Council Minutes

Minutes of Grand Forks City Council/Committee of the Whole
Monday, June 8, 2009 - 5:30 p.m._________________ __

The City Council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, June 8, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Bjerke, McNamara, Gershman, Christensen (teleconf.), Kreun - 5; absent: Council Members Glassheim, Bakken - 2.

Mayor Brown commented on various items during the past week and upcoming events:
Congratulations everyone who braved cool weather last Friday night to attend the 25th Annual Relay for Life event at University Park, recognizing cancer survivors and those who have lost the battle and to raise money for cancer research, this year 200 cancer survivors registered for the event and $140,000 has been raised locally to support the American Cancer Society and funds still coming in.
This weekend, June 13 and 14, is the annual ArtFest to be held in Town Square and along the greenway, more than 150 artists and vendors will have art on display.

2.1 Application for abatement for 2008 taxes by Michael Brotherton, 822 13th Ave.S.__________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.2 Applications for abatement for 2007 and 2008 taxes by Arnold and Bonnie Bartelson, 2324 8th Ave.N._________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.3 Plans and specifications for Project No. 6432, Dist. 465, sanitary sewer on S. 48th St. from 17th to 32nd Aves.S._________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.4 Sidewalk Location List #1 for Project No. 6348, 2009 Sidewalk Repair and Installation._____________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.5 Bids for Project No. 6303, Reconstruction of English Coulee Shared Use Path from 24th to 17th Aves.S.______________________________________________________
Council Member Bjerke stated the City was in the dog park business, the Riverside pool
and now into the bikepaths, that an agreement was made that the Park Board was going to pay for this project, but now saying they don't have enough money and want City to contribute to cost, not appropriate for the City to fund this project - that we have money set aside in our budget for bikepaths in general, but is up to the Park Board to come up with the money for the project that they agreed to pay for.

Council Member Gershman questioned how it evolved that the City would pick up the $45,000, supports doing the project for reasons stated as bikepath is deteriorated and needs to be fixed, but questioned why the City would pay the $45,000.

Mark Walker, asst. city engineer, stated that originally the Park District was to pay for the full amount of the bikepath, when engineer's estimates were done, costs were assumed and State cap was established based on that cost, but when the project was bid costs came in much higher and that the Park District didn't have that much money budgeted and requested that the City contribute some money towards the project,that Mr. Christensen was at the meeting and spoke favorably in providing money to assist the Park District in constructing this project. Most of the bikepaths in the city are owned by the City with the exception of this one and one in Kings Walk, City has a budget of $100,000 and that this path is one of the worst ones in town. Council Member Gershman suggested setting this up as a loan; Mr. Walker stated that is a possibility but was not discussed at the last meeting of the Park Board, and that the Park Board has made a request of the City to help them, and it is their recommendation to do that to proceed with the project and get a quality bikepath for the citizens, but is a council decision whether to help fund it or not. Mr. Gershman stated the council has an option, not fund it, fund it or consider setting up on a loan basis, but does support the project to fix the bikepath.

Council Member McNamara supported the project, that great to support them and advance fund it, but doesn't think that we should pay for it - supports making it a loan or get back in the next fiscal year.

Council Member Christensen stated he was at the meeting and they were discussing the bikepath and is aware of the shortfall because bids higher than estimate, that it is the oldest bikepath and in bad shape, and asked if could make that an 8 ft. wide bikepath rather than a 10 ft. path. Mr. Walker stated that because we are using federal funds, and DOT requires that the bikepaths be a minimum of 10 ft. wide. Mr. Christensen stated he supports the bikepath and if could work something out with the Park District to get the loan paid back. The bikepath will be a concrete bikepath, existing bikepath is asphalt.

Council Member Kreun stated agreeable if want to work out agreement with the Park District - that this is repair of an existing bikepath and not making any new bikepath this year but doesn't want to delay project at this time.

Council Member Gershman asked Mr. Walker out of courtesy to the Park District to discuss this as there appears to be consensus of some sort of a loan agreement and come back next Monday with a report. Mr. Walker stated he would discuss this with the Park District, that timeframe is somewhat time critical - bids were opened sometime ago and have specific amount of time to award, will work with the contractor and the DOT but if award by next council meeting should be okay.

2.6 Bids for Project No. 6393, Forcemain Repair at Columbia Road and 10th Ave.N. and at Columbia Road and 6th Ave.N_____________________________________
There were no comments.

2.7 Bids for Project No. 6413, seal coat on University Avenue from N. 3rd St. to State Street; Project No. 6414, seal coat on Mill Road from Gateway Drive to urban limit; Project No. 6415, seal coat on N. 20th St. from Gateway Dr. to University Ave.; and Project No. 6416, seal coat on S. 20th St. from 24th Ave.S. to 32nd Ave.S._ _____
There were no comments.

2.8 Bids for Project No. 6419, Concrete Panel Replacement and Mill Overlay on 8th Ave.N. from N. 3rd St. to Columbia Road and Project No. 6435, Concrete Panel Replacement with Mill and Overlay on 17th Ave.S. from Washington St. to S. 42nd St._____________________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.9 Construction Engineering Services Agreement for Project No. 6341, Federal Project STM-SU-986(087)091, Intersection of S. Wash. St. and 47th Ave.S. traffic signal. ___
There were no comments.

2.10 Construction Engineering Service Agreement for Seal Coat Projects Nos. 6413, 6414, 6415 and 6416.__________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.11 Construction Engineering Services Agreement for Project No. 6419, concrete panel replacement with mill and overlay on 8th Ave.N. from N. 3rd St. to Columbia Road; and 6435, concrete panel replacement with mill and overlay on 17th Ave.S. from Washington St. to S. 42nd St.______________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.12 Urban Agreement for construction of Federal Aid Project, Project No. 6473, BNSF Railroad Crossing Signal System improvements at S. 3rd and S. 4th Sts._________
Council Member Gershman stated he read in the staff report that this equipment will be
compatible but it says that the City has been assured and asked Mr. Walker to get that in writing
and quantify that..

2.13 Funding sources for two additional police officers effective about 7/01/09, TSA Funds. _____________________________________________________________
Council Member Bjerke asked for explanation of the plan. Chief Packett stated that for
the past 5 years have had uniformed police officers at the airport 7 days a week from approx. 3:30 a.m. to bout 5:00 p.m. for the purpose of law enforcement arm of the TSA initiative out there. The TSA screeners do their job of screening luggage and making sure people comply with the federal guidelines on boarding and should they come across any type of law violation, then call in the local police to take action They have been using people on overtime status to cover that function and originally funded $140,000 and were reimbursed and actual cost was about $40,000, costs have decreased in recent years to about $104,000. He stated it would be better going ahead and using that money for hiring two officers, assign them full time status at the airport and the additional cost to the City would be approx. $13,000 rather than the $40,000 or $50,000 and save additional monies out of Special Events Fund. He stated it takes about 3.7 positions to staff the 7 days a week and by hiring two officers still have a gap of about 1.7 and is their intent to cover that 1.7 with existing people from the Uniformed Patrol Bureau rather than overtime.

Ray Dohman stated he was against hiring any more police officers to be employed with
the police department, too many people employed there - an example, i.e., policewomen that are used to engage in filthy conversation with people over the internet to try to lure them into committing crimes and if that is what they are used for, and asked Mayor to check into this but didn't get back to him. Mayor Brown stated he checked into it and thinks they are doing their job.

Chief Packett stated they have had this on occasion, the initiatives of the internet were
investigations currently being conducted by the Bureau of Criminal Investigation at the State level and ATF in the Postal Service. Should they need assistance in that regard on a particular case, we have officers that are trained to assist them on a case by case basis but don't have any officers actively engaged in internet luring or internet crimes at this time.

2.14 Consideration of bids for Project No. 6297, Residuals Storage Ponds, Sludge Removal and Disposal.______________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.15 Existing Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfill Closure Resolution.
Mr. Dohman questioned if that property was still zoned Agricultural I. Mr. Feland stated
this is the existing landfill, and closing it down; that have sited the new landfill and looking to construct that over this summer and have it operational on October 15; our current agreement is to close our existing landfill when the E/W runway is complete and operational, and that is the agreement we have with the FAA and Airport Authority, City of Grand Forks and Department of Health.

Mr. Dohman stated he didn't think City should be so quick to close it down, and questioned why they don't build an incinerator out there, that is the proper thing to do, instead of destroying more valuable farmland in Grand Forks County, that the City has destroyed a lot of property in the county over the last 25 years.

2.16 Temporary agreement for use of City of Fargo landfill.
There were no comments.

2.17 Consideration of EnviroBale bag system baler retrofit proposal.
There were no comments.

2.18 Bids for Project No. 6421, Reconstruction of N. 69th St. between 27th and 54th Aves.N. and 54th Ave.N between N. 55th and 69th Sts., including grading, drainage, roadway construction and other related work.________________________________
There were no comments.

2.19 Consideration of bids and construction phase service consulting agreement for Project No. 6423, New Solid Waste Landfill._______________________________
Mr. Dohman asked if zoning been changed on that property from A-1 to some other
industrial zoning. Brad Gengler, city planner, stated if referring to the proposed landfill site, that was included in reference in State law as far as what projects had been presented to the city prior to the law taken to effect, there was an emergency clause that was stated as May 1, 2009, and any new project that started with the city prior to that falls under zoning rules and jurisdictions that had been in place at that time, and in this case the property is zoned A-1 and is one of Ag Districts and as a part of that as a permitted use, landfill, municipal solid waste facilities are identified, and zoning is still intact.

Mr. Dohman stated that before they proceed they have to get permission of Rye Twp Board of Supervisors before you can put the landfill there, have to address that issue. Mr. Swanson stated there is no requirement to gain authorization from the Twp. and by provisions of House Bill 1554 areas that are zoned or were zoned in the outer half of City's extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction that had site plans or plats presented to the City before May 1, 2009 are grandfathered and the City can continue to have exclusive jurisdiction over that area.

2.20 Grand Forks Landfill Slope Stabilization Project update, Project No. 6319.
There were no comments.

2.21 Request from Dakota Commercial on behalf of Turning Point, LLC for preliminary approval of ordinance to amend zoning map to rezone and exclude from Village PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 4, and to include within the Village PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 5, all of Village Resubdivision No. 2 and all of Village Resubdivision No. 3 (loc. between I-29 and N. 42nd St. and between 5th Ave.N. and University Ave._______________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.22 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Crary Development, Inc. et al for preliminary approval of Replat of Lots B and C, Blk. 1, Curran's 3rd Resubdiv. (loc. at 4650 S. Washington St.)._______________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.23 Request from Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration of approval of a Zoning and Subdivision Agreement between the City of Grand Forks and the County of Grand Forks.__________________________________________________
Mr. Gengler reported he wanted to bring to their attention the supplemental handout that
was drafted earlier today, this is basis for an agreement between the City and County regarding zoning and subdivision rules, clarification of who has the jurisdiction coming out this recent change in State law. There are some minor changes included in this document that have been approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and forwarded for your approval. Text was added in the document but no substantive changes from document previously sent to you, that he will verify that with Mr. Swanson and bring this back to council on the next agenda; the County Board of Commissioners will also take action on it.

Council Member Kreun stated that after having worked with the County Planning and
Zoning Commission and being on the Commission he gives a lot of credit to Mr. Gengler and strongly recommends this agreement.

6. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Christensen thanked engineering staff for responding to constituent's request for fixing part of the reconstruction of the Sunbeam overlay project in his ward, engineering staff very customer orientated, and appreciates that.

2) Mr. Swanson stated he was advised by the Attorney General's Office last week that their opinion on 911 Fund will not be issued until the end of June or first part of July.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Kreun that we adjourn. Carried 5 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,



Saroj Jerath
City Auditor