2:05:16] >> Oppose. Same sign.
[2:05:17] >> I.
[2:05:18] >> Motion carries 6 to1 with Oski
[2:05:19] desenting. 5.16 bid award project 9106
[2:05:23] MSW solid waste landfill soil treatment
[2:05:26] pad construction questionnaires attached
[2:05:29] >> I just have a quick question
[2:05:30] >> yeah maybe if I if you want
[2:05:32] >> some color first Mr. Thank you,
[2:05:33] >> uh, Mayor Bachinsky, members of city
[2:05:35] council, thanks for, uh, pulling it,
[2:05:37] Miss Oowski. Um, this evening I I've
[2:05:39] asked Jackson Bratcher to kind of give
[2:05:43] you the standard on uh, what we're
[2:05:45] calling the lowest and most responsible
[2:05:47] bidder. And then I would ask Sharon,
[2:05:50] she's the author of the staff report and
[2:05:52] the recommendation to go with the second
[2:05:54] low bidder in this case. And I I just
[2:05:56] introduced myself to Cordell from Dirty
[2:05:59] Deeds Dirt Work and he would also like
[2:06:01] to speak. if we could have Jackson go
[2:06:04] first and then Sharon and then um
[2:06:07] Cordell would also like to speak on
[2:06:09] behalf of Dirty Deeds uh dirt work. So
[2:06:11] that was how we I was going to plan to
[2:06:13] choreograph if that's okay with the city
[2:06:15] council and ultimately uh we're looking
[2:06:17] for uh your review and you know and
[2:06:20] final opinion on on on the situation.
[2:06:24] >> That works for me unless anyone's got
[2:06:26] any real objections. That sounds like a
[2:06:27] good plan. So Jackson,
[2:06:30] >> thank you. Um, Mr. Mayor, members of the
[2:06:32] city council. So, as Mr. Felen said, I
[2:06:34] am going to defer to Miss Lipch on the
[2:06:37] actual staff recommendation, but we
[2:06:39] thought it would be helpful to pre
[2:06:41] provide a uh kind of standard and a
[2:06:44] quick review on uh what the sentry code
[2:06:47] tells us about um the lowest responsible
[2:06:51] bidder. So, in the context of awarding
[2:06:52] bids, the sentry code specifically
[2:06:54] 48-01.2-07
[2:06:56] 2-07 provides that the governing body
[2:06:59] shall award the contract to the lowest
[2:07:01] responsible bidder. Um I believe there
[2:07:04] was the city received six bids on this
[2:07:07] project. So the city's decision tonight
[2:07:09] is to uh award the project uh to the
[2:07:12] lowest responsible bidder. And what the
[2:07:14] century code further tells us about the
[2:07:17] lowest responsible bidder is that it
[2:07:19] means uh the lowest best bidder for the
[2:07:22] project considering past experience,
[2:07:24] financial condition, past work with the
[2:07:27] governing body and other pertinent
[2:07:30] attributes that may be identified in the
[2:07:32] advertisement for bids. So essentially
[2:07:34] what this means is that the bid doesn't
[2:07:37] necessarily need to be the lowest bidder
[2:07:40] in terms of dollar amounts um but
[2:07:42] instead the lowest responsible bidder
[2:07:44] and as indicated in that statutory
[2:07:46] definition uh the lowest responsible
[2:07:48] bidder allows consideration of numerous
[2:07:51] factors. Um and this has been further
[2:07:53] expanded on by the North Dakota Supreme
[2:07:55] Court and the North Dakota Attorney
[2:07:57] General who have done deeper dives on
[2:07:59] what that phrase means. Um and in some
[2:08:02] of those opinions and cases um one being
[2:08:05] Bol Builders Inc. v county of Grand
[2:08:07] Forks uh the court held that um things
[2:08:10] such as ability, skill, reputation,
[2:08:14] integrity, experience, efficiency and
[2:08:17] capacity of a bidder um can also be
[2:08:20] contemplated when awarding a bid. Um so
[2:08:23] that's basically the relevant standard.
[2:08:25] Um unless anybody has any questions
[2:08:27] about um that definition further uh I
[2:08:30] will defer to Miss Lipch regarding the
[2:08:33] staff recommended action here.
[2:08:36] >> Any question on legal opinion?
[2:08:39] >> All right, Miss Lipch Mr. Be
[2:08:42] >> will you again repeat the the century
[2:08:44] code number for that?
[2:08:46] >> Yes. So um the general authority is
[2:08:49] 48-01.2-07
[2:08:51] 2-07
[2:08:53] which provides that the governing body
[2:08:55] shall award the contract to the lowest
[2:08:57] responsible bidder. And then section
[2:09:00] 48-1.2-01
[2:09:04] subsection 19 defines what the lowest
[2:09:06] responsible bidder means.
[2:09:09] >> All right, Miss Lynch.
[2:09:11] >> All right. Good evening, Mayor Bachinsky
[2:09:13] and council members. The item before you
[2:09:15] is toward the bid for project 9106,
[2:09:18] which is the construction of a soil
[2:09:20] treatment pad, soil treatment storage
[2:09:23] area, and roadway at the city's
[2:09:25] landfill. The project size is roughly 12
[2:09:28] acres.
[2:09:29] The project is important for landfill
[2:09:31] operations. It will allow us to treat
[2:09:33] hydrocarbon contaminated soil so that
[2:09:36] they can be reused as cover materials
[2:09:38] which help maintains regulatory
[2:09:40] compliance with the DEEQ and not only
[2:09:43] improves our long-term landfill capacity
[2:09:45] but also creates additional revenue as
[2:09:48] there is a disposal fee for this
[2:09:49] material. We received six bids as
[2:09:52] previously stated from ranging from
[2:09:55] $429,000 to approximately 723,000.
[2:09:59] The apparent low bidder was Dirty Deeds
[2:10:01] Dirt Work at $429,000
[2:10:04] with Gowen Construction as a second low
[2:10:06] bidder at $4871
[2:10:08] or $480,71.90.
[2:10:11] The engineers estimate was $822,600
[2:10:15] and $850,000 was in the 2026 budget.
[2:10:21] Under North Dakota law, as just
[2:10:22] discussed, um the city is required to
[2:10:25] award to the lowest bidder, not simply
[2:10:27] the lowest price.
[2:10:29] Based on guidance from the city
[2:10:30] attorney, staff evaluated both cost and
[2:10:33] bidder responsibility. We issued a
[2:10:36] follow-up questionnaire to the two
[2:10:37] lowest biders to better understand their
[2:10:40] experience, capacity, and ability to
[2:10:43] meet the project requirements.
[2:10:45] Through that process and in talking with
[2:10:47] city project managers, staff identified
[2:10:49] concerns with the apparent low bidder
[2:10:51] related to past project performance,
[2:10:54] including mobilization, understanding of
[2:10:57] plans and specifications, and project
[2:10:59] timelines. The project examples provided
[2:11:02] were not comparable in size, scope, or
[2:11:04] regulatory complexity to this landfill
[2:11:07] project. It is imperative that this
[2:11:09] project is constructed as per the plans
[2:11:11] and specifications that Burns and
[2:11:13] Macdonald designed as a city's solid
[2:11:16] waste operating permit and soil
[2:11:18] treatment plan have very specific
[2:11:21] regulations related to the construction
[2:11:23] and operation of the soil treatment pad
[2:11:25] and storage area. These have previously
[2:11:27] been approved by the DEEQ
[2:11:31] Gowen Construction. Oh, sorry. The
[2:11:34] project involves environmental
[2:11:36] compliance, erosion control, and
[2:11:38] documentation requirements associated
[2:11:40] with permitted landfill site. So,
[2:11:42] experience and capacity are particularly
[2:11:44] important. The contractor will be
[2:11:46] operating under the city's SWIP permit
[2:11:49] and within the landfill operating
[2:11:52] permit. Gowen Construction has
[2:11:54] demonstrated experience with similar
[2:11:56] projects as well as staffing, equipment,
[2:11:59] and processes need to meet those
[2:12:01] requirements. The difference between the
[2:12:03] two bids is $51,000 or about 12%. Staff
[2:12:07] determined this price does not outweigh
[2:12:08] the risks associated with contractor
[2:12:10] performance or project delivery.
[2:12:13] Based on that evaluation, staff
[2:12:15] recommends awarding the contract to
[2:12:16] Gowen Construction as a lowest
[2:12:18] responsible bidder in the amount of
[2:12:20] $480,71.90.
[2:12:24] This res recommendation is based on
[2:12:26] selecting the contractor best positioned
[2:12:28] to successfully deliver the project with
[2:12:30] the least risk to the city. I'll stand
[2:12:32] for any questions.
[2:12:35] >> All right. Any questions for Miss Lipch?
[2:12:41] So, Miss Lipch, well, I guess, you know,
[2:12:43] ultimately the city council is going to
[2:12:44] have to make the decision if that lowest
[2:12:45] bid wasn't, you know, a responsible bid.
[2:12:48] I think that's what this comes down to.
[2:12:50] I know the answer to this, but I'm just
[2:12:51] going to say it. We're ask it anyway so
[2:12:53] you can answer it. Obviously, we had
[2:12:55] 850,000 bids, so all the bids are
[2:12:57] significantly lower than what we had
[2:12:58] estimated on this. If there was one bid
[2:13:01] that was 900,000 and one bid that was
[2:13:03] 850, would you have the same answer that
[2:13:05] you have today?
[2:13:06] >> Yes.
[2:13:06] >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Miss
[2:13:10] Lipch? All right, Mr. Felen.
[2:13:22] » How's your How do we say your last name?
[2:13:24] >> Wim Fimemer.
[2:13:25] >> Whim Fimer. All right, Mr. Whim Fimer,
[2:13:27] please.
[2:13:27] >> Good evening, uh, mayor and city council
[2:13:31] members. I just rushed over here from a
[2:13:33] job site, so I didn't have much time to
[2:13:34] prepare, so I'm going to be going off
[2:13:36] top of my head here. But, uh, as far as
[2:13:39] the thing stated, first thing I want to
[2:13:41] say for Gowens is they do tremendous
[2:13:43] work. Obviously, I can't say anything
[2:13:45] against them as a contractor. They are
[2:13:48] obviously a very substantial contractor
[2:13:51] the state of North Dakota and uh have
[2:13:53] nothing bad to say about them as far as
[2:13:56] we go and the questionnaire and the
[2:13:59] concerns that may be upon us for whether
[2:14:03] or not we can complete the work. Um in
[2:14:05] the past we have done other projects for
[2:14:07] you guys. Uh we did the flood wall
[2:14:10] repair uh did an outfall repair. Did
[2:14:14] some concrete sparing repair for you
[2:14:15] guys. Another thing we've done for
[2:14:17] counties like Cass County is and Pemma
[2:14:19] County is we've constructed bridges on
[2:14:21] their county roads and uh we've taken
[2:14:24] care of legal drains. Um we've done a
[2:14:27] lot of different work anyway and uh
[2:14:32] the concern that's being claimed is we
[2:14:34] don't have the experience to take this
[2:14:36] on. I personally disagree with that. I
[2:14:39] have worked for other companies in the
[2:14:40] past that have taken on landfill soil
[2:14:43] pad um gradation work. and a lot of my
[2:14:47] operators too have had experience with
[2:14:49] other companies doing this similar line
[2:14:52] of work. Um,
[2:14:54] one of the big things
[2:14:57] my my big issues with the questionnaire
[2:14:59] that was done was that none of the
[2:15:01] references that I had given were
[2:15:05] contacted whatsoever. I had confirmed
[2:15:07] that earlier today. And another thing in
[2:15:10] the report was it made us look really
[2:15:13] bad. Um, and after
[2:15:16] doing some research, I found out that
[2:15:17] from other city engineers, that isn't
[2:15:20] exactly what they had um, stated about
[2:15:23] us. A lot of your city engineers have
[2:15:25] been very happy with the work we've done
[2:15:27] in the past. You might have had a couple
[2:15:29] hiccups here and here, here and there.
[2:15:31] That's natural with job sites. But
[2:15:33] overall, if you go look if you go look
[2:15:35] at your uh storm sewer repair job we did
[2:15:38] on the greenway, um I think you'd be
[2:15:41] very pleased to see how that turned out,
[2:15:43] especially with the challenges we were
[2:15:45] facing. Um,
[2:15:48] another thing, this this doesn't have
[2:15:50] anything really to do with um,
[2:15:54] experience, so to speak, and I hate
[2:15:56] bringing this up, but this has more so
[2:15:58] to do with my dad, who owned a different
[2:16:00] construction company 10 years ago, and
[2:16:03] some weather events on a box he was
[2:16:06] doing in Walsh County, which it rained
[2:16:09] non-stop every day. He had shut down
[2:16:11] that river. Two tornadoes went through
[2:16:13] that job site and even Wanzix's crane
[2:16:15] got struck by lightning and fried out
[2:16:17] the whole wiring system and Wanzix had
[2:16:20] to have a crew come out and put a whole
[2:16:22] new wiring system that took like four to
[2:16:24] five days to repair that crane. This put
[2:16:27] us way back past the deadline of that
[2:16:30] job. However, if you go on County Road 9
[2:16:32] in Walsh County, you'll see that box
[2:16:34] culbert standing today and it's doing
[2:16:37] great. However, this created a quarrel
[2:16:40] between Sharon and my father. And I feel
[2:16:42] like this beef, so to speak, that's
[2:16:45] happening between them is what's causing
[2:16:48] is what's motivating the decision to not
[2:16:51] give us this work more so than
[2:16:55] lack of experience.
[2:16:58] Uh
[2:17:01] that's mostly what I have to say about
[2:17:03] it. I would ask to be given a chance to
[2:17:07] prove to you guys the quality work we
[2:17:09] could do for your city as in the past we
[2:17:12] have done other work for you guys that
[2:17:13] has turned out really well and uh that's
[2:17:17] I guess that's what I have to say about
[2:17:18] that.
[2:17:21] >> Any questions from council
[2:17:24] president Sandy please
[2:17:25] >> thanks for coming tonight. So you're u
[2:17:29] thoroughly confident that you can do
[2:17:30] this job. I'm extremely confident act
[2:17:33] >> and if it doesn't go well that you don't
[2:17:35] get another job with the city of Grand
[2:17:36] Forks.
[2:17:38] >> I totally agree with that. That's
[2:17:40] >> Well, I mean I I can't say that we can
[2:17:42] do that because legally I can't. But I'm
[2:17:43] just saying that it won't look good for
[2:17:46] you if things don't go well,
[2:17:48] >> right? I can I can guarantee you that we
[2:17:50] will get this project done for you guys.
[2:17:52] Um we have taken on much more
[2:17:54] complicated
[2:17:56] projects in the past. Uh,
[2:18:00] and I have all sorts, like I said in my
[2:18:02] questionnaires, I had all sorts of
[2:18:03] references, notable references, too, uh,
[2:18:07] to, uh, to back that up. They just were
[2:18:10] never contacted.
[2:18:14] » Any other questions? Mr. Wel, please.
[2:18:15] President Wel,
[2:18:16] >> I got a question for Miss Lipch. Can you
[2:18:18] talk to us about the references that
[2:18:21] were contacted either by yourself or
[2:18:23] others?
[2:18:28] Yes. Um,
[2:18:30] Mayor Bochinsky and Council Member
[2:18:32] Wigle, I did contact several of the
[2:18:34] references. I contacted the two city
[2:18:37] managers, project managers who were on
[2:18:39] the outfall project and on the um, flood
[2:18:42] wall repair project. I talked to um,
[2:18:47] Devon
[2:18:49] in Pemina County.
[2:18:51] Let me see. I got to find my notes here.
[2:18:53] Take me one second. And I talked to the
[2:18:56] engineer on the other project he
[2:18:58] referenced, the Wala City project. I
[2:19:01] talked to Dan Fischer. He was the
[2:19:04] engineer on that project. And that was
[2:19:06] actually a 400 foot long riverbank
[2:19:08] stabilization according to to Mr.
[2:19:11] Fischer. Um and Devon with Pemina County
[2:19:14] said that most of the jobs they have
[2:19:16] ever done have been um bridge projects
[2:19:19] for that county or box cover culvert
[2:19:21] work. Um, I guess being that um, Mr.
[2:19:26] Winimer brought up his father, um, his
[2:19:29] father is not even listed on this
[2:19:30] project. Um, when I sent out the
[2:19:33] questionnaire, I asked for who would be
[2:19:34] on the project, and he's not even listed
[2:19:36] on the project. He has himself
[2:19:40] and, um, I believe his brother listed on
[2:19:44] the project as staff. So, he didn't even
[2:19:46] list his father. Um, I talked to him
[2:19:50] earlier and explained the situation that
[2:19:53] I was going to make the recommendation
[2:19:55] to city council to award to gown
[2:19:57] construction based upon experience
[2:19:59] because he hasn't listed any landfill
[2:20:01] experience working in a landfill with
[2:20:03] the regulations and the things that we
[2:20:04] have to follow. Safety isn't utmost
[2:20:07] importance obviously. Um, but I I think
[2:20:10] Todd can attest to this. I treat
[2:20:12] everybody fairly. I the past is the
[2:20:15] past. I can't change what happened on
[2:20:16] that project in Walsh County, but I hold
[2:20:18] no grudges towards either of them. Um,
[2:20:21] had good conversations with both Dan
[2:20:24] Hansen and Christian Danielson who were
[2:20:26] on the city projects and they're the
[2:20:29] ones that pointed out some of the
[2:20:30] issues. Not bringing enough equipment to
[2:20:32] the site, not being able to keep the
[2:20:35] equipment running on the site. um
[2:20:37] arguments about methodologies of how
[2:20:41] they wanted to construct the project
[2:20:42] versus how it was designed to be
[2:20:44] constructed. So those are very
[2:20:46] concerning from a regulatory standpoint
[2:20:48] that this project was designed
[2:20:50] specifically to meet the regulations
[2:20:53] spelled out by the DEEQ and the EPA. We
[2:20:57] have to follow those. We have we have to
[2:20:58] ensure that those are right. Otherwise,
[2:21:00] we could build a project
[2:21:03] and not get it permitted and then be out
[2:21:06] a half million dollars because we can't
[2:21:08] use it.
[2:21:09] It's not as I mean, we had several
[2:21:12] biders. I don't know how many times um a
[2:21:16] very reputable dirt moving company was
[2:21:18] in Carmen's office asking questions
[2:21:19] about the plans and specifications. We
[2:21:21] didn't have a single question from Dirty
[2:21:25] Deeds Construction.
[2:21:27] So I have I have a lot of concerns.
[2:21:30] Does that satisfy you, Mr. Bo?
[2:21:32] >> It does. Thank you.
[2:21:32] >> Okay. Thank you, Miss Lynch.
[2:21:35] >> All right. Why don't you You can go
[2:21:36] ahead and sit down. We'll discuss up.
[2:21:38] You don't have to stand there, but do
[2:21:39] you have a
[2:21:39] >> more statement?
[2:21:40] >> You can. Sure. You can have go ahead
[2:21:41] wherever you want to go.
[2:21:42] >> A few things.
[2:21:43] >> Hit uh hit the button there. There you
[2:21:46] go.
[2:21:48] >> I did call Carmen. I've spoken to her. I
[2:21:50] had questions about this project before
[2:21:52] I even put a bid in because I want to
[2:21:54] know what I'm getting into.
[2:21:56] with a uh with a project. You know,
[2:21:59] obviously we have a class A contractor's
[2:22:01] license. We're bed bonded. If something
[2:22:03] goes wrong and we can't complete the
[2:22:04] job, that totally falls on us and our
[2:22:06] bonding company. So, I did make a phone
[2:22:09] call and I did have a series of
[2:22:11] questions I did ask Carmen. Uh actually,
[2:22:15] my wife was right next to me that day I
[2:22:16] did that. As far as it went, the all the
[2:22:19] people I had called all my people I had
[2:22:21] as references and they told me that they
[2:22:23] had not heard from Sharon yet. And I do
[2:22:26] truly believe, Sharon, that
[2:22:30] this has more so to do with what you and
[2:22:33] my father's falling out was than with
[2:22:35] what we
[2:22:38] >> anything ever to do with me. So,
[2:22:41] >> thank you.
[2:22:41] >> Honestly, I would I would love to to
[2:22:43] take the chance and award the project to
[2:22:45] the low bidder, but there's too much at
[2:22:47] stake. Like we have the 42nd Avenue, we
[2:22:51] got the 42nd Street project coming up
[2:22:53] that we can have the capacity to take a
[2:22:55] lot of that contaminated material at our
[2:22:57] own landfill, but right now we can't.
[2:23:00] >> Yeah. All right. I'm going to have you
[2:23:01] sit down now.
[2:23:02] >> You got 15 seconds and we got we're not
[2:23:04] having a debate. So go ahead.
[2:23:05] >> As far as far as that outfall repair, we
[2:23:07] had four excavators on it, a bulldozer,
[2:23:10] several dump trucks, and two skid steers
[2:23:12] on it. So, as far as not bringing enough
[2:23:14] equipment, um I guess you could bring
[2:23:17] more, but then it just be kind of like a
[2:23:19] car show. You just have it lined up in
[2:23:20] the show piece. So,
[2:23:22] >> all right. Thank you. Thank you, Miss
[2:23:24] Lips. We're going to if we have further
[2:23:25] questions, we'll bring bring you back
[2:23:26] up, but for now, let's have a
[2:23:27] discussion. Did you have a question for
[2:23:30] >> Oh, I was ready to make a motion. Um
[2:23:32] upon reviewing the material, um D what
[2:23:36] was their company?
[2:23:36] >> Dirty Deeds.
[2:23:37] didn't answer all the
[2:23:39] questions. And so in that itself I have
[2:23:41] concerns and so I'd motion to um go with
[2:23:44] staff recommendation.
[2:23:46] >> Okay, we have a motion to
[2:23:48] approve a staff recommendation. Do we
[2:23:50] have a second?
[2:23:51] >> Second.
[2:23:52] for Mr. Waggle. And now we'll
[2:23:54] open up for further discussion.
[2:23:56] President Sandy, please.
[2:23:58] >> I probably have a series of rhetorical
[2:24:00] questions. Um how how is a new
[2:24:03] contractor get experience to get jobs
[2:24:05] for the city of Grand Forks if they're
[2:24:07] not hired by the city of Grand Forks?
[2:24:09] Um,
[2:24:10] at what point do we um try to help uh
[2:24:15] the local contractors? I'm I'm not
[2:24:17] saying Gwen and the others aren't, but
[2:24:20] I I don't know. I I also I can't argue
[2:24:23] your comments. Uh uh Miss Berg,
[2:24:27] they didn't
[2:24:29] it feels like a perfect storm of nothing
[2:24:32] working right on this uh on this bid
[2:24:34] project. So, uh, uh, I would like to see
[2:24:37] us award it to the to the the lowest
[2:24:40] bidder myself, um, because I'd like to
[2:24:43] give them the opportunity to do a job
[2:24:45] and prove themselves. However, uh, with
[2:24:48] Miss Lipch saying that this is one of
[2:24:50] those, uh, there's too much at risk. It
[2:24:53] you can't you can't argue against what
[2:24:56] she's saying. So, I certainly hope that
[2:24:59] you
[2:25:01] um respond to future RFPs and you're the
[2:25:05] lowest bidder so we can get you higher
[2:25:06] and get you more business. So, thank
[2:25:09] you, Mayor.
[2:25:10] >> Thank you, President Sandy. Miss uh
[2:25:13] >> Yep. What's that? Yeah, please.
[2:25:14] >> Mr. Fred.
[2:25:15] >> Oh, Mr. Fredos,
[2:25:17] >> I just wanted to real say real quick, I
[2:25:19] appreciate him coming in and and you
[2:25:21] know, pleading the case on this. I I did
[2:25:23] review the material too and he uh he did
[2:25:25] send me a bunch of photos of some of the
[2:25:27] other work but definitely not in the
[2:25:29] scope of uh landscape uh landfill uh
[2:25:33] fixing. So, but I I I applaud him for
[2:25:37] coming in and and continue to fight the
[2:25:39] good fight and continue to bid on jobs.
[2:25:41] Please don't stop.
[2:25:44] >> Thank you, Mr. Fredoffs.
[2:25:46] Any other points? Thank you for helping.
[2:25:48] I didn't see that hand up there. Any
[2:25:50] other comments or questions from
[2:25:52] council?
[2:25:56] All right, seeing none, all those in
[2:25:57] favor signify by saying I. I
[2:26:00] >> oppose. Same sign.
[2:26:01] >> I
[2:26:02] >> motion carries six to1 with Lonsky
[2:26:04] descending.
[2:26:07] » 5.18 is to set a public hearing on
[2:26:10] application for tax incentive a pilot
[2:26:12] from KC CK Commercial LLC doing business
[2:26:15] as Kings View located at 6150 Kings View
[2:26:18] Drive.
[2:26:21] Um,
[2:26:21] >> all right. Thank you, Miss or Mr. Suska,
[2:26:24] you have a comment.
[2:26:24] >> Yeah, I just have a quick comment. You
[2:26:26] know, it's really hard to sit up here
[2:26:30] and vote on pilots as we have, you know,
[2:26:32] homeowners, property values that are
[2:26:35] skyrocketing and their taxes. Um, and
[2:26:39] they're being increased pretty
[2:26:40] dramatically, I think, throughout the
[2:26:43] town. Um, also
[2:26:47] I just think it's real odd how all these
[2:26:51] developers now are coming back to us
[2:26:53] with just five-year pilots. I feel like
[2:26:55] it's their way of avoiding the county
[2:26:58] and the school board. Um, and honestly,
[2:27:02] after the past two years that we have
[2:27:04] had with apartment building pilots, I
[2:27:08] have pilot fatigue. So those are my
[2:27:12] comments and I'm ready to vote on 18 and
[2:27:15] 19.
[2:27:16] >> All right. Well, we'll start with 18.
[2:27:18] Any other comments on that? Otherwise,
[2:27:19] look for a motion from council.
[2:27:21] >> Motion President Sandy, second from
[2:27:23] Berg. Any further discussion?
[2:27:27] Seeing none, all those in favor signify
[2:27:28] by saying I.
[2:27:29] >> I.
[2:27:30] >> Oppos? Same sign.
[2:27:31] >> I.
[2:27:32] >> Motion carries six to1 with Oowski
[2:27:33] desenting.
[2:27:35] and 5.19
[2:27:37] set public hearing application a tax
[2:27:38] incentive a pilot uh for RTVMPS
[2:27:43] LLC doing business as the domain located
[2:27:45] at 106547th Avenue South.
[2:27:48] >> All right.
[2:27:49] >> Got a motion to approve President Sandy.
[2:27:51] We have a second.
[2:27:52] >> Second.
[2:27:53] for Miss Berg. Any further
[2:27:55] discussion?
[2:27:56] 519. Seeing none. All those in favor
[2:27:58] signify by saying I. I. I.
[2:28:00] >> Oppose. Same sign. I.
[2:28:02] >> Motion carries. 6 to1 with Oski
[2:28:04] desending.
[2:28:06] >> And last item 5.21 AR center scoreboard
[2:28:09] bid process update and review of Grand
[2:28:11] Forks Event Center commission and city
[2:28:13] council authority related to the air
[2:28:15] center.
[2:28:16] >> All right. And I I think we had a good
[2:28:18] discussion last week. The only thing I
[2:28:20] was going to add is I there's been
[2:28:21] talks. Do we need to make any changes
[2:28:23] with the way the center commission works
[2:28:25] or it operates? I don't think we do. I
[2:28:28] think they're doing a lot of of great
[2:28:29] work. I want to keep all the same
[2:28:31] people. I think that's the exact right
[2:28:32] mix that we need. Um, but in thinking
[2:28:35] about this, I think one benefit and to
[2:28:37] be able to get the public and the rest
[2:28:38] of us to be able to see all the
[2:28:39] tremendous work that they're doing. It
[2:28:41] is the only committee, I believe, city
[2:28:43] committee that doesn't meet downtown
[2:28:44] here. So, um, I was going to ask uh
[2:28:47] through a city council resolution that
[2:28:48] we would require the commission just
[2:28:50] like all of our others to meet here in
[2:28:52] council chambers. Then they'd be
[2:28:53] televised. We could go back and watch if
[2:28:54] we had questions um, and give an
[2:28:56] opportunity for them to be in this great
[2:28:58] room just like all of our other
[2:28:59] commissions. I know the board of health
[2:29:01] um did the same thing. So um they could
[2:29:04] definitely pick what time works for
[2:29:05] them. Um I've worked with John
[2:29:06] Bernstrom. Um as long as it's not, you
[2:29:09] know, a night that they're not already
[2:29:10] here so we don't have an increased cost.
[2:29:12] Um they can meet at the same time they
[2:29:14] currently do. Um but that's what I would
[2:29:16] be asking for tonight just to just to
[2:29:18] move forward and um again bring it into
[2:29:21] the city just like we have everything
[2:29:22] else as it is a city uh city commission
[2:29:24] and um they do a great job and want
[2:29:26] everyone to be able to see that.
[2:29:27] >> Um I have a comment
[2:29:29] >> please. Um, first of all, I 100% agree
[2:29:32] with you. I I think it just when
[2:29:36] committees have their meeting within our
[2:29:39] chambers, it just
[2:29:42] makes everything seem a little bit more
[2:29:45] official. And I do think that we should
[2:29:46] be recording their meetings. um we did
[2:29:49] move public health, you know, not too
[2:29:52] long ago into the chambers and I think
[2:29:54] it just really sets a good precedence.
[2:29:58] And so with that, um I would like to
[2:30:02] motion
[2:30:03] that the
[2:30:07] board meet in the chambers and they're
[2:30:09] allowed to pick their times and
[2:30:12] whatever. Do we we need a motion for
[2:30:13] that? Yeah, it's so I guess the motion I
[2:30:15] address was a resolution from the city
[2:30:16] council uh having the meetings here
[2:30:18] within council chambers that would be
[2:30:20] meetings in sub subcommittee. So
[2:30:21] committee subcommittee meetings um
[2:30:23] they'd be televised just like all of our
[2:30:24] other meetings. Um we'd open
[2:30:26] >> other than 5:30 on Mondays they and 5:30
[2:30:29] on Wednesdays. They probably got to pick
[2:30:31] a different time for those two, but
[2:30:32] whatever's available they can certainly pick the right time. And just
[2:30:35] further, I mean it is the center is a
[2:30:38] great asset for the community. there's a
[2:30:40] lot of money that goes into that to keep
[2:30:42] it up to keep it to be one of the
[2:30:43] premier facilities. Um so I think it's
[2:30:45] important to have those types of
[2:30:47] meetings here um going forward. So
[2:30:49] that's I guess that's what I was looking
[2:30:50] for be a resolution through the city
[2:30:52] attorney's office just to those to those
[2:30:53] points.
[2:30:54] >> I agree with you 100%. And so I do
[2:30:56] motion that.
[2:30:57] >> Got a motion. Do we have a second?
[2:30:58] >> I'll second.
[2:30:59] >> Second from Miss B.
[2:31:00] >> Question. Does that include Brooke as
[2:31:01] well? because I want to be cognizant of
[2:31:04] um the base participation in that
[2:31:06] >> in the in the which
[2:31:07] >> in brick
[2:31:08] >> brick currently is right across the
[2:31:10] street. Okay. And so that's currently
[2:31:11] meeting I guess
[2:31:13] >> downtown as well. But I you know
[2:31:15] certainly I think in that group we have
[2:31:17] more than nine members. It'd be hard to
[2:31:19] get them around the table here but I
[2:31:21] guess I feel comfortable knowing that
[2:31:23] it's right here you know downtown in the
[2:31:25] same area.
[2:31:25] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:31:26] >> Yeah.
[2:31:29] Vice President comment.
[2:31:33] » My only question would be does it have
[2:31:34] to be council chambers? Could they meet
[2:31:36] downtown at the same location?
[2:31:40] >> I think to have it televised and to be
[2:31:41] able to, you know, be able to go back
[2:31:43] and watch them, have them on channel 2
[2:31:45] on Facebook like everything else. This
[2:31:46] is the easiest place to do that. And we
[2:31:48] have staff that's available to operate
[2:31:50] those meetings. So, it'd be similar to
[2:31:52] the growth fund, to the JDA, to the
[2:31:54] board of legalization, to planning and
[2:31:56] zoning, to board of health. Um, I just
[2:31:59] think it's comes in the fall with all
[2:32:00] the rest of the committees.
[2:32:05] Any further comments? We have a motion,
[2:32:07] a second on the floor. Uh, Mr. Be.
[2:32:09] >> Yeah. Um, it's hard to argue against
[2:32:12] that fact um that we should have almost
[2:32:15] all of our meetings open. I know the the
[2:32:17] issue here was to take the politics out
[2:32:19] of it. That's why we looked at um having
[2:32:23] it separated and and run by the business
[2:32:25] sector, not necessarily make it
[2:32:27] political. Um but if we do that, then I
[2:32:31] think we need to do that for all
[2:32:32] meetings, not just handpicked ones that
[2:32:35] can and can't do it. So we're we if it
[2:32:37] is it'll be overall, it'll be consistent
[2:32:39] and we just do it that way.
[2:32:41] >> Yeah, I think that that makes perfect
[2:32:43] sense.
[2:32:44] >> So would that include the airport
[2:32:45] authority as well?
[2:32:47] >> Well, that's a separate entity. though I think the airport authority has its
[2:32:50] own polit it's its own political
[2:32:52] subdivision
[2:32:53] >> and we're televised already uh at the
[2:32:56] airport authority
[2:32:57] >> I think there's a few members that would
[2:32:59] prefer that not have to drive out there
[2:33:00] but
[2:33:00] >> yeah I would prefer it be in the council
[2:33:02] chambers but
[2:33:06] >> all right seeing no further discussion
[2:33:08] all those in favor signify by saying I
[2:33:10] >> I post same sign that motion carries
[2:33:14] unanimously and then to the further uh
[2:33:17] item 5.2 21. We doing a motion. No
[2:33:19] problem.
[2:33:19] >> Got a motion to approve 5.21. Uh who was
[2:33:22] the second? President Sandy motion. It's
[2:33:24] this it's the center scoreboard bid
[2:33:26] process from two weeks ago. It feels
[2:33:28] like a month ago now. But I'm sorry I
[2:33:30] didn't get who the second was. It was
[2:33:31] Miss Berg. So motion President Sandy
[2:33:33] second from Miss Berg. All those in
[2:33:34] favor signify by saying I.
[2:33:36] >> I.
[2:33:37] >> Opposed same sign.
[2:33:39] >> Motion carries unanimously.
[2:33:41] Approve.
[2:33:43] All right. Moved on to item six
[2:33:45] information items. There are none. So
[2:33:46] item seven, approval of minutes and
[2:33:48] bills.
[2:33:49] >> 7.1 is the vendor list and engineers
[2:33:52] estimate that's attached.
[2:33:54] >> Motion to approve.
[2:33:54] >> Got a motion to approve from Miss Berg.
[2:33:56] Second from Miss Lky.
[2:33:57] >> I have a quick comment.
[2:33:58] >> Please, Mr. I just want to say thank you
[2:34:00] to our finance department. When I went
[2:34:02] through the vendor's list, um it was
[2:34:04] very detailed on the way that the money
[2:34:08] was going out and being spent. And so I
[2:34:10] greatly appreciate that. Very easy to
[2:34:12] read. Um shouldn't have many questions.
[2:34:15] So, thank you very much.
[2:34:17] >> Thank you. Any other comments? Seeing
[2:34:20] none, all those in favor signify by
[2:34:21] saying I.
[2:34:22] >> I. I.
[2:34:23] >> Opposed, same sign. Motion carries
[2:34:24] unanimously.
[2:34:26] >> And 7.2 minutes for March 16th.
[2:34:28] >> Motion to approve.
[2:34:29] from Berg. She's on a
[2:34:30] roll tonight. Any seconds? Second from
[2:34:32] Miss Lky. Any comments or changes?
[2:34:35] Seeing none, all those in favor signify
[2:34:36] by saying I. I.
[2:34:38] >> Oppos. Same sign. Motion carries
[2:34:40] unanimously. Item eight, Mr. Felen. Any
[2:34:42] comments this evening? Thank you, Al
[2:34:44] Gasser.
[2:34:46] >> Well said. Well said.
[2:34:50] All right, with that, we'll move on to
[2:34:51] item nine, mayor and council member
[2:34:53] comments. Uh, Miss Oowki, any comments
[2:34:54] this evening?
[2:34:55] >> I'm going to have to ditto Mr. Feland.
[2:34:57] It was a pleasure meeting you so and
[2:34:59] getting to work with you. So, thank you,
[2:35:02] >> Miss Berg.
[2:35:03] >> Likewise. And then to address a a a
[2:35:06] question that was brought up during
[2:35:07] public uh comment um regarding the
[2:35:10] conflict of interest on assessments, we
[2:35:12] still have to fall within North Dakota
[2:35:14] Century Code Law on how our own homes
[2:35:17] are assessed. What is it 5% of the true
[2:35:20] and full value?
[2:35:22] >> 10
[2:35:23] >> 10%. So that is still still applies to
[2:35:27] all of us. So thank you.
[2:35:28] >> Thank you, Miss Berg. Uh Miss Lansky,
[2:35:30] any comments this evening? Um, I want to
[2:35:31] say thank you and congratulations to Kim
[2:35:34] Green Doll on her retirement and um, I
[2:35:37] think what she did for the Greenway was
[2:35:38] pretty amazing. I had the opportunity to
[2:35:41] work with her on quite a few projects.
[2:35:43] So, thank you, Kim.
[2:35:44] >> Thank you, Miss Linsky. Mr. Fredol, any
[2:35:46] comments?
[2:35:47] >> No, sir.
[2:35:48] >> All right. Hope you're feeling better
[2:35:49] soon.
[2:35:50] >> Thank you,
[2:35:51] >> Mr. Van. Any comments?
[2:35:52] >> No, I'd probably reiterate what Todd had
[2:35:55] just said. Thank you, Al, for all those
[2:35:57] years of work. It's uh it's been a long
[2:35:59] ride and thank you much. You've
[2:36:01] accomplished much.
[2:36:03] >> Oh, perfect. Vice President Wel,
[2:36:05] >> uh just thank you to Alan Kim for their
[2:36:07] service to our community. Um also to
[2:36:09] mention Mr. Crossnik, he is right. Um I
[2:36:11] was wrong last week when I said you
[2:36:13] could find out the owner is the
[2:36:14] registered agent and so I apologize for
[2:36:17] that. Um but that's all I have.
[2:36:20] >> All right. Thank you, Vice President.
[2:36:21] Welcome President Sandy.
[2:36:22] >> Stan's terrible.
[2:36:24] >> He's been growing a mustache ever since
[2:36:26] going on. Yeah. Yeah. Uh kudos to
[2:36:30] Grasser and Kim, of course. Uh they're
[2:36:33] uh two great citizens that uh work
[2:36:36] tirelessly for the community and they
[2:36:39] should be applauded for all their
[2:36:41] efforts. Um mayor, also uh the um
[2:36:45] residential uh property tax uh uh
[2:36:50] abatement that we provide is a rubber
[2:36:53] stamp. We don't need to vote, find
[2:36:55] someone else to vote on it whether we
[2:36:57] have a property or not because everyone
[2:36:59] that applies gets it. It has nothing to
[2:37:01] do with the people that are sitting up
[2:37:03] here. Also, I do want to point out uh
[2:37:06] the that we did hear from a lot of
[2:37:08] people today about their property tax
[2:37:10] valuations increasing dramatically. Um
[2:37:14] mine did as well. Um, we also have to
[2:37:17] understand and take it with a grain of
[2:37:19] salt that um, our effective property tax
[2:37:22] rate in Grand Forks for residential
[2:37:24] housing is 1.54%.
[2:37:27] So, I'm not saying it isn't money. It
[2:37:29] is, but a $10,000 increase in your
[2:37:32] valuation equates to $154
[2:37:35] total increase for the year in your
[2:37:38] property taxes, which of course divided
[2:37:40] by 12 is what? $15 a month in your
[2:37:44] mortgage payment. It's not that it's not
[2:37:46] money. It is money. It's real money to a
[2:37:49] lot of people, but we also have to
[2:37:51] recognize that that um and try to keep
[2:37:54] it in perspective. Um Mayor, I do
[2:37:56] appreciate uh uh all the efforts that so
[2:38:00] many people in the assessing department
[2:38:01] do for our community. Also trying to be
[2:38:03] fair. Thank you.
[2:38:04] >> I appreciate that. That made me think
[2:38:06] right there. My assessment I think went
[2:38:08] up 50,000. It's really awkward if you
[2:38:10] are up here and then you go around there
[2:38:12] and protest and then come back and sit
[2:38:13] down. So that's why I didn't protest. Um
[2:38:16] the only other thing I wanted to add is
[2:38:18] I think uh just just some some more
[2:38:19] words for for Mr. Grasser. I think uh
[2:38:22] anytime it it rains hard in this town, a
[2:38:24] lot of people sleep pretty soundly
[2:38:26] because of the work that you've done and
[2:38:27] they know in the spring um that we're
[2:38:29] going to be safe, that we're not going
[2:38:30] to flood. you've gone above and beyond
[2:38:33] um over many many years and I think a
[2:38:36] community owes you a debt of gratitude,
[2:38:37] a debt of service for that and uh not
[2:38:40] just the flood protection but the
[2:38:41] infrastructure throughout the city is
[2:38:43] very robust and um engineering
[2:38:45] department has been formed in in your
[2:38:46] image and I think it's uh in a very good
[2:38:48] place and very good hands moving into
[2:38:51] the future. So really appreciate uh a
[2:38:53] job well done. So thank you for that and
[2:38:55] we'll leave it at there if someone's
[2:38:56] ready to motion.
[2:38:58] >> Motion for Mosowski, second from Berg.
[2:39:00] All those in favor signify by saying I.
[2:39:02] >> I.
[2:39:03] >> Oppos. Same sign. Motion carries
[2:39:04] unanimously.