City of Grand Forks - Print Friendly Form

Council Minutes

PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
December 13, 2010

The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in special session in the council chambers in City Hall on Monday, December 13, 2010 at the hour of 5:30 o’clock p.m. with Mayor Brown presiding, pursuant to call by Mayor Brown which was served on all members of the city council and the city attorney. Present at roll call were Council Members Bjerke, Grandstrand, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kreun 6 - absent: Council Member Sande - 1.

Mayor Brown announced that anyone wishing to speak to any item may do so by being recognized prior to a vote being taken on the matter, and that the meeting is being televised.

LIBRARY PRESENTATION

Susan Mickelson, Library Board Chair, provided an overview of the report to be presented this evening, reviewed the committees that have been working on the project, the project timeline thus far and going forward for the project so that the architect can proceed. She stated that the desired timeline would include working with the City Council to develop ballot language in January, market the project February - March and conclude with an election in April.

Ms. Mickelson shared challenges of the current library that will be addressed in new facility. She noted that an important issue that will be addressed is that the current facility is not currently ADA compliant. They will also be looking for energy efficiency which will influence the operating costs for the new facility. Ms. Mickelson closed with some comparative photos of current library and some from other recent concepts in the region.

Kristi Mishler, GF Community Foundation, explained that they receive funding from the Knight Foundation to promote a program for building an informed engaged community and explained the focus of the foundation. Funds were awarded to the Library for gathering information from the community on their comments related to the Library Project. She explained the methods used to gather information that were funded. They included working with the media to sponsor a Speak Up For Your Library campaign to provide information, 2 Town Hall meetings which were conducted and a phone survey.

Wendy Wendt, Library Director, stated that they have reviewed all the comments received and that a packet of information was available for council members to review. The comments were the results of surveys conducted through the website, blog, on-line questionnaire, email, phone survey, media interaction, and the town hall meetings.

Don Vangsnes, DMD Consulting, stated that his firm conducted the telephone survey which was done scientifically. He reviewed the demographics of the survey participants. He stated that 70.7% were in favor of a new library and noted that this result was consistent across all demographic breakdowns. Of the respondents 73.3% favored the Leever’s site, but noted that 45 people refused to answer this questions. Again, over all demographic breakdowns this site was the preferred site. Regarding funding for the project, results were very close between the options offered, and again, 94 refused to respond.

Council Member Gershman inquired why they did not look at the existing location and offered suggestions that could be considered to make the site adaptable to an expansion of the current facility and noted that given the growth of the City this is more centrally located within the City than some of the other sites being considered. He noted that while many in the community are looking for a development option for the Leever’s site, there is a concern with traffic at that location that could get worse with the addition of the library there.

Motion by Council Member Gershman, that Library Committee study and ask architects to give costs for renovation and new addition for current site and that they commission an independent traffic study for current site as well as other sites under consideration. Second by Council Member Christensen.

Council Member Grandstrand commented that while he is ok with looking at renovation, seems to be bad time to add this in and that this issue should be between the Library and the people and let them put their recommendation on the ballot and see if the public agrees with what is proposed. He noted that a renovation will not address some of the concerns on visibility that have been brought up.

Council Member Glassheim inquired whether the Leever’s site would be sufficient to allow for future needs. Ms. Mickelson stated that it would meet the criteria for current needs, but would be a multi-story building rather than a one story development.

The group discussed the project costs. Ms. Mickelson noted that the $18-19 million projected cost does not include land acquisition. Projected construction costs are $200-250 pre sq. ft. There would be a 10-15% cost saving from doing a new construction versus trying to gut and rehab the existing structure. Infrastructure items that would need to be redone include the HVAC, lighting, insulation, data/technology needs, and finishes.

Council Member Christensen commented that he would like to see more information on use of the current site, that cost for land needs to be included in the project cost, the funding for the project and operational needs to be reviewed and also take into consideration other community needs such as infrastructure. Ms. Mickelson stated that the to do a traffic study on two sites is a cost of $31,500 and would need to secure a funding source to add other sites as they have not included that in the budget and that they will not have any detailed information on project costs until a site is determined as there are many variables that could change based on the final site selected. Council Member Christensen replied that the additional cost for the study should be added into the project cost and should not effect the budget or could use a budget amendment if paid from the current budget.

Council Member Kreun commented that there is a need for more information on the details of the project and feels that there is work that needs to be done such as traffic study, operating cost projections, facility design and would need to see those in order to be comfortable moving forward with the ballot. Ms. Mickelson stated that would be the next step with the architect and will be bringing that information back to the Library Board and City Council.

Council Member Bjerke asked whether the report tonight is a recommendation of the Leever’s site. Ms. Mickelson replied that the Library Board has not yet voted to recommend a site, this is just a report of the public input which the Board will take into consideration in making their decision. Council Member Bjerke commented that it seems that money shouldn’t be spent on studying sites that will not be recommended and that he would like a copy of the building use plan and building project report that were referenced in the presentation materials. Ms. Mickelson will provide both to the full Council. Council Member Bjerke asked if it is always customary to give the survey company the questions to be asked for the survey. Mr. Vangsnes stated that these questions were worded very straight forward and not out of the ordinary to do it this way.

Council Member Grandstrand commented that he believes that if the city council requests additional work from the consultant the Library should not have to fund that, but believes that the council should rather cover that expense.

Council Member Glassheim stated that he is confused as to the role some would like to play in the process and that it is only council’s responsibility to put on the ballot what the Library has determined will meet the needs of the community and then let the public decide and that there are more considerations to look at than just the dollar amount.

Council Member Glassheim moved an amendment to Council Member Gershman’s motion on the floor which would limit the study to the Leever’s site and the current site, with a report to be completed by January 21, that city council agree to consider a vote in mid-April, that the scope of the study include functionality, visibility, traffic flow, construction cost and future operating costs and that it also include, at the current site, both remodeling and a feasibility cost for operations during remodeling and that the amount of the cost of the study be added to the cost of the project. Council Member Gershman seconded.

The group discussed that this amendment eliminates the sites that were not favorable in the study and requests more in depth evaluation of the current site including the feasibility of using the existing building with an addition. The intent is to demonstrate to the public that all options were thoroughly considered and goal is to have an outcome which the public can support and be comfortable with.

Council Member Christensen stated that he has no problem with funding of the study, but believes that the amendment includes too many things. He believes that the issue of visibility is being too heavily promoted and that people have found the library for many years where it is and not a significant reason to justify a different site. He would also like to see more information on the FF&E for the proposed facility. Council Member Glassheim responded that he included in the motion information that he believes that the council should have before deciding to move the project forward to the ballot and that it is also information that the public will want to know before the election.

Council Member Bjerke suggested that when this report comes back it will lead to what could be lengthy discussion and would suggest that perhaps a special meeting be called for January 31 with this as the only item on the agenda. He noted that would be a fifth Monday of the month so would typically be an off week and would meet the timeline which the Library is working toward.

Mr. Swanson, city attorney, stated that a special election would typically need 90 days for scheduling and with action on January 31 could meet the timeline for an election at the end of April. He commented that the role of city council if the decision is to fund through a sales tax would be to amend the Home Rule Charter to allow for a sales tax which is the determining factor of the timeline as there is a minimum 60 day notice period. He continued that the second requirement is that the Library Board will need to decide on a site for the proposed new library and that the City Council will need to concur with that selection as part of the process. A public hearing is held to do that. In regards to the ballot, there are limitations on the language that is used and if there is a desire to have particular information included asked that Council get that to him as soon as possible. There is a 60 day notice of election which must include the ballot language. He added that the Council could also choose to ask for an advisory vote which would be separate from any Home Rule Charter vote.

Consensus of the group was that the process be completed by end of April. Mr. Swanson stated that the ballot language will be very specific and that he has provided previously sample language which was used in Fargo when they implemented the sales tax to fund their new library.

Council Member Kreun commented that one benefit of not limiting further study to 2 sites would be the benefit of not having to be tied to a multi-story library and with more locations could have benefit from some other things that you could provide by having additional space.

Motion by Council Member Kreun to amend the motion on the table to not limit to 2 sites, but rather to study 3 sites – Wellness Center, current site, and Leever’s site. Second by Council Member Christensen.

Council Member Grandstrand commented that he believes that the council should stick to what the Library Board chooses and not take over the process from them as they are the ones evaluating the information that is coming in and have the expertise to make the decision on which site will be the best fit. Mayor Brown commented that they just want to make sure that we are getting all the information they should have. Ms. Mickelson stated that they feel they did get very valuable information from the study that was conducted and believe that we should use that information as the project moves forward.

Upon call for the question on Council Member Kreun’s amendment, the following voted "aye": Council Members Gershman, Christensen, Kreun - 3; and the following voted "nay": Council Members Bjerke, Grandstrand, Glassheim - 3. As the vote was tie, Mayor Brown cast deciding vote of yes to approve the amendment.

Council Member Gershman agreed to accept the change in date to January 15 for a report. Second concurred.

Council Member Christensen stated that there will be a need to get the report out as soon as they get it. The Library has the power to run the Library and can validate the survey and perhaps after the remaining information comes in they may want to ask for an advisory vote on the site before proceeding.

Upon call for the question on the amendment proposed by Council Member Gershman, the following voted "aye": Council Members Bjerke, Gershman, Christensen, Kreun - 4; and the following voted "nay": Council Members Grandstrand, Glassheim - 2. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

Upon call for the question on the amendment proposed by Council Member Glassheim as amended, the following voted "aye": Council Members Bjerke, Gershman, Christensen, Kreun 4; and the following voted "nay": Council Members Grandstrand, Glassheim - 2; Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

Upon call for the questions on the original motion as amended. and upon voice vote the motion carried 6 votes affirmative.

COMMENTS BY MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Council Member Bjerke encouraged council members to consider holding a special meeting on January 31, 2011 which would typically have no meetings as it is the fifth Monday of the month to receive the follow-up reports and consider further action.

ADJOURN

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

Respectfully submitted,

Saroj Jerath
City Auditor

Approved:
________________________________
Michael R. Brown, Mayor