Council Minutes

Minutes of Grand Forks City Council/Committee of the Whole
Monday, March 10, 2008 - 5:30 p.m._________________ __

The City Council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, March 10, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Hutchison, McNamara, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kreun - 6; absent: Council Member Bakken - 1.

Mayor Brown commented on events during the past week and upcoming events:
Area Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are going green this year distributing paper door hangers instead of plastic bags in advance of the annual scouting for food drive scheduled for March 27 through March 29; this year's theme is Good Turn for America. Door hangers will be distributed on Thursday, March 27, explaining the project and reminding residents to leave their own bags or boxes of non-perishable food items at their front door for pickup on Saturday, March 29.

2.1 Applications for abatement of 2007 taxes:
a. David and Jessica Wilkinson, 610 North 7th Street
b. Luis and Maria Brito, 3122 24th Avenue South
c. Sarah Dahl, 5326 6th Avenue North.
d. Jennifer Lessard, 2619 South 40th Street__________
There were no comments.

2.2 Application for exemption of remodeling improvements to residential/
commercial buildings at various locations. _______________________
There were no comments.

2.3 Extend Board of Equalization meeting.
There were no comments.

2.4 NDPERS Pension Plan.
Council Member Christensen stated that basically they have a transfer of future pension obligations to our employees to the State Retirement Fund (NDPERS Pension Plan), that this has been studied by the pension committee and came out of the committee recommending passage; and after further review of staff, Mr. Schmisek presented an extensive memo to the finance committee and comments from members of the finance committee and from staff. He stated this is a very good idea and is something we should do for our employees, that what we have been doing in the past has caused some insecurity in the retirement pension planning process for our employees and this is close to be revenue neutral in government. He stated they directed Mr. Schmisek and Mr. Duquette and members of the various department heads to try to bring this in revenue neutral and it appears that it will be; that this has a net cost to the City of about $83,000 in the year 2008 and was budgeted for under the premise that it would still be revenue neutral and it is coming in revenue neutral because we have found we could save approx. $135,000 in our Workers Compensation premiums. Another benefit is that it is going to help our older than average employees and help people who want to retire at age 55 or 60 because they will be able to get their health insurance coverage through the State, and that is a deterring effect as people who want to retire early because of the high cost of health care and inability to get it . This will put our retirement benefits for our employees in a much bigger group, the State of North Dakota's group, many other cities have the ability to go into the State of North Dakota Plan as well and that we approve this on behalf of our employees.
Council Member McNamara stated he serves on the Pension Committee along with Mr. Christensen and that when looked at this were currently wrestling with other issues with the City's old defined benefit plan, that they looked at this aware of the fact that it is the City's responsibility when you have a defined benefit plan as opposed to defined contribution plan, and thinks the NDPERS Retirement System is a model in terms of the way it should be run, and the revenue neutral aspect of this. He complimented Mr. Christensen, Mr. Schmisek and the finance committee because this is where they crafted this out of the pension committee to make sure it is possible to be revenue neutral and supports this. He commended the finance committee and the pension committee as well as director of finance and his staff for this, is a good piece of work.

Council Member Hutchison stated as a member of the finance committee echoed what Council Members Christensen and McNamara said, that this is good for the employees, that the employees want it and in the long run it may actually cost less because have professional management and larger pool and win-win for all sides.

2.5 Design, Bidding and Construction Administration Engineering Services Agreement for Project No. 6292, Lift Station 19 Forcemain.______________________________
There were no comments.

2.6 Create special assessment district for Project No. 6244, Dist. No. 633, paving and street lighting for McEnroe's 1st Addn. (Garden View Dr.)___________________
There were no comments.

2.7 Create special assessment district for Project No. 6152, Dist. No. 632, paving for 4200-4400 blks. of 16th Ave.N. and 16th Ave.N. Circle.______________________
There were no comments.

2.8 Consideration of bids for construction of Project No. 6214, 2008 ADA
Curb Ramps.________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.9 Bids for Project No. 6215, 2008 Flood Preparation and Debris Cleanup.
There were no comments.

2.10 Consideration of bids for Project No. 6211, 2008 Sidewalk Repairs.
There were no comments.

2.11 Bid specifications for fire engine.
There were no comments.

2.12 Public Works Department surplus property.
There were no comments.

2.13 Engineering and Instrument and Control Services Agreement for 2008/ 2009 Grand Forks Water Treatment Plant Capital Improvements Project, No. 6198.__________
There were no comments.

2.14 Xcel Energy Environmental Grant and associated budget amendment.
Melanie Parvey-Biby, Environmental Compliance/Greenway Manager,
reported that that Xcel Energy awarded the City a $20,500.00 environmental grant,
and reviewed three projects they are planning to do in the greenway: have a large scale tree planting in the southend of Grand Forks on a section of trail south of the Belmont Coulee trailhead along Belmont Road where some trees were not put in due to cost reduction measures of the flood protection project; planting trees along a corridor of the southend pedestrian bridge which has been void of vegetation because of construction and removal of some of the existing trees and to plant a row of trees working with the Park District Forestry Dept.; and the third site was the overlook section near the southend pedestrian bridge, a circular area that runs through Lincoln golf course where there are benches and would enhance with trees, shrubs and flowers. The total project cost is $30,500 and with Xcel Energy's $20,500, looked at using some of the money within the Stormwater Enterprise Fund to utilize the capital project and support the project through operation and maintenance funds that they have available.

She stated they would be hosting a community event on Saturday May 3, inviting employees and families of the City of Grand Forks, Xcel Energy and the Park District and the community to come and help plant trees - would receive the check from Xcel Energy and would have people come out about 9:00 a.m. and support this initiative. She stated in the fall when they are able to access the site will host another community event, that they are excited to have Xcel Energy as a partner in this along with the Grand Forks Park District that has offered a lot of in-kind staff and expertise to assist us with this project. She stated they will share this information with the Park District at their April meeting.

Council Member Gershman thanked Judi Paukert, Xcel Energy, for her work in behalf of this project and is a nice project in the greenway

Council Member Kreun reported that one of the things they removed over the process of doing the greenway and dike project was tree planting because of the cost and that directly affects the special assessments to property owners, and thanked private industries that come forward to help us put those back into the greenway project; that there are other areas that were left out during construction and Kim Greendahl and Melanie Biby are working at obtaining more grants to replace those items as well and that we appreciate all the businesses that are and will continue to support the greenway project, and thanked Kim and Melanie as well as Judi.

2.15 Allocation of CDBG Public Service Funds.
Kristi Hall-Jiran, executive director of Community Violence Intervention Center
(CVIC), spoke regarding recommendation of the review committee that was convened by United Way to review the CDBG funds and their recommendation was that CVIC be allocated no CDBG funds for 2008. She stated that she is supportive of every other agency who applied for funds and all do significant and important work; and that they have respect for all the members of the Review Committee; but believe they were operating under some misinformation regarding CVIC and that led to a decision that unfairly impacted CVIC. She stated their grant application clearly stated that the Review Committee would be looking at "how well your program addresses target issues in our four focus areas that are contained in the United Way Community Impact Plan", that CVIC applied under one area which is strengthening and supporting families, vision included that families will have the knowledge and skills to thrive in a safe and healthy environment and target issues that were listed in the grant application included prevention and early intervention programs that help families deal with their problems, specific target issues include family financial stability, domestic violence and drug and alcohol abuse. She stated they applied for three of their programs under that focus area - Abuse and Rape Crisis Program, Crime Victim Witness Program and Domestic Violence Offender Treatment Program, and applied for a total of $40,000. There was a memo from United Way to the city council which indicated that the Review Committee further prioritized and looked at two priorities for the allocation of funds - they wanted to sufficiently fund high impact programs rather than a little here and a little there, and wanted to give preference to programs that assist with basic needs, i.e., food and shelter and programs that are preventative in nature. She stated their immediate question is how the Committee could prioritize in that way and not include CVIC in their recommendations. She stated it has become clear through some conversations with some of the Review Committee members that their decision to recommend no funding for CVIC came about because it was their perception that CVIC could handle a cut in funds easier than some of the other applicants, and nothing could be further from the truth. She stated that it is huge challenge for them each and every year to bring in their $1.7 million budget, sometimes their cash flow is so tight that they barely make payroll. She noted through communication with Pat Berger and some of the Review Comm. members it appears that CVIC's contract with the City played into the decision to some extent - those funds should not have been a factor in the decision because of the following reasons: their application clearly addressed crisis and immediate needs such as food and shelter and should have been taken on its merits alone and not considered in combination with other funding they may or may not receive from other sources, and if look at funds they get from the City those funds are provided for specific public-safety services that they are providing on behalf of the City and that is a contract for services and not a grant. Neither those funds nor CDBG funds nor combination are close to meeting the need for crisis services for CVIC; that they had the City contract in 2007 as well as this year and was not an issue for them last year. Because of reduced funding they are looking at a deficit of about $68,000 for 2008 and doesn't include the CDBG funds. She stated they have a concern that they wanted to express this evening re. the Committee's funding decisions.

Ms. Jiran reviewed the programs for which they are requesting funding, that they are not new programs, that they are breaking records in the number of people they serve every year - that funding they have received has been as high as $60,000 and last few years closer to $35,000 to $23,000. She also reviewed how the programs address the funding criteria, and the number of people served.

Council Member Gershman stated they have a lot of respect for the committees and their dilemma in this new process is that this is what can happen, and are trying to get more clarification from the committee but are trying to find out a little more about what was in their minds as this is a difficult situation for the council, and not sure if there is an explanation.

Pat Berger, United Way, stated she didn't think there was anything more that she could add, that United Way's policy has always been that when allocating funding out that they convene a committee of community volunteers to do this, these decisions are not made by staff, and when that occurs you don't know what a committee is going to decide, there was a concern with this committee and that this particular committee was seasoned and had sat on allocations before, the committee convened and met with the agencies, that all of the agencies do incredibly good work, had requests for $342,000 in CDBG funds and $186,000 to give out; and the regular United Way allocation process have to cut $30,000 to $40,000 from any one focus area and the focus area that Kristi met are the focus areas, but when came to CDBG this is what the Comm. decided to do and United Way has to stand behind the committee decision, that the Comm. tried to figure out a way before they even sat down how do they handle this, and make these decisions and that is up to the individual committee members - United Way stands behind what they do in terms of the committees and what their decisions are. Gershman asked out of the United Way funds which is separate from this, what is allocated to CVIC. Ms. Berger stated they are the largest allocation, their Board will be voting on this year next Thursday but believes last year was $55,000 and they are the agency that receives singly the most funds.

There was some discussion relative to several other agencies that received funding - Lutheran Social Services which deals with youth and Healthy Families which works with family from time gives birth through 3 years of age (unwed mothers, young mothers, etc.). Christensen stated that most of the agencies that were funded have an overwhelming presence in the city of Grand Forks with the exception of the Salvation Army and the rest are Grand Forks based. Ms. Berger stated these are federal dollars that have to go to clients that reside in Grand Forks County and doesn't matter where the organization has its home, and that they track them.

Council Member Kreun asked if the United Way Board reviews recommendations from the CAC committee; Ms. Berger stated they do not because the council decided last summer that they wanted to be the final say. Kreun stated that there should be an oversight board and the council is that board and is council's responsibility to see that all the entities that made the applications meet the requirements and do most good in our community, and will have to take that into consideration when they vote next week.

Kreun noted that Valley Community Health Center is new applicant - Ms. Berger stated this is their second year and second award. Ms. Berger stated that every year there are agencies that receive these funds and every year agencies that don't - not easy. Kreun stated they appreciate Committee that makes these recommendations and council will look at these and make final decision.

McNamara stated a question to Ms. Jiran was that CVIC's contract with the City had any impact on decision. Ms. Berger stated that United Way stands behind the Committee and what they did, and how they came to that decision. This was a unanimous decision from the committee. She also noted that last year the Mission did not receive any CDBG funds and this year out of 3 programs received funding for one. NDAD has received CDBG funds in the past and did not receive them last year; Mountainbrooke received funds last year.

2.16 Affordable Infill Housing Program.
Council Member Kreun stated he was council rep. on the selection process through
the Infill Housing Program; that they received 7 proposals on 8 lots meeting criteria; the committee agreed that architectural capability is very important factor so the elements carry a lot of weight in that particular area; they wanted to avoid the cookie cutter look, and wanted houses to be built in a timely fashion so wouldn't be too heavy construction in the area. He stated one developer did not meet the minimum bid, his sale price exceeded the cap to receive incentives so his proposal was not considered and not listed in the summary. He stated it was a high competitive good quality mix of proposals, haven't run this program for several years but based on this response, that model works very good and hope they use that with areas on Chestnut and Walnut, had veteran developers from prior years as well as new ones; and if built and sold on schedule would encourage staff to advise another round later this year.

Council Member Christensen noted that these homes on Walnut/Chestnut qualify for the tax break on the first $75,000 for two years. Mel Carsen, city assessor, stated there is a maximum value of $150,000 for the structure only and these would qualify; the $150,000 was put into the guidelines 2 or 3 years ago, increased from $135,000. The State law is the $75,000, but guidelines where set a maximum is done locally - by city council; and the council has the ability to change that. Christensen asked if shouldn't do that in light of the fact that there might be a downturn in our housing development this year and next; can bring down later if need be. He stated he would like to explore that if the council would and get some recommendations from the city assessor and what the average building permit has been for various homes. Mr. Carsen stated he would review and give report in April to the finance committee. Council Member Gershman stated when looking at that in committee index that so each year it goes up.

2.17 Request from Advanced Engineering on behalf of City of Grand Forks for final approval of Plat of Auditor's Resubdiv. No. 44 (loc. east of Olson Dr. and Elmwood Dr. from 25th Ave.S. to 32nd Ave.S.), incl. variance to Land Development Code Sections 18-0907(1)(C) and 18-0907(1)(L).____________________________________
There were no comments.

2.18 Request from Advanced Engineering on behalf of City of Grand Forks for final approval of Replat of Sun-Beam Sixth Resubdiv. (loc at Northridge Hills Court to 47th Ave.S. along the Red River.)_________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.19 Request from Tim Crary on behalf of Crary Development, Inc. for approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) for a memory care facility loc. on Lots B & C, Blk. 1 of Replat of Lot 2, Block 1, Curran's 3rd Resubdiv. (loc. at intersection of 47th Ave.S. and S. Washington St.)____________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.20 Request from Grand Forks Planning Dept. for final approval of a resolution amending access control restrictions to allow a driveway approach on the northwesterly side of Lot 3, Blk. 1, Amundson's Second Resubdiv. (loc. at 2975 S. 42nd St.______________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.21 Request from Pribula Engineering on behalf of Frances L. Bertheuson for preliminary approval of the Plat of Frantastic Acres First Resubdiv. (loc. at S. 69th St. and Grand Forks County Road 6)._______________________________________
There were no comments.

2.22 Request from Tim Crary on behalf of Sproule, Crary and Crary for preliminary approval of an ordinance relating to the Comprehensive Plan, amending Chapter XVIII, Article 8, Comprehensive Plan, Section 18-0802, Elements of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, pertaining to the Year 2035 Land Use Plan.
There were no comments.

2.23 Request from Tim Crary on behalf of Sproule, Crary and Crary for preliminary approval of the Plat of Meadow Ridge Second Addn. (loc. in 4900 blk. of S. Washington St.)______________________________________________________
There were no comments.
2.24 Request from Tim Crary for approval of an ordinance to annex all of Meadow Ridge Second Addn. (loc. in 4900 blk. of S. Washington St.)_________________
There were no comments.

2.25 Request from Tim Crary on behalf of Sproule, Crary and Crary for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the zoning map to exclude from the Meadow Ridge PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 1, and to include within the Meadow Ridge PUD, Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 2, all of Meadow Ridge First and Second Addns, and to include unplatted lands lying between 47th Ave.S. and 51st Ave.S. and between S. Washington St. and the westerly platted boundaries of North Pines Resubdiv. and South Pines Addn.______________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.26 Request from Planning Department for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the text of the Land Development Code, Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, enacting Section 18-0224 Corridor Overlay Dist.
There were no comments.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member McNamara stated they had discussion about CDBG funding and was good decision that the council made to allow us to have the oversight, and thanked those in the business of making difficult decisions and oversight is a part of that and is our function to do that.

2) Council Member Glassheim announced the scheduling of Riverside pool - committee will be meeting on Wednesday, March 12 at 4:00 p.m.; and on March 19 if need additional information for finance committee; will come to the Committee of the Whole on March 24 and to city council on April 7 for a final vote.

3) Council Member Kreun reminded council that they are invited tomorrow night to the Alerus for annual private update, with open house first to introduce Mr. Hyman to the community; and that the Alerus Center has received the 2007 Prime Site Award of Excellence from the Facilities Media Group for Venue Excellence throughout the United States, very prestigious award; that we appreciate staff at the Alerus Center and has had a very positive economic impact on the community.

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
Deputy City Auditor