ABBREVIATED NOTICE OF

INTENT TO AMEND and REPEAL

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES

RELATING TO N.D. Admin. Code

title 106.

TAKE NOTICE that the Board of

Athletic Trainers will hold a public

hearing to address proposed

changes to the N.D. Admin. Code at

9:00am on Friday, March 25, 2022,

at 600 East Boulevard Avenue,

Bismarck, North Dakota in the Lewis

and Clark room.

A copy of the proposed rules may be

obtained by writing the Board of Ath-

letic Trainers, P.O. Box 5545, Fargo,

ND 58105-5545 or calling

701-471-7179. Also, written com-

ments may be submitted to the

above address until April 4, 2022. If

you plan to attend the public hearing

and will need special facilities or as-

sistance relating to a disability,

please contact the Board of Athletic

Trainers at the above telephone

number or address at least 7 days

prior to the public hearing.

Dated this 20th day of December

2021.

Ray Hall, Chairman – Board of

Athletic Trainers

(January 12, 2022)

December 20 ,2021 Regular City

Council Meeting

Minot City Council- Scheduled

Meeting- December 20, 2021 at

5:30 PM

ROLL CALL

Members Present

Evans, Jantzer, Olson, Pitner, Ross

Podrygula, Sipma

Members Absent

None

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Mayor Sipma presiding and led the

City Council in the Pledge of Allegi-

ance.

MAYORAL APPOINTMENTS

It is recommended the City Council

confirm the following Planning Com-

missioner appointments:

1.Todd Wegenast: Term Expiry:

December 31,2026

2. Charles DeMarkis: Term Expiry 2:

December 31,2026

Alderman Jantzer moved the City

Council approve the recommenda-

tion of the Planning Commissioner

appointments for Todd Wegenast

and Charles DeMarkis until De-

cember 31, 2026 one. Motion

Second by Alderwomen Ross and

Carried the following roll call vote:

ayes: Evans, Jantzer, Olson, Pitner,

Podrygula, Ross, Sipma; nays:

none.

CITY MANAGER REPORT

The City Manager Provided a written

update describing events and activi-

ties for various departments.

1.City Manager announced the hir-

ing of our New City Clerk, Mikayla

McWilliams she was been with the

City for five years in the Finance

Department. Thank you to Anna

Schraeder for filling is as the interim

City Clerk during this transition.

2.The City Manager with the

Economic and Development Com-

mittee took a tour of the new Trinity

Hospital. They were very please with

the way everything is coming to-

gether and how well planned and

designed the new facility is. Looking

Forward to the completion of this

project.

3.Community Survey was complet-

ed and Jason Morado from ETC out

of Kansa City Area who does mark-

eting research for local surveys,

presented a PowerPoint presenta-

tion.

Alderman Podrygula Thanked Jason

Morado for a wonderful presentation

and for his and everyone’s efforts to

put the survey together and for the

presentation. City Manager thanked

the City Council for letting us take

part in this survey process for the

needs and wants of our community.

There will be a full report and dash

board on our Website. City Manager

also mentioned that, as you can see

the citizens put a high priority is our

streets and our highest concern is

higher taxes, where do we find the

funds? Alderman Ross- Baseline-

When will we revisit this again every

2 to 3 years? City Manager- We

should look to budget this for every

2 years.

PUBLIC HEARING

5.1 Proposed Ordinance to increase

Traffic Fines

Alderwomen Olson moved the City

Council approve the ordinance to in-

crease traffic fines Motion Second

by Alderwomen Pitner and Carried

the following roll call vote: ayes:

Evans, Jantzer, Olson, Pitner, Po-

drygula, Ross, Sipma; nays: none.

5.2 Public hearing consider vacation

of the portion of 13th Ave SE right-

of way. Alderman Jantzer moved the

City Council approve the vacation of

the portion of 13th Ave SE right- of

way Motion Second by Alderwomen

Pitner and Carried the following roll

call vote: ayes: Evans, Jantzer, Ol-

son, Pitner, Podrygula, Ross, Sip-

ma; nays: none.

5.3 Public Hearing: Annexation of

the outlot 33 less lot A & less portion

of Belview 2nd Addition. Alderwom-

en Olson moved the City Council ap-

prove the Annexation of the outlot

33 less lot A & less portion of Bel-

view 2nd Addition Motion Second by

Alderwomen Pitner and Carried the

following roll call vote: ayes: Evans,

Jantzer, Olson, Pitner, Podrygula,

Ross, Sipma; nays: none.

6. CONSIDER THE REPORT OF

THE PLANNING COMMISION

Alderwomen Olson moved the City

Council approve the report of the

planning commission Motion

Second by Alderwomen Pitner and

Carried the following roll call vote:

ayes: Evans, Jantzer, Olson, Pitner,

Podrygula, Ross, Sipma; nays:

none.

6.1 Public Hearing: Lot 7, Dakota

Square second addition Alderman

Jantzer moved the City Council ap-

prove the Lot 7, Dakota Square

second addition Motion Second by

Alderwomen Pitner and Carried the

following roll call vote: ayes: Evans,

Jantzer, Olson, Pitner, Podrygula,

Ross, Sipma; nays: none.

6.2 Public Hearing River Oaks 6th

Addition Alderman Pitner moved the

City Council approve the River Oaks

6th addition. Motion Second by Ald-

erwomen Ross and Carried the fol-

lowing roll call vote: ayes: Evans,

Jantzer, Olson, Pitner, Podrygula,

Ross, Sipma; nays: none.

6.3 Subdivision of Jefferson South

Addition Alderman Pitner moved the

City Council approve the subdivision

of Jefferson South addition. Motion

Second by Alderwomen Ross and

Carried the following roll call vote:

ayes: Evans, Jantzer, Olson, Pitner,

Podrygula, Ross, Sipma; nays:

none.

6.4 Subdivision of Out lots 6&7

Alderman Pitner moved the City

Council approve the subdivision of

Out lots 6&7. Motion Second by Ald-

erwomen Ross and Carried the fol-

lowing roll call vote: ayes: Evans,

Jantzer, Olson, Pitner, Podrygula,

Ross, Sipma; nays: none.

6.5 Subdivision of Out lots 8&9

Alderman Pitner moved the City

Council approve the subdivision of

Out lots 8&9. Motion Second by Ald-

erwomen Ross and Carried the fol-

lowing roll call vote: ayes: Evans,

Jantzer, Olson, Pitner, Podrygula,

Ross, Sipma; nays: none.

CONSENT

7.1 City Council Minutes

Alderman Ross moved the City

Council approve the Consent Agen-

da Items 7.1 through 7.5 and then

7.7 through 7.13. Motion Second by

Alderwomen Pitner and Carried the

following roll call vote: ayes: Evans,

Jantzer, Olson, Pitner, Podrygula,

Ross, Sipma; nays: none.

Consent Item 7.6- 3529.1 MI-5 Pro-

ject Flood Control C&M Agreement

with BNSF and SRJB -Pulled for

another Meeting.

7.2 Administrative Approvals

Alderman Ross moved the City

Council approve the Consent Agen-

da Items 7.1 through 7.5 and then

7.7 through 7.13. Motion Second by

Alderwomen Pitner and Carried the

following roll call vote: ayes: Evans,

Jantzer, Olson, Pitner, Podrygula,

Ross, Sipma; nays: none.

7.3 Alcoholic Beverage License

Renewals

Alderman Ross moved the City

Council approve the Consent Agen-

da Items 7.1 through 7.5 and then

7.7 through 7.13. Motion Second by

Alderwomen Pitner and Carried the

following roll call vote: ayes: Evans,

Jantzer, Olson, Pitner, Podrygula,

Ross, Sipma; nays: none.

7.4 Ordinances-

5682- Amend the 2021 Annual

Budget – Traffic Capital Equipment

Expense

5683- Amending Chapter 24- Per-

sonnel Code: Section 24-2, 24-31,

24-46, 24-48 of the Code of Ordi-

nances

5684- 80.2021 BA-FY21 JAG Grant

5685-81.2021 BA- Drone Donations

5686- 7.2022 BA- PD Axon Contract

Alderman Ross moved the City

Council approve the Consent Agen-

da Items 7.1 through 7.5 and then

7.7 through 7.13. Motion Second by

Alderwomen Pitner and Carried the

following roll call vote: ayes: Evans,

Jantzer, Olson, Pitner, Podrygula,

Ross, Sipma; nays: none.

7.5 2021 Concrete Pavement Reha-

bilitation- Final Payment (4551)

Alderman Ross moved the City

Council approve the Consent Agen-

da Items 7.1 through 7.5 and then

7.7 through 7.13. Motion Second by

Alderwomen Pitner and Carried the

following roll call vote: ayes: Evans,

Jantzer, Olson, Pitner, Podrygula,

Ross, Sipma; nays: none.

7.6 3529.1 MI-5 Project Flood Con-

trol C&M Agreement with BNSF and

SRJB – Pulled for anotherMeeting.

7.7 Approve Amending Identified

CDBG DR/NDR policies, pro-

cedures, & contracts to delete

specific staff names and change to

tittles

Alderman Ross moved the City

Council approve the Consent Agen-

da Items 7.1 through 7.5 and then

7.7 through 7.13. Motion Second by

Alderwomen Pitner and Carried the

following roll call vote: ayes: Evans,

Jantzer, Olson, Pitner, Podrygula,

Ross, Sipma; nays: none.

7.8 NDDES 2021 HMEP Training

Grant(2021300006-FD0116)

Alderman Ross moved the City

Council approve the Consent Agen-

da Items 7.1 through 7.5 and then

7.7 through 7.13. Motion Second by

Alderwomen Pitner and Carried the

following roll call vote: ayes: Evans,

Jantzer, Olson, Pitner, Podrygula,

Ross, Sipma; nays: none

7.9 2021 Interest Distribution

Alderman Ross moved the City

Council approve the Consent Agen-

da Items 7.1 through 7.5 and then

7.7 through 7.13. Motion Second by

Alderwomen Pitner and Carried the

following roll call vote: ayes: Evans,

Jantzer, Olson, Pitner, Podrygula,

Ross, Sipma; nays: none.

7.10 2021 Watermain replacement-

Final Payment (4567)

Alderman Ross moved the City

Council approve the Consent Agen-

da Items 7.1 through 7.5 and then

7.7 through 7.13. Motion Second by

Alderwomen Pitner and Carried the

following roll call vote: ayes: Evans,

Jantzer, Olson, Pitner, Podrygula,

Ross, Sipma; nays: none.

7.11 24th ST NW Water and Sewer

Replacement- Award bid (4614)

Alderman Ross moved the City

Council approve the Consent Agen-

da Items 7.1 through 7.5 and then

7.7 through 7.13. Motion Second by

Alderwomen Pitner and Carried the

following roll call vote: ayes: Evans,

Jantzer, Olson, Pitner, Podrygula,

Ross, Sipma; nays: none.

7.12 Trailer Mounted Gate Valve Ex-

erciser- Award of bid (4650)

Alderman Ross moved the City

Council approve the Consent Agen-

da Items 7.1 through 7.5 and then

7.7 through 7.13. Motion Second by

Alderwomen Pitner and Carried the

following roll call vote: ayes: Evans,

Jantzer, Olson, Pitner, Podrygula,

Ross, Sipma; nays: none.

7.13 National Opioid Settlement

Alderman Ross moved the City

Council approve the Consent Agen-

da Items 7.1 through 7.5 and then

7.7 through 7.13. Motion Second by

Alderwomen Pitner and Carried the

following roll call vote: ayes: Evans,

Jantzer, Olson, Pitner, Podrygula,

Ross, Sipma; nays: none.

ACTION ITEMS

8.1 Approval of 2022 Service Agree-

ment with MACEDC

John MacMartin presented on

Behalf of MACEDC

Alderwomen EvansSo I am looking

at 2020 ones that we approved this

year. So, it was my understanding

that perhaps a report on the objec-

tives of 2021 was going to come in

December, I talked to you earlier to-

day, it seems like there’ll be January

2021. But can you walk us through

just generally the 2021 objectives.

And what I’m looking for is just to

feel confident that they’ve been met

or will be met very soon. Before we

move forward in you know, I’m going

ahead with 2022.

John MacMartin- certainly Aldermen,

Evans, and Mayor. She is absolutely

correct. You know, the contract calls

for it, I visited with the city manager

and the city finance director about

moving it, we found that when we

were doing this in June and De-

cember, we start preparing those in

November. And so, we missed al-

most an entire month of the

six-month period we’re supposed to

be reporting on. So, looking at that. I

have planned to bring a report to you

in January, probably the second

meeting in January, just to make

sure that we’ve got all the data

there. You’ll hear in my report in

January comments on the logistics

park, we have secured the funding

for the rail extension. The check is in

the mail, hopefully. And where we’re

at 90% design work on the on the

track for the track extension that

we’ve talked about that you’ve heard

us talk about in the press, we’ve

spent money on a switch from

BNSF. For all of the talk about infla-

tion, I’m glad we ordered early be-

cause the there was one switch put

in off of the tatman spur which costs

50% More than the switch we put in,

that we’re going to be required to put

in and they’re essentially the same

switch. So, I don’t know what hap-

pened to inflation on that. But I’m

glad we ordered it and paid for it in

advance. There’s work being done

on the Krissy grant, we’ve had

several monthly meetings already

we’re progressing. That’s a two year

I believe a two-year process on that

particular work that’s being done. I’m

pleased with the work that’s been

done to date. I’ve begun to involve

Mark Lyman in that given the recent

article you may have seen about me

and my future. And that probably

won’t happen until sometime in Au-

gust just so that you know, I’m

around for a while. And then we’re

also providing some temporary, we

call a temporary because we don’t

have long term leases with them for

both the hoist which is your line pro-

vider for the city and with Farstad

and both of those groups were doing

transloading on the intermodal site.

When we were able to come to an

agreement with RMG to provide in-

termodal service out there. One of

the requirements that BNSF gave us

was that there would be no

transloading on the site. And as it’s

come to pass all three tracks get ful-

ly used. When there are intermodal

trains out there. We’ve continued to

support the mine on Air Force Base.

We’ve done the virtual symposium

completely and in 2019 or 2020,

We’ve done a virtual and a live sym-

posium back in DC we’ve responded

RFPs from the state. We have there

has been a response sent to Col-

liers, which is a site selector com-

pany. And that’s a follow up after

one of Mark’s meetings that Mark

Lyman’s meetings that he attended

in Chicago. Two companies have

asked for secondary information.

And Mark has found some com-

panies just to try to make cold calls

with so We’ve been active in that

arena. We’ve had two prospective

clients over the last six months. And

I think I mentioned this before in

front of counsel, Eric Orion, who was

a site selector, reached out to us for

first information on our Industrial

Park, in areas close to the airport.

She eventually settled on and we

put her in touch with the landowner,

where you have approved a plat for

the new FedEx Ground service.

We’ve got a list of trade shows and

conferences that we’ve attended.

We are very close to completing 30.

surveys which will comply with the

contract. We’ve got a new project

we’ve started, startup might not

which will be starting in the first

quarter. That’s an entrepreneurial,

it’s a startup might not Academy,

and startup networking events. The

first, the first event is on January 13.

We’ve all talked about and celebrat-

ed the success with CTE. Our role in

that was to bring the application of

the map to the magic fund, provide

the supporting information. And then

there is also work done by our attor-

ney in preparing all of the docu-

ments in conjunction with the city at-

torney Kelly, maybe not in conjunc-

tion, but preparing them and then

city staff responds and we make the

corrections. We’ve not completed a

fam tour. In talking with the when

Mark was down in Chicago, there

were any number of site selectors

there. And in talking with them, they

really had not restarted. And we’re

revisiting how and if they do fam

tours now. We’re going to do our

best to get one of those done this

next year. And then Lois is up and

running. And we keep adding pro-

perties. And we’ve started adding

commercial properties. As the as the

city manager and I have had ques-

tions. So, kind of in a nutshell,

you’ve got at least a preemptive look

at it. But you’re going to hear from

me a little bit more formally. And

you’ll have a full report next month.

As I said, probably the second meet-

ing in January.

Alderwomen Evens- I appreciate

that. One more question is I see one

of the objectives that’s carried over,

and that I think is even more impor-

tant with the announcement of your

impending retirement is the strategic

plan. And getting that you know, be-

cause that’s so essential to any or-

ganization to have that in place, re-

gardless of staff transitions and stuff.

So, tell me more about where the

board is with that. And can we ex-

pect that to be done before you ride

right off on your retirement?

John MacMartin- I would hope that

we will have a fair amount of the

work done. I’m not sure it will be

completed and adopted Alderman

Evans. The strategic plan was car-

ried over simply because in the 2021

contract, it was listed as for a com-

pletion date, excuse me in 2022. So,

we’re just continuing that effort and

would hope that we’ll have some

further action on it, at least in terms

of securing a consultant and begin-

ning to do some work towards that in

the first quarter.

Alderman Pitner- Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, John, for showing up

and answering the questions. In the

future. Do you feel it’ll always be a

January a delay between the agree-

ment being approved in December

and then the report coming in Janu-

ary?

John MacMartin-Alderman Pitner I

believe on our part that’s I think

that’s the most pertinent. But I be-

lieve that that’s the most prudent be-

cause I think we lose some valuable

information is coming in and the

conclusion at the end of the year.

The reason for the contract being

here is the city’s contribution. We

need the contract to have the city’s

contribution continued to support us.

Okay. That’s the reason we’re here.

Alderman Pitner-I have no problem

with that. And I completely under-

stand that the timing issues I would

like to as a council member and for

council members in the future to

have be able to maybe get a report a

little closer to the approval, maybe a

month before a week before I under-

stand you’ll lose information. But to

give an update closer to the appro-

val because I feel like my hands are

a little bit tied with not having maybe

a report prior to approving the agree-

ment. Again, you’ve done a good job

tonight have given us the highlights

of what you guys have been up to

and I have no problem approving it

tonight. But again, if we could get

maybe a report the meeting before

with what you have in December,

and when the second main meeting

in December, we approved the

agreement, I would feel that would

be helpful for myself. And I feel other

council members in the future.

John MacMartin – Mayor, Alderman

Pitner I think we could, I believe we

should be able to do that. And we

would do that in regards to having a

preliminary report like I just did. And

then the final written report, the fol-

lowing month,

Alderman Pitner- And just to clarify,

it doesn’t even have to be something

in person, even if there’s something

emailed out to council for us to re-

view on an agenda, I think would be

completely suffice. But just so that

we have something tangible to re-

view, prior to the agreement, I think

would be helpful for myself.

John MacMartin-So just to just to

clarify, you said something in terms

of an email even highlighting the

points.

Alderwomen Evans-So even like,

John, what you just presented to us,

like putting that in an email, just like,

these are the sort of the highlights. I

just want to let you know, when we

were here last year, you know, we

really, I think, pushed hard on, you

know, increasing, and we have been

with all of the recipients of I think

taxpayer money on accountability

and metrics and stuff. And I really

commend you and your board for

moving the needle and getting

closer to, you know, having some

really great objectives and meeting

those objectives. And I look forward

to continuing to see that even ma-

ture more, but I really appreciate

how far in a short period of time that

you’ll have come and considering

COVID and the merger and every-

thing that’s been going on. It’s been

great to see. So, thank you.

John MacMartin- Thank you very

much, Alderman Evans. I would I

would comment that I think at one of

the conversations you and I had a

year ago, you indicated to me, Well,

you must be doing more things than

what you’ve just talked about. And I

have to tell you, it was one of those

aha moments or the light going on

over my head going. Yeah, we do a

lot. We just don’t talk about it, be-

cause that’s not what we’re used to

doing. So, I appreciate your prod-

ding, because, yes. And what you’ve

been asking for, I think the council

needs to ask for it. Alderwomen Ol-

son moved the City Council approve

of the 2022 Service Agreement with-

MACEDC Motion Second by Alder-

man Jantzer and Carried the follow-

ing roll call vote: ayes: Evans,

Jantzer, Olson, Pitner, Podrygula,

Ross, Sipma; nays: none.

8.2 Approval of Job Description for

Landfill Attendant/Light Equipment

Operator

Alderman Pitner moved the City

Council approve the job description

for the landfill attendant/ light equip-

ment operator. Second by Alderman

Ross and Carried the following roll

call vote: ayes: Evans, Jantzer, Ol-

son, Pitner, Podrygula, Ross, Sip-

ma; nays: none.

8.3 P3529.5 MI-6 Anne Street

Bridge Options

Dan Jonasson-Good evening, Mr.

Mayor members, the council. With

me tonight is Jerry Bents with Hous-

ton engineering. Their firm is in

charge of the design of MI.6, which

is part of the industry bridge that

we’re talking about now. Jerry has a

brief presentation, similar to what he

gave to the Souris joint board and

some background information on

what we’ve looked at for the Anne

Street Bridge. So, I’ll let him give

that and after we’re done. If you

have any questions, we will be hap-

py to answer them for you.

Jerry Bents- Thank you for the op-

portunity to present tonight on behalf

of the Souris joint board. So we’ll

start off the presentation with just a

copy of the letter that was provided

to the council from the joint board, I

really highlighted the portion of it

that was provided by the joint board

that’s really action being requested

by the Souris River Joint Board,

which is a decision on the long term

expectations for the entry bridge

from the city side. Ultimately, within

the flood control project, we would

we would bring into account and the

project either way, if the desire is to

keep it long term, we would recon-

struct the South in if there isn’t a

commitment to keep it long term,

then the cheaper option is what I will

show you so I’ll walk you through a

little bit of how we got there. The first

image that’s shown here is actually

the preliminary concept for the area

downtown. From the preliminary

engineer’s report completed by the

Souris Joint Board back in 2012.

Near the middle of the screen, I’m

not sure if I can point or not. No, it

looks like it. near the middle of the

screen is the downtown area. As

part of the preliminary engineer’s re-

port through that area, there was an

intention to have South Side

floodwalls through the entire road-

way, and ultimately tied into a levee

system that was proposed on the

south side of the maple diversion.

That was real early level planning

done shortly after the 2011 flood.

Following that preliminary design

and based on additional review of

what happened in the 2011 flood, in-

cluding the image here you can see

that the area near Broadway and to

the west as we get over towards the

library, really some kind of limited

impact structures in that area. And

so, what was what’s been done

since that time is some updates to

the protection and I’ll show you that

on the slide here. So, through the

that downtown area, that current

concept that was put together

through the preliminary engineering

prior to May of this year, really shor-

ten the protection through down-

town. So instead of having complete

south side protection all the way to

the maple diversion. Instead, we

would have south side protection on

the south side of the tracks shown in

the green there as levees with the

red being floodwalls over to about

the location of the historic depot

downtown, at which point the protec-

tion would come up the hillside to

the south and really tie into high

ground at that location. within that

area, obviously, you know impacts

the Anne Street Bridge happened

within that area. This was the prelim-

inary concept from back in May. Fol-

lowing that preliminary concept, fair

amount of field work was done,

things like survey of the sites, cultur-

al reviews, environmental assess-

ments, right away needs were deter-

mined in the downtown area. And ul-

timately, a couple of variations that

original plan came out of that addi-

tional review. And I’ll show you

those, those three. The three that

were on the table prior to the joint

boards last decision we call options

three b one three b two and three B

three. Not a tremendous amount of

difference between the two I’ll walk

you through one and then I think

you’ll be able to see the slight varia-

tions as we go to the to the last too.

So, within this area that we call

phase MI six, as I said on the left

side of the screen protection would

start near the location of the historic

depot. At that point, it would be a

levee system parallel to the existing

railroad tracks on the south side,

that levee system would, would

come up to the point of the existing

Third Street Viaduct, at which point

protection would go under the Third

Street bridge there, through means

of a concrete flood wall very similar

to what’s on the north side of the

river in that area currently, from

there, a levee system would start

from the east side of the Third Street

Bridge, B Alevi down to the location,

just to the west of Seventh Street

Northeast, at which point we would

switch back to a flood wall just due

to limited setbacks between the pro-

perty and the river at that location,

the flood wall that didn’t continue off

to the east and just shy of the pool in

the Roosevelt Park area. Why do we

stop there really, the only reason we

stopped there is because phase

MI-7 picks up from there and will ac-

tually carry protection down to the to

the Burdick and through the zoo

area? So, MI six is this reached

downtown, under the option that we

call three b one with just being a

levee system through that area,

under the three b one option, we

didn’t include any reconstruction of

the South Side portion of the and

Street Bridge, and instead under the

three b one option, the assumption

was the bridge would be removed as

part of this project. Because we do

impact the south half so the bridge

would be fully removed under this,

this option of three verses one. The

next variation of that and maybe I’ll

just flip back and forth a couple of

times you don’t see a whole lot of

change except for right in the area of

the Anne Street Bridge. So the

second that really is the only real ad-

justment that happens here between

three v one and three verses two,

under three verses two, instead of

fully removing the bridge, what we

propose to do is from the location

where there’s currently a metal truss

that crosses over the main lines of

BNSF railroad, we would leave that

metal truss in place, the metal

trusses structurally sound per the re-

view that that the prior consultant did

in the area. But from the south end

of that metal truss, we would essen-

tially build a new bridge starting at

that point, the new bridge would

cross over the flood protection levee,

it would cross over the relocated

roadway in that area. And then when

we get to the south side of that relo-

cated roadway, we would build a

new ramp and stair system at that

location to provide access down for

the community to the south. So that

option three B three option isn’t a

whole lot different, same general

concept. So, the concept would be

reconstruction of the bridge starting

at the south end of the metal truss

come over the flood protection

levee. But then at that point, do a

combination of a new ramp system

and stairway system to bring the

public down to the to the elevation of

the downtown area, the realigned

roadway at that location then would

stay to the south side. So, there

would just be at grade crossings

there for pedestrians to cross over

the street, hit the ramp system come

up and under the bridge at that loca-

tion. So those were the three options

that were considered as part of

those options. And due to the in-

volvement that the Corps of En-

gineers has with permit authority

under Section 408. We held two dif-

ferent consultation calls with the

Corps of Engineers and Shippo real-

ly having to do specifically with the

Anne Street Bridge to get an under-

standing of if one option was chosen

over another option, what type of mi-

tigation requirements would be

there, and also maybe ultimately,

you know, where the options per-

missible or feasible through their two

organizations. So, the results of that

were that from the position of the

State Historical Preservation Office,

the Anne Street Bridge is a contri-

buting property to the historic dis-

trict. It’s however, it’s its connection

to the historic district isn’t really ar-

chitectural in nature. It’s really con-

nectivity in nature. So, as they ex-

plained that, and I’m not an ar-

chaeologist, or historic historian, but

as they explained it, really the signi-

ficance of that location is that, that

it’s provided access from the north

side of the community, the south

side of the community for a long

time. And since it’s been modified a

number of times over the years, it

doesn’t have the arc textual

relevance that that it takes to be on

the register strictly for that purpose.

So, a few of the pictures on the bot-

tom were just intended to illustrate a

little bit about how the structure has

changed over time and certainly

some interesting Here’s where you

can see it was fully enclosed that

one point in history through that

area. Out of those discussions, real-

ly what we took away were really

three things. Number one was that if

we chose the option or if the joint

board, in in cooperation with the city

chose the option of going with three

v one removal of the bridge, that

would be allowed. However, in order

if that was the chosen option, docu-

mentation of his historic purpose

and past usage would have to be put

together. And there was discussion

about maybe that would involve oral

interviews, other things like that. But

ultimately, there would be a docu-

ment that could be passed on to fu-

ture generations. If option three, b

two or three B three was chosen,

since it would continue to provide

access to the downtown area, and

only be only be temporarily disrupt-

ed, no mitigation from historic nature

would be required. And then the

third thing we took away was the

Corps of Engineers Did, did lay out

their recommendation to us. And

their recommendation was really just

in order to avoid or to minimize any

impacts to the historic structure,

their recommendation or preference

would be that the joint board pursue

options that wouldn’t remove the

bridge, they said they wouldn’t stand

in the way of it happening, but they

did want to make their resume or

their recommendation known. Other

pieces of the puzzle that we thought

should be considered before the

joint board made their decision was,

you know, existing rights for the

bridge to be there. So currently, and

for many years, there has been an

agreement in place between the city

of mine not and BNSF, rail, railway

to have the bridge at that location.

That agreement has a number of dif-

ferent provisions in there, we’ve

highlighted two that we thought were

relevant. The first one that was

highlighted there, essentially says

that the bridge can be there. But if

it’s ever raised, relocated, modified

in the future, the agreement for it to

be there becomes null and void at

that time. So, I would assume the

railroad was trying to, you know,

really preserve their future opera-

tions on the site. So, the second pro-

vision that was that we felt was

relevant was provision 11. there that

just essentially says that if at any

time it ceases to be used for its

current purpose, that the easement

becomes null and void under that

option, too. So, I think our takeaway

from that is, if we were to go in and

do either the modifications under

three b two or three, B three, we

would likely have to enter into a new

license agreement with BNSF Rail-

way. Again, not a terrible not an im-

possible thing to do. But we would

have to go through a new negotia-

tion on that. Other pieces that we

looked at, or another piece we

looked at was just current condition

of the bridge, obviously, the bridge is

closed, been closed for some time

here. So, we pulled in just a few ex-

cerpts from the original structural

evaluation that was completed by

AAPC. At that time, a couple of dif-

ferent options were laid out for

reconstruction needs in the bridge,

ranging from 1.2 to 1.6 million. What

we wanted to point out to the joint

board and ultimately to the council

here tonight is that under Options,

three, b two or three Verses three,

the reconstruction that flood control

project would do would start on the

south end of the metal truss, recon-

struct everything to the south. So,

any structural deficiencies north of

the metal truss would remain there.

And obviously, you know, if only the

south side was reconstructed, the

bridge would likely need to remain

closed because of those structural

deficiencies. But somebody else

would be responsible other than the

joint board for the for correction of

the deficiencies to the north. We

then tried to look at really the por-

tions of the project directly associat-

ed with the bridge and how costs

would compare between the options.

So, we tried to really just focus on in

on those that were comparable. So,

under the three verses one option

where we would remove the bridge,

you know, the costs associated with

removing the bridges, obviously, the

demolition costs of the bridge itself

along with that historic documenta-

tion. We’re estimating that to be

somewhere in the neighborhood of

$210,000. To do those two items,

comparatively, if we were to switch

to either the two options that would

result in reconstruction of the bridge,

basically south of the metal truss,

depending on which of the two op-

tions were chosen, they’re some-

where in the neighborhood of 1.4 to

$1.6 million dollars for those other

things that we just highlight there in

green. You know, like I said, at least

expensive option three V one, really

less per BNSF permitting because

we would be so simply removing the

bridge, under the three B, one option

we can really keep our roadway

reconstructed roadway close to the

flood protection. So, it does limit

some of the private property impacts

to the south. It also requires less re-

location of utilities and roadways

there. So, some savings and costs

there. But certainly, the downside is

the historic piece and impacts to the

community. So that being said. So

out of that, as, as the mayor alluded

to the joint board at their December

meeting did select option three b

one as their preferred option. There,

their lens is different than yours,

their lens is strictly looking at dollars

and cents associated with flood con-

trol projects. So that was, you know,

the basis for their recommendation

there. And then they provided the

letter to council. So, with that, I

guess decision or path forward

again, just kind of highlighting where

we were at in the in the first two op-

tions, hoping to get some considera-

tion from the council here tonight on

preference, because we really, really

need to choose which of those direc-

tions we’re going to go so we can

continue with the design of MI six,

so I’ll stop and answer any ques-

tions.

Alderwomen Olson- Thank you for

the presentation. It was very infor-

mative. We’ve had a lot of informa-

tion over the years. And I think that

this has been because I’m most en-

capsulating. So, I appreciate that we

have been approached by a group of

individuals from downtown Minot

asking for an opportunity to present

some options to us. If we delayed a

decision this evening, for two weeks,

what would it do in your plans?

Jerry Bents- Alderwoman Olson

Mayor, so up to two weeks, I think

would be would really not be a prob-

lem from our end. As you can see

there. You know, we’re really tar-

geting being at 100%. Design early

in 2013. So, a couple of weeks of

float. I don’t think it’s a problem at

all.

Alderman Pitner- Thank you, Mayor.

Mr. Bents, was it the core that said

they were they against removing the

bridge? I missed that.

Jerry Bents- Alderman Pitner Mayor,

so I’ll just go back to that. So, the

Corps of Engineers, as part of their

decision on the project, they’re ulti-

mately the ones that that make the

decision on allowing it or not allow-

ing it within the way that they

operate, they certainly try to choose

the least impactful option. So, the

least impactful option would be to

reconstruct the south end have the

bridge there for the long term. So,

for that reason, that is their recom-

mendation but not requirement and

they were clear on that.

Alderman Jantzer-Mr. Bentz. So, if

the bridge in not being used. And

looking at the terms of the agree-

ment with the railroad. In your opin-

ion, what are the odds of, of them

feeling like this, if It’s not being used.

Are we in a situation where no

matter what we end up renegotiating

the grant of the easement there.

Jerry Bents- Alderman Jantzer and

Mayor I don’t know that I’m in a posi-

tion to really answer that. Definitely

the agreement. If you read it word

for word, it’s it says that, should it

cease to be used that the agreement

really goes Null and Void. I guess I

don’t have a good answer on how

long can it seems to be used. But

the agreement be available to the to

the council if you’d like to see a full

copy of it. Thank you.

Mayor Sipma- Mr. Bentz. One ques-

tion. And if you’re not the right per-

son to ask by all means, just let us

know, going through and renego-

tiating with BNSF, or either of the

railroads has been somewhat of a

lengthy process. Is there any indica-

tion from the railroad? Because I’m

sure they’re well aware of the dis-

cussion? Would that be impactful to

the timeframe if they’re negotiations

ran into the typical timelines that

they run?

Jerry Bents- Mayor I definitely would

just say that negotiations with BNSF

or either of the railroads for that

matter, certainly take time. We’ve

not had any direct discussions with

them. Regarding the what happens

with the Anne Street Bridge, we’ve

been having discussions regarding

right away needs for the flood con-

trol project, but we haven’t had

specific discussions about this

Alderwomen Olson- Thank you.

There’s been talk in the community

when we have had the Anne Street

Bridge on our agenda. And one

thought that has been put out there

is that maybe a portion of the bridge

could be saved and relocated more

as just for historical purposes,

whether it’s in a park or something

that people could just enjoy it for its

historical significance in the price

that you are kind of giving us here to

deconstruct it, would that be an op-

tion? Or would it be just in ruins and

not be able to be involved?

Jerry Bents- Sure. Alderwoman Ol-

son, Mayor I would say it certainly

could be I guess the only thing that I

would maybe point to was during the

discussions with Shippo. That was

one of the items that came up was

how about if we were to demolish

the bridge, but we preserve for ex-

ample, the metal truss there to use it

somewhere else in the community?

Could we use that to offset some of

the mitigation needs associated with

removal of the bridge? And the

answer was no. And the reason the

answer was no was it really goes

back to what’s the historic value of

the bridge. And in the eyes of at

least the State Historical Preserva-

tion Office, the historic value is

maintaining the pathway from down-

town to North might not it isn’t really

architectural in nature. However,

certainly the metal truss per the re-

view that UPC did was found to be

structurally sound. So, lifting the me-

tal truss off of there to relocate it

somewhere else to the community. I

feel like that’s a viable option. Thank

you.

Mayor Sipma- Any other questions

at this time? Thank you, Mr. Bents.

And just for counselors for the pub-

lic’s understanding as well. I did per-

sonally reach out to BNSF for that

specific request to see if Burlington

Northern would have any buy in, if in

fact that the bridge was to be re-

moved? And would BNSF one a

cost share in helping remove a por-

tion to save it. Their answer was no.

Their answer was also no in specifi-

cally asking because person does

have to ask on whether BNSF would

like to cost share in rehabilitating,

that that walkway from Northeast

might not into downtown Minot.

Their answer again was no. So, the

question has been asked and it was

asked to the right people. And they

did decline.

City Manager- kind of following up

on that, in addition, if Council can re-

call, in the special session this year

with when they reconvened looking

at distributing state funds and ARPA

funding from the federal govern-

ment. This was one of the projects

that we requested to be considered

for funding as well and was not fund-

ed by the state.

Mayor Sipma-Thank you, Mr. City

Manager, I believe we’d asked for 2

million if I remember correctly, to the

state legislature. That was the

house. helped me out here, Mr. City

Manager, we testified in front of the

House Appropriations Committee for

that, which then went to the to the

full consideration and that was not

funded.

Mayor Sipma- We do not have a

motion would look to the Council for

direction on this item 8.3.

Alderwomen Olson- Mr. Mayor, Ald-

erwoman Olsen prior to a motion? Is

there anyone from downtown Minot

that would like to discuss this, this

evening? Is there anything they

would like to present to us?

Mayor Sipma- we can certainly take

a motion and then take comment.

We are opened up for comment

here as it has information or certain

conversation in the past. So if any-

body does want to come forward, I

would just ask that you state your

name your city of residence and try

to keep the comments five minutes

or less.

Josh Wolsky- Mayor Thank you for

the time Alderman Olson, I am Josh

Wolsky on behalf of the downtown

business professional association,

we reached out to each of you over

the course of the day simply re-

questing two weeks to be able to

digest what we learned here tonight,

and offer some perspectives to each

of you on the larger vision and the

impact downtown that this is going

to have. So, if there were a motion

to postpone, we would be very sup-

portive of that and would like to see

this community conversation take

place for just a little longer before ul-

timately the decision takes place.

Thank you.

Alderwomen Olson- Thank you.

With that, Mr. Mayor, I would move

that we postpone this until our next

regularly scheduled meeting.

Mayor Sipma- motion to postpone

until our next regular scheduled

meeting which is January 3

2022.motion to postpone then until

our next regular scheduled meeting

on January 3 of 2022. Is there a

second thing second by Alderman

Pitner? And motion to postpone. I

believe you do have some com-

ments on versus tabling. So, is there

any comments?

Alderman Pitner- I think I can say

what I’m about to say I’m supportive

of the motion postpone. This is a big

decision for our community, this is

going to remove a landmark. And

that will never come back whether

through agreement to the railroad or

anything. So again, any information

anyone’s willing to provide whether it

be downtown or any other com-

munity members, I’m all ears in the

next until our next scheduled meet-

ing to digest any information. People

want to provide.

Alderman Ross- Thank you, Mr.

Mayor. I spoke with Mr. Wolski and

Mr. Straight this morning on the

phone and told them that I would be

in support of postponing this for two

weeks. And I’m still going to support

and I know you guys have intentions

of putting together something for us

to view and I can tell you that. I put it

on your shoulders. It’s big. It’s a big

job. Big because right now, I’ll sup-

port to postpone it for two weeks.

But I really need to see something

significant for me to support keeping

this and funding it at a level that

we’re going to need to fund it that

thank you.

Alderwomen Olson asked to post-

pone the P3529.5 MI-6 Anne Street

Bridge Options until the January 3,

2022 meeting. Second by Alderman

Pitner and Carried the following roll

call vote: ayes: Evans, Jantzer, Ol-

son, Pitner, Podrygula, Ross, Sip-

ma; nays: none.

8.4 City Hall Rehabilitation Award

Bid (4466)

Alderwomen Olson moved the City

Council approve of the City Hall

rehabilitation award bid Motion

Second by Alderman Pitner and

Carried the following roll call vote:

ayes: Evans, Jantzer, Olson, Pitner,

Podrygula, Ross, Sipma; nays:

none.

Alderman Podrygula-Yes. I had

some questions for the city en-

gineer. We had a productive discus-

sion this morning. And there were

several issues that he had to

research further. So, I wanted to ask

Lance up and to talk about that.

Lance Meyer-Good evening. Mr.

Mayor, before Alderman Podrygula

begins, I did miss one thing and my

recommendation that is to authorize

you to sign the contract. So, if this

does go tonight, if the council

wouldn’t mind adding that to recom-

mendation number one for me,

Alderman Podrygula-Yes, I appre-

ciate it the breakdown, I feel not so

good that we weren’t able to get

more of the alternatives. But my par-

ticular concern had to do with the

item number six, the HVAC air purifi-

cation system from seven through

12. Based on our discussion this

morning, it sounds like we can defer

those and or possibly look for other

sources of funding for some of the

smaller items. I understand from our

first discussion this morning that we

probably should take these alterna-

tives in sequential order. And we

really pretty much have to go down

the list. The problem I’m facing is

that I’m very, very, very concerned

about number six, which is only

$27,000. But before we can get to

number six, we have to deal with

this flexible opening nanowall to the

tune of 118,000. So, if you could

clarify a little bit more, you said

you’d be consulting with one of your

colleagues in the air filtration busi-

ness, clarify a little bit more about

number six the air purification sys-

tem. And also, if we could, because

of the COVID emergencies and likel-

ihood of further problems with air-

borne particles and viruses and bac-

teria. If we could jump number six

ahead a little bit.

Lance Meyer- Mr. Mayor and Alder-

man Podrygula. What alternative six

is an air purification system that

essentially cuts a hole into the duct-

work near the heat exchangers. And

inserts an LED light that produces

ultraviolet light that helps eliminate

bacteria in things in the air. The sys-

tem will currently have your typical

air filtration systems that are in

better in every building and are very

suitable for the occupants of City

Hall. This system is essentially an

upgrade that would help protect

Central Dispatch, it would benefit the

entire building, but specifically it’s in

there for Central Dispatch. Obvious-

ly, keeping that facility safe in the

event of some issue like we’re going

through right now is paramount. So

that’s why that was included as an

alternate. The way that we have to

award this bid, according to the

Federal Rules is if you’re going to

have alternates you have to take a

base bid. And then you have to tell

the bidders exactly how you’re going

to select the alternate so that the

bidding is fair. So, you can’t pick al-

ternates 123 And five, so that you

can get the bidder that you want.

And so, in this case, what we did is

we said that will award the bid as the

base bid plus the alternates in

sequential order. So, you start at

1234 and on down the road. And so,

if you wanted to stop at alternate

three, you could do that. If you want-

ed to take no alternates, you could

do that. If you wanted to take alter-

nate nine, you’d have to take all al-

ternates, one through nine, you

couldn’t skip the ones in the middle

to get to what you want.

Alderman Podrygula-Following up

on that, you recommended I believe

Rolac as the low bidder. That’s

correct. Would that change would

their position change if we for some

reason decided to go with alternative

six?

Lance Meyer- It would not there the

base bid difference between Rolac

and the next bidder is fairly substan-

tial. And so, no matter which alter-

nates are selected, that that would

not happen. So as a as an option,

what the city is allowed to do and we

verify this today, if we were the con-

tract to Rolac based on whatever

options the council feels are ap-

propriate at this time. In the future,

we can add the air fuel filtration sys-

tem by change order going through

the appropriate process, if Council

deems that to be warranted. So, as-

suming that we award the contract

tonight at a later date, we could

come back to city council with a pro-

posed change order price that Coun-

cil could order not a word. And we

can include that work if council so

desires.

Alderman Podrygula- At what point

would this change order come dur-

ing the construction of the building

or after we’re finished?

Lance Meyer- We would like it to

come during construction and prob-

ably pretty early on so that if there

are equipment items that had to be

ordered that we could do that in

short order, we can do this work

after the project is completed.

Essentially, what you’re doing is you

remove some ceiling tiles, it access

the air ducts, and the electrical wires

and everything will be there for this

equipment, it would have to be in-

stalled. And some are easy to get to

have been told and some are a little

bit more difficult. So the work would

likely cost more in the future if we

wanted to do that. But the option

would also exist to do this at a later

date.

Alderman Podrygula- So it would it

be safe to say that we could go

ahead with alternatives one through

four. And it would make it easier and

safer in terms of bidding rules and

things like that to very fairly quickly

afterwards. institute that change ord-

er we might end up with paying

27,000 might end up paying prob-

ably a little bit more but that would

kind of keep us out of trouble and

make sure all the bidders are satis-

fied and happy and the federal

government says satisfied.

Lance Meyer- Mr. Mayor and Alder-

man Podrygula in particular, if we

want to award a contract tonight,

then we have to follow the procure-

ment rules that we said that we were

going to follow so we would have to

select in that numerical order. So, if

you wanted to award alternate six

tonight, you’d have to take alternate

five well, okay, if you didn’t want to

do that, then we could award or

change order in excuse me alternate

six at a later time.

Alderman Podrygula- Would we

have to mess with the motion to do

that have to be made tonight? Or

could we defer that until a bit later in

the process?

Lance Meyer- I think we should

defer that till later on in the process

Alderman Podrygula- You’ve ex-

plained that they could be done

later. It’s no big deal. It’s function-

able. It’s serviceable. And change

orders are inevitable. But for me,

heightened air purification is prob-

ably close to a deal breaker, I really,

really need to see that for the people

working in City Hall for the people

coming to use the facilities, and

especially for the safety and security

of Central Dispatch, and so was mo-

ments away from being incapacitat-

ed during the ammonia spill. And I

don’t think we should be betting on it

being immune from those kinds of

agents in the future. Thank you.

Lisa Olson- I just simply had a com-

ment. I’m glad that we are at this

point that the bids have been

opened. You know, I think all of us

were probably a little concerned that

the numbers were going to come in

higher than we were hoping and,

and they did. But I think that we

have a reasonable proposal in front

of us. And I just, you know, believe

that it’s something that we need to

continue moving forward with.

Sometimes delaying some of these

decisions only costs us more. And I

think that this is something that is so

important to the city of Minot that we

need to move forward, even with the

cost increases.

Mayor Sipma-For the discussion on

the motion. Just to put maybe an as-

terisk on that as well. We have seen

that in the past word delay decisions

have cost us more for any of the

public that might be watching at

home or might be rewatching. This,

as a reminder, this is a substantial

NDR national disaster resiliency pro-

ject that is substantially funded

through those grant dollars. That is

not just moving City Hall, but also

Central Dispatch into a more secure

location. As City Hall does get to

move into that transition. Any of

those exact numbers then can be

identified not only in some of the at-

tachments, but in the previous meet-

ings where City Hall numbers were

discussed with the funding for the

national disaster resiliency grant.

City Manager-If I may, Mr. Mayor,

hopefully to preempt any potential

concerns on the part of the public.

So, this $2 million amendment is

proposed by staff to be paid for out

of the general fund reserves, which

means the taxpayers have already

paid for this. So, there is no intention

of city staff at any point in the future

bringing forward a recommendation

that would result in any tax in-

creases to fund this difference for

this project. I do just want to make

that clear on behalf of the council

and the public and the staff, that

there is no intention of raising taxes

to pay this.

8.5 Recycling Transfer Station-

Award Bid (4580)

Alderman Pitner moved the City

Council approve the recycling

Transfer Station – Awarded Bid-.

Second by Alderwomen Evans and

Carried the following roll call vote:

ayes: Evans, Jantzer, Olson, Pitner,

Podrygula, Ross, Sipma; nays:

none.

Jason Sorenson-Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, not really details on this.

Since you guys did recommend ap-

proving, I just thought I would bring

you up to date. I’ve recently had

some conversations with a company

called closed loop partners. They’re

a large venture capital firm that pro-

vide grants and funding and different

things to the circular economy as a

as a refer to it and research recy-

cling as part of that. back a couple

years ago, when we did a feasibility

study, we, you know, looked at

whether this, you know, what we’re

currently looking at is collecting,

compacting and hauling to Min-

neapolis. And you know, that, that

hauling cost was always a big

number and always, you know, gave

a lot of people hard heartburn and

understandable because we’re,

we’re trying to be environmentally

conscious, but then we’re just burn-

ing fuel up and down the road doing

this. But, you know, it has been, you

know, analyzed by the EPA, and

there are still those environmental

savings. But if we could collect and

sort locally, that was one of the

things that was looked at in the

feasibility study. But back then, like

the upfront costs for a sorting facility

about like 10 to $15 million of capital

costs were so large, and then those

facilities aren’t really scalable for

what we were looking at. And in the

last couple years, what I found out is

that’s changed. There are some

smaller modular plants that can be

built. And really, they would fit in the

existing footprint that is on the table

for approval tonight. So, I just want-

ed to let you know that that discus-

sion has happened, we are, what I’ll

probably do is if we decide to award

the contract to Rolac, will probably

ask them just to hold off on ordering

a couple pieces of equipment that

would go in that building, those

would be the only two things would

be affected if we decide to go a dif-

ferent direction. And then I want to

sit down with these people and look

at the dollars and cents, do another

cost analysis and then probably

bring that to you guys, probably

within the next month or so and just

show you and see if it’s something

that council would be interested in

doing or not. Just an update.

Alderman Pitner- I think your

suggestion by improving this is it just

come down to swapping out equip-

ment or having different equipment

within the facility to have a sir serve

as a sorting facility as well.

Jason Sorenson- Mayor, Alderman

Pitner. Yes, that’s basically what in

the four point roughly $2 million.

There’s an allowance in there for a

compactor and a conveyor. So, we

would basically just take those out,

and then whatever this other piece

of equipment is would replace that.

Alderman Jantzer- if a large-scale

facility is 10 or $15 million, how

much is the mini version? or I mean,

is it 2 million or is it 6 million? Or you

know I guess we don’t know quite

what we’re getting into then.

Jason Sorenson- Mayor, Alderman

Jantzer. It all depends on how much

automation you put into it. I think

there’s pricing less than 500,000 up

to a million, a million and a half. So,

they’re much smaller and much less

expensive then then those older sys-

tems.

Alderman Jantzer-So if we did that,

then what do we do with the materi-

al? I mean, we still have to haul it

somewhere, right?

Jason Sorenson- Mayor, Alderman

Jantzer ultimate answer no. So now

when you would be dealing with, you

know, paper mills, plastic com-

panies, they come up here and get

it. So basically, we would get a price

from them to buy our material from

us. And that would be net minus

their transport costs. So, we get out

of the hauling business.

Alderwomen Evans- to be clear,

right, we’re not making that decision

to No, we’re not you just wanted to

apprise us of a conversation that’s

happening, you know, that we then,

the skeleton or the building of the

transfer facility has to proceed re-

gardless of you know, what pieces

of machinery are in there. It’s not be-

ing built next month, you know, like

so in any additional changes would

come back to us. If we were going to

swap out the insides of it.

Jason Sorenson- Mayor Alderwom-

an, Evans, that that’s correct. It’s,

basically just the facility as its

planned, and as its presented

tonight, would remain the same. And

it would just be a swap over equip-

ment. And then, you know, looking

at that funding, like Alderman

Jantzer mentioned, if it’s more than

the two pieces of equipment that we

eliminate, do we want to put more

into this? And just look at those the

cost and the benefits.

Mark Jantzer- There was one other

thing I was interested in, in clarifica-

tion on. And that was, it seems to

me that there was a intention to

change the floor surface or some-

thing in and by change order, if I be-

lieve I read that correctly. Can you

explain that and what the effect

would be Jason?

Jason Sorenson- Mayor’s Sipma

Alderman Jantzer. So, like, I said, in

the last memo, I basically spent the

last month looking at why did this fa-

cility come in, you know, above

budget the way it did, and, and real-

ly, there isn’t anything that stood out

other than one thing that was added

into the project, when we got there

schedule a value, there’s a it’s called

a metal aggregate topping slab. So,

it’s a high strength concrete that has

pieces of metal in it that’s abrasion

resistant, very durable to like having

loaders and, and things scraping

and pushing on it, that that single

line item was to the in the neighbor-

hood of about $340,000. I believe

that I don’t know exactly what the

savings would be. We’ll look at that.

It’s probably in the neighborhood of

a couple $100,000. I think we can

adjust in our operation. We can use

rubber cutting edges and things just

so we’re not beating on that floor

with the equipment than I think we

can I think we can get by without it.

And if you look at this project in con-

junction with the project that we

awarded, last month, the interior

roads in the entrance, we were plan-

ning on about five and a half million

for the two so that one came in well

under and this one has come in

under so in the end, we’re basically

about where we are budgeting these

projects to come in.

Lisa Olson-Thank you. This is some-

what related to this. With approval of

this item tonight. We are saying yes

to recycling if it is approved, if we

you know, vote to approve it. So,

after years of discussion, it all

hinges on this vote. However, I’m in

there’s a lot of support. We get

emails on a weekly basis on people

who are in support of this. We know

that there are some who are not.

And long ago we’d had a discussion

on whether we would have this opt

in available for our citizens for those

that did not choose to recycle. So, I

just want to clarify for anyone that

might ask now, will they still have

that option of either opting in opting

out however it is will they have the

choice when this is fully functional

Jason Sorenson- Mayor Sipma, Ald-

erwoman. Olsen, Yes, we haven’t

really worked out all the details. But

the opt out has always been on the

table. I think that’s probably the

fairest way to go about it so that the

people that don’t want it, you know,

don’t necessarily have to participate.

You know, we looked at opt in

versus opt out. We’ve seen over the

years when we ask questions of the

community, it’s very difficult to get

that input back. So, I think if the opt

in, I think it would be, it’s just hard to

get to everybody and find all those

different ways to inform all the peo-

ple that they need to decide or con-

tact us. So, the opt out, I think we’ll

end up with a higher partition partici-

pation rate at the end. But those that

feel strongly about not wanting to

participate will have that opportunity

to tell us they don’t want to partici-

pate.

Alderman Jantzer- Thank you, Mr.

Mayor. And this isn’t so much a

question for Jason, although maybe

it kind of can be. I think, as Alder-

man Olson points out, this discus-

sion has gone on in the community

for a long time. And it really started

in earnest, I think was the ad hoc

committee that I believe was chaired

by Alderman Schuler at that time.

And the thought process was set in

motion to go to automated pickup,

and then ultimately beyond that to a

recycling component that that would

be that would be added. And, and I

think it’s important to note that this is

a service, as we’re a city involved in

providing city services. This is a ser-

vice that many people in the com-

munity feel is needed, that they that

they desire. There, the there is also

component in the community who

don’t care, don’t think it’s necessary,

don’t want to be involved. And I

guess I respect I respect both of

those positions. But I think in order

for us to make an impact with recy-

cling, it has to be on a scale that

works. And what we’ve seen from

the studies and what we’ve seen

from the information that Jason has

given us, is that to scale it so that

we’re able to do this in a sufficient

enough way to make an impact.

That that has to be a little a little bit

automated and a little bit easy for

the citizens. And so, you will

remember that we did a statistically

valid survey that indicated that we

would have sufficient participation.

And that is what has essentially

brought us to this vote tonight. And I

agree with Alderman Olson, that it’s

kind of you know, it’s not the chicken

and the egg, we’re in the we’re in the

pork stage here where we’re, we’re

fully we’re fully committing. So, I

wanted to say those things, because

I think the other component here is

that this residential recycling pro-

gram should really be looked at as

step one, or a initial step along the

path to affecting more of the things

that are going into the landfill. And

that down the road, I would hope

that we are looking at what happens

with the commercial refuse or recycl-

ables as well as the other places in

the city that aren’t part of our 10,000

households that will be participating

in this in this process. So, I look to

the future for that and I hope that we

are able to expand on this residen-

tial program as we go forward.

Thank you.

8.6 Approve Amendment to sub- re-

cipient agreement with Dakota Col-

lege at Bottineau for Center for

Technical Education

Alderwomen Olson moved the City

Council approve Amendment to sub-

recipient agreement with Dakota

College at Bottineau for Center for

Technical Education Second by Ald-

erman Jantzer and Carried the fol-

lowing roll call vote: ayes: Evans,

Jantzer, Olson, Pitner, Podrygula,

Ross, Sipma; nays: none.

8.7 Approve Eminent Domain for

2719 29th Ave SW & 2723 12th Ave

SW

Alderwomen Olson moved the City

Council approve Eminent Domain

for 2719 29th Ave SW & 2723 12th

Ave SW Second by Alderman Pitner

and Carried the following roll call

vote: ayes: Evans, Jantzer, Olson,

Pitner, Podrygula, Ross, Sipma;

nays: none.

PERSONAL APPEARENCES

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Shannon

Straight 115 Eighth Avenue SE. I

just wanted to express a thank you

for the earlier discussion regarding

Anne Street Bridge. I thought that

was fruitful. And I did want to just

comment that when I heard Mr.

Bents say is the current M6 design

is at 30%. And five was at 90%,

when the railroad requested some

additional changes. The M6 design,

Mr. Bents stated he wanted to have

approved in 2023. I think it’s impor-

tant to recognize that the answer a

bridge is the responsibility of the

city. And much like the Corps of En-

gineers punished us for the coffer

dams being in place because of

what happened after the flood.

We’re in the situation we’re in right

now, because the bridge has been

there before any of us. So, to come

to a solution in the next couple of

weeks, it’s probably going to take a

little bit more time, the SRJB’s next

meeting is going to happen after the

city council meeting in early Janu-

ary. And I think it would be prudent

to give us an opportunity to put to-

gether a little more of a thoughtful

way that we might be able to

proceed. So, I would just ask that

you keep that in mind, when you

think of scheduling. It’s a pretty big

lift and Christmas is upon us. So, I

think putting together a presentation

that might be able to make the mark

for a project that’s been here since

long before any of us is, is probably

expecting a lot. And we’d probably

like a little more time, I can under-

stand that. We’re going to make that

request be an hour in two weeks, I

can imagine, well, we’ll do our very

best. But I think we’re going to defin-

itely want to get in front of the sRGB

again, and talk about it. And it’s

highly unlikely we’re going to have

anything substantial put together be-

fore you would want to vote on this.

And there’s no reason to make the

determination. I appreciate all the

minerals and asking that question. It

doesn’t have to be determined im-

mediately. And a community solu-

tion of this magnitude I think is going

to take a little creative time. Mr.

Mayor, you and I talked earlier today

about NAWS and funding. If the

design of this is not going to be put

forward in its entirety until 2023,

NAWS is probably going to be built

close to that point. And when we

start talking about where dollars go-

ing to come from, you know where

the Naas dollar is going to go once

the project is completed. So, keep in

mind some of these issues as we

think about how we can fund these

projects. I appreciate the city

manager’s the presentation regard-

ing pedestrian. Clearly, folks want

pedestrian passageways in town, we

want sidewalks, the city of Minot is

also responsible for the Eastwood

Park bridge. It’s historic in nature,

we’re not doing really anything. And

so what’s the end result ultimately

that happens? It gets condemned

and has to get torn down. So, if

we’re going to talk about some of

these projects, I think we also have

to just look at the bigger long-term

picture of how we can solve some of

them because they’re, they’re ele-

ments that are part of the city’s his-

tory. And it’d be really terrible to lose

them. So, I appreciate your time and

consideration as we bought a path-

way forward. So Merry Christmas, y

‘all. Thank you,

MISCELLANEOUS AND DISCUS-

SION ITEMS

No Miscellaneous and Discussion

LIASION REPORT

Alderman Podrygula- Thank you

very much. I’ve been waiting for this

chance for quite a few weeks. I have

three major things to report on. The

first is or for maybe the first is the

ongoing struggles of the ward Coun-

ty Planning Commission. In addition

to dealing with variances and things

like that routine business, we have

been plodding along, trying to get

some clarification of right away re-

quirements. And there is one bit of

interesting news there. The county

commissioners have directed staff to

not enforce an ordinance that we

have a zoning ordinance at the

county level in terms of right away.

And that’s put staff in a very difficult

predicament because you have to

enforce an ordinance, you can’t just

ignore it. So, one of the things that

came out of that meeting was that

the county commissioners, at least

two of them will be proposing some-

thing to come before the county

commission. And it appears they will

be trying to repeal that ordinance or

modify it in terms of what right of

way is required on various roads in

the county. So, they’re going to do

an on the up and up and it’s been

very awkward to watch of them

make ignoring in some ways, the ad-

vice of their attorney, one of the

things I’ve learned in 20 years is,

you know, you really take a big

chance when you ignore the advice

of your attorney on something like

this. So hopefully things will be com-

ing together. And I’ll leave it to Car-

rie to talk further about that. But

there is some improvement there

coming in some sounds like some

significant action emanating from the

commissioners originally from com-

missioners. So, in terms of the that

group, making some progress. The

second group I sit on is the Madden

commission on aging, and their

things are going pretty well. They

adopted a budget Things hiring new

staff to replace people who have left.

Congregate meals are still down

people are again, I think they’re

more concerned about COVID. But

they’re delivering more meals to

people, which is important. So, peo-

ple aren’t clustering together as

much. But they are using those ser-

vices more significantly, which is

good. So, things there seem gen-

erally on control under control. And

in connection with that, I wanted to

single out a staff member of ours,

Derek Hackett, during a previous

meeting of the group, they were

looking at their budget and pay in-

creases for staff. And they asked

how the city was handling this. And I

was kind of at a loss. So, I called fi-

nance and I called HR and they

were boos after lunch, it was lunch-

time, so I don’t blame them. And the

person I managed to reach was

Derek, and he looked it up online

while I was waiting. And I was able

to give that information to the group,

and it greatly facilitated later making

decision on their budget. So, I really

wanted to express my appreciation.

Normally, when I asked staff to do

something I want to spec to do them

it to them to do it in real time. And

Derek did, and I appreciated it. And

it really helped the board of the

Commission on Aging. The next

group, I have to report on as the em-

ergency resource Council leave at

two meetings and say last reported,

and one of those representatives of

the State Fire Marshal presented.

Things are improving in terms of

drought conditions, and they are ac-

tively planning to protect us keep

protecting us from all sorts of mis-

fortunes that may arise. One of the

things we’ll be having this summer is

a full-scale disaster exercise at the

airport. That has to be done every

three years for FAA certification, I

believe. So, the planning is in the

works for that. And it’s really gratify-

ing to see all the all the people who

get together on a monthly basis

representing the organizations who

are doing their utmost to try to keep

us safe. And let’s see here. I think

that basically was it. Yeah, those are

the formal groups. There. So that’s

my report.

Alderwoman Olson-Thank you, Mr.

Mayor. If I may, I’m going to go back

to agenda item 10, just briefly, the

under miscellaneous in discussion

items, because this this kind of

popped into my head when we ear-

lier had the results of the satisfaction

survey. And I thought it this time of

year, it’s very important for us as a

council to recognize our employees

and for all the hard work that they

have done in 2021. And part of that

survey, may have reflected poorly

on some employees. And I am hop-

ing that that was not the message

that was being sent. I think that that

survey is purposeful for us to look as

we’re budgeting and allotting for a

number of employees in different

departments and in paying for the

equipment that they need. And so, I

am thankful and grateful for all that

our city employees do and I know

that when the crews need to get out

when we have a significant snow si-

tuation, they do their best, and they

work around the clock. And so, I’m

hoping that that survey does not re-

flect on them personally, it is more of

just information for us as we go into

the budgeting process for upcoming

year. So, thank you and Merry

Christmas to our employees. As far

as liaison goes, just for brief commit-

tee meetings to report on the first

was the Liaison Committee. Back in

November, it was a pretty brief

meeting, we did address the city-

wide planning item that we had actu-

ally dealt with here at council level,

we had a little discussion, we’re go-

ing to get some more information

and in will be reporting back to us in

January. We did have some updates

on the school election that has now

taken place. And so, the meeting

was very brief. We do have our next

meeting scheduled for January 13.

city manager had mentioned this in

the last meeting that I had helped

with some of the pride rollout meet-

ings with city employees. So, I did

that I was able to attend the service

base and Planning Council holiday

event. And then just last week, we

had the CTE kickoff meeting, which I

think is rather ironic since we’ve

been working on it for a number of

years, but we’re into the next pro-

cess or next step. And so, I was part

of that meeting as well and just

know that we’re moving forward on

that project. Thank you.

Alderwomen Evans-I don’t have

anything to add about the planning

commission. The library is so I just

want to commend the library staff for

getting through another difficult year

with COVID and other related issues

and still getting our numbers up and

the community engaged as best

they can. And we all appreciate it.

This also was a record year for li-

brary staff in actually pursuing grant

funding and getting it. So, I’d like to

commend the different levels of

staff, it’s just not Jana, I mean, cer-

tainly, she’s empowered her entire

staff to apply for different levels of

funding and grants for different

things. And they have and got some

so that is amazing. And I love that

staff over there are doing that. Just a

quick I am the City Council liaison to

the NDR family shelter. As folks

know, that was a project that LSS

was the sub recipient for and then

they went bankrupt. And so, we

were fortunate to find the new sub

recipient of a local organization, Pro-

ject B, which used to be mine at

YWCA. And we are working hard,

they are working hard and the team

to get moving forward on plans for

both the shelter and the LMI. Hous-

ing. So, stay tuned for forward pro-

gress on that.

Alderman Ross- December 8, the

zoning ordinance and steering com-

mittee, we met to review some

changes proposed by staff. And we

have a follow up meeting in January.

And that’s my report. Mr. Mayor,

Alderman Jantzer- Mr. Mayor, the

liaison committee and whatnot that

I’ve been involved in was covered so

nothing further.

Alderman Pitner- Thank you, Mayor,

Renaissance board, I am liaison for

activity they’re proving we just ap-

proved a one of our applications for

Broadway project that just complet-

ed, had also had Stephen. At our

last meeting to discuss first avenue

downtown. And just some of the

hardships there with getting some

improvements done there. That’s

what I have for that committee visit

might not visit might not again, good

things are mine that’s been selected

for the second time is one of the few

organizations in the country to re-

ceive the beta test for the latest up-

dates and software for their data col-

lection services. According to the

company visit mine not is identified

because of how they strategically

utilize the information that they gath-

er and strategically implement them

into the community. Also, every-

thing’s a little delayed, but Canadian

Visitor Information is available,

everything gets delayed about a

month or two. So, visit minute, we’ll

be traveling around the city to all the

stakeholders to again, divulge that

information to help them make more

strategic and informed decisions

when marketing and advertising

their businesses. So, so that’s all I

got.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business,

Alderman Pitner moved the City

Council meeting to be adjourned.

Motion seconded by Alderman Ross

and carried unanimously. Meeting

adjourned at 7:37pm.

(January 12, 2022)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS

Case No. 51-2021-PR-00207

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

WARD COUNTY, STATE OF

NORTH DAKOTA

In the Matter of the Estate of

Joyce M. Keyes, Deceased.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that

the undersigned have been appoint-

ed co-personal representatives of

the above estate. All persons having

claims against the said deceased

are required to present their claims

within three (3) months after the date

of the first publication or mailing of

this notice or said claims will be for-

ever barred. Claims must either be

presented to Terry Keyes and Karen

Fleming, co-personal representa-

tives of the above-named estate, in

care of Louser & Zent, P.C., 1111

-31st Avenue Southwest, Suite C,

Minot, North Dakota 58701, or filed

with the Court.

Dated this 30th day of December,

2021.

Terry Keyes

413 N Rice Lake Road

Douglas, ND 58735

Karen Fleming

1908-26th Street Southwest

Minot, ND 58701

Brenda M. Zent, (ID #04300)

Louser & Zent, P.C.

1111-31st Avenue Southwest,

Suit C

Minot, ND 58701

Telephone No. (701) 837-4846

Attorneys for the Co-Personal

Representatives

(January 12-19-26, 2022)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS

Probate No. 51-2021-PR-00229

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

WARD COUNTY, STATE OF

NORTH DAKOTA

In the Matter of the Estate of

LILLIAN F. OLSON, Deceased.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that

the undersigned have been appoint-

ed co-personal representatives of

the above estate. All persons having

claims against the said deceased

are required to present their claims

within three months after the date of

the first publication or mailing of this

notice or said claims will be forever

barred. Claims must either be

presented to DIANE M. OLSON,

BRUCE H. OLSON, and KENT A.

OLSON Co-Personal Representa-

tives of the estate, at 2525 Elk Drive,

PO Box 1000, Minot ND

58702-1000, or filed with the Court.

Dated this 10th day of January,

2022.

/s/Diane M. Olson

Diane M. Olson

/s/Bruce H. Olson

Bruce H. Olson

/s/Kent A. Olson

Kent A. Olson

Brent M. Olson – #05593

PRINGLE & HERIGSTAD, P.C.

2525 Elk Drive

P.O. Box 1000

Minot, ND 58702-1000

bolson@pringlend.com

Attorneys for Co-Personal

Representatives

(January 12-19-26, 2022)

SUMMONS

Civil No. 51-2022-CV-00045

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA IN

DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF WARD NORTH

CENTRAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ProCollect Services, LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Linette F. Hjelden,

Defendant.

THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFEN-

DANT:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED

and required to appear and defend

against

the Complaint in this action, which is

herewith served upon you, by serv-

ing on

the undersigned an Answer or other

proper response within twenty-one

days

after service of this Summons upon

you, exclusive of the day of service.

If you

fail to do so, judgment by default will

be taken against you for the relief

demanded in the complaint.

Dated January 10, 2022.

/s/ Christopher A. Carlson

Christopher A. Carlson (id #03378)

PO Box 1097

Bismarck ND 58502-1097

701-258-4800

carlsonlaw@qwestoffice.net

Attorney for the Plaintiff

(January 12-19-26, 2022)