Legal Notices 1-12
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)