Council Minutes
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
July 7, 2008
The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in the council chambers in City Hall on Monday, July 7, 2008 at the hour of 5:30 o’clock p.m. with Vice President Glassheim presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Bjerke, McNamara, Gershman (teleconference), Christensen, Bakken, Kreun, Glassheim - 7.
Vice President Glassheim 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.
Girl Scout Troop 20214 led the council in the pledge of allegiance to the flag, Sarah Martin, leader.
Vice President Glassheim commented on various items during the past week and upcoming events:
Recognized the Sertoma Club for the work they did on the 4th of July celebration, is a city and a regional event, and has grown to a day-long event along with the fireworks in the evening. He also thanked the employees of the city of Grand Forks, that every department is involved in many hours of work done to make the event possible.
ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 4241, TO ANNEX PROPERTY
An ordinance entitled "An ordinance to annex Lot D, Block 1 of the Replat of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Aurora Plaza Addition not previously annexed to the city of Grand Forks, ND", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on June 16, 2008 and upon which public hearing had been scheduled for this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.
The city auditor reported that the required legal notice had been published calling for a public hearing to be held this evening and further that to date no protests or grievances had been filed with his office.
Vice President Glassheim opened the public hearing, there were no comments and the public hearing was closed.
Upon call for the question of adoption of the ordinance and upon roll call vote, the following voted "aye": Council Members Bjerke, McNamara, Gershman, Christensen, Bakken, Kreun, Glassheim - 7; voting "nay": none. Vice President Glassheim declared the ordinance adopted.
REFER ORDINANCE TO AMEND STREET AND HIGHWAY
PLAN FOR SHADYRIDGE ESTATES EIGHTH RESUB-
DIVISION BACK TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
An ordinance entitled "An ordinance to amend the Street and Highway Plan of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, to include the public rights of way shown as dedicated on the plat of Shadyridge Estates Eighth Resubdivision, Grand Forks, North Dakota", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on April 21, 2008 and upon which public hearing had been continued until this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading.
Vice President Glassheim opened the public hearing.
Rob Beattie, 401 Desiree Drive, party to the plat that was under consideration, stated he had met with the developer, Mr. Marcotte, and gave verbal confirmation that he would sign the plat, but what they agreed on was that they would eliminate a couple of lots and that is not what is before the council, and is not sure how that is dealt with, but one of the issues he has is that there is a variance issued to the developer that would allow driveways to be extended onto Adams Drive, which was considered a feeder road and that creates an opportunity to make the area unsafe than if the driveways weren't coming onto Adams Drive, and questioned if the council has access to or if there was a report that would have been generated by the traffic engineer.
It was noted that an independent study was not done, not on detailed analysis on something that small of an item but if council wanted them to, could look at that. Council Member Kreun stated that they would only need confirmation on how they came up with the change and the ability to put the driveways on the collector type street, not suggested that have to have traffic study but explanation of how we put those driveways on Adams Drive. Mr. Grasser stated that the developer proposed the plat that had the direct accesses on it but plat recognizes a variance to our typical driveway restrictions on a collector street and that is part of the plat and part of the discussion that if don't recognize the variance then the layout of the plat doesn't work
Mr. Beattie stated that the plat details something like 52 additional houses in that area and the open area to the south of Adams Drive is completely open and is about three times the space and if it were to be built to that same density, would be looking at 150 houses in that area which would significantly impact the traffic on Adams Drive, but if only the houses that are there and the ones in Shadyridge on the river that is not a lot, but not sure that 15 years from now that there won't be that many houses out there.
Council Member Christensen stated his question is, that he spoke with Mr. Marcotte, if there are going to be two lots deleted and where those lots are. Jerry Pribula, surveyor on the plat, stated it would be Lots 9 through 16, 8 lots which would become 6 lots and each would have a frontage of 140 ft. rather than 105 ft., larger lots and the lot on the end would not be allowed access onto Adams so 5 driveways. He stated they haven't changed the plat because they were not sure that anything was going to come of it so waited, and if council could approve the plat subject to making that change.
Council Member Bakken questioned taking down to 6 lots with 5 driveways, and it was noted that this lot would be required to use Terrace View Drive for their driveway approach. The question was raised as to shared driveways, and it was noted that was discussed at Planning and Zoning and that the opinion of some members of the commission is that they become extra parking stalls and don't have a tendency to utilize them and that if you want to slow traffic down, driveways are good because the reason collector streets are not supposed to have driveways is because you can maintain a higher speed and if want pedestrian safety, driveways have a tendency to slow traffic down.
Ann Brown, 601 Desiree Drive, asked if they were going to look at a traffic study and take more of a futuristic look to see what will happen to that road, too late if the driveways are in; and it was noted that the city engineer didn't think that a traffic study was warranted for such a small area. Mrs. Brown asked if that was something they could request - that they are looking at the whole area and not 6 lots on Adams Drive, that the potential on the other side of that road is three times what is on the north side if not more. It was noted that the potential to access that road is equal to the cars on the north side - only real issue is whether or not you have access or not - the issue is if have six driveways or no driveways. Mrs. Brown stated in looking at if 25 driveways in the future and what looking at down the road when the south part is developed.
Council Member Christensen stated that the only issue is the number of homes that would access on that strip of Adams Drive, and in counting lots, most would be 7 on the south side, and looking at 5 to 7 additional, Mrs. Brown asked if there was a variance to reduce the distance between the number of driveways from 150 to 100 ft. and why not have shared driveways, and if those are requirements, why would the City change it - it was noted that only if this plat is approved would that be granted.
Council Member Kreun stated they are trying to bring in a compromise between the developer and the neighborhood so they can make the changes, sign off on the plat, one of the questions raised is whether the number of driveways coming onto a feeder street and one of the tradeoffs was to reduce those lots to 5 driveways and whether that takes place on the southside or not is another issue at another time, but will do best to make the least impact on that road as can but that is one of the questions remaining but not worth a full blown study but may take some time to look at what the traffic patterns are with additional number of cars and people in that area, and engineering can go through a cursory review to see what takes place to have that happen - that are getting closer to an agreement and would like to have them come together with a completed plat to bring to council.
Mr. Grasser stated one of the problems they have is predicting on the southside as don't have a concept plan only a generic zoning for residential and one of the reasons can't do a traffic study is as have no densities, access points and that is unknown - suggested that we run this back through Planning and Zoning to help clarify uncertainties and reaffirm our intent to limit access on the future development on the southside of the road helps focus the discussion about whether 5 or 6 driveways or potentially by inference allowing 15 or 20 or 30 and that might be an advantage of running it back through Planning and Zoning is to affirm what our intention is on the undeveloped sides as far as access control.
Council Member Bakken stated that sometime he would like to have the council discuss development on the wet side of the dike and how much infrastructure and development we want to have on the wrong side of the dike, that he was on the council during the flood and was opposed to having part of the city on the wrong side, is an infrastructure issue, lot of issues involved with being on the wrong side of the dike and a lot of cost - and before too much development on the wrong side need to make a choice whether we want that as part of the city or not Mr. Grasser stated that the property within the plat is annexed, and original discussions were when the dike line went in already had some pre-existing annexed areas on the wet side and the council had a debate about that at the time, and did not believe that the people proposing this plat did not own the land to the south of Adams Drive. He stated he was thinking of a discussion which would reaffirm the intent of keeping access limited on the future areas as sending message to the developer that because were are allowing x number of driveways on the north side either can expect to have that same type of consideration on the south or not, shouldn't be planning on driveways and is only an intent, nothing binding, but suggesting seeing an uncertainty on the questions as to how many driveway accesses are we talking about, just this plat or what might come in the future.
It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member McNamara to refer this matter back to Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Pribula stated he would bring a plat signed by the parties back to Planning and Zoning. This provision was accepted by the mover and second of the motion.
Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 7 votes affirmative.
Council Member Christensen asked Mr. Grasser to bring to Planning and Zoning Commission so that they get better insight as to the future development of the remainder of land to address Mrs. Brown's concerns so that Planning and Zoning will look at that and come up with density and recommendations and be of record. Mr. Grasser stated they would work with the planning director on that. Council Member Bakken also asked that they find out if they want that in the city.
COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTENSEN EXCUSED
REFER ORDINANCE RELATING TO AMENDING ZONING MAP
FOR ADDITIONS AND SUBDIVISIONS IN SHADYRIDGE ESTATES
BACK TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
An ordinance entitled "An ordinance to amend the zoning map of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, to rezone and exclude from the Shadyridge Estates PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 3 and to include within the Shadyridge Estates PUD (planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 4, all of Shadyridge Estates First Addition, Shadyridge Estates Second Addition, Shadyridge Third Addition, Shadyridge Estates Fourth Resubdivision, Shadyridge Fifth Resubdivision, Shadyridge Estates Sixth Addition, Greenwood Subdivision, unplatted portions of Section 26, Shadyridge Estates Seventh Addition, and all those lands to be platted as Shadyridge Estates Eighth Resubdivision to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on May 19, 2008, and upon which public hearing had been continued until this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading.
Vice President Glassheim opened the public hearing, there were no comments and the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Gengler, city planner, stated this includes previous item that was just discussed and asked that the rezoning also be referred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Bakken to refer this matter back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Carried 6 votes affirmative.
ADOPT RESOLUTION VACATING THAT PART OF
13TH AVENUE NORTH, LYING EAST OF NORTH 5TH
STREET IN ALEXANDER & IVES' ADDITION
The city auditor reported that pursuant to instructions by the city council after having received a petition to vacate that part of 13th Avenue North, lying easterly of North 5th Street, between Lot 1, Block F and Lot 2, Block 49 Alexander & Ives' Addition to the city of Grand Forks, formerly known as Ansel Avenue, containing 60 feet by 140 feet or 8,400 sq.ft. (located at the intersection of North 5th street and Gateway Drive), the required legal notice had been published calling for a public hearing to be held this evening, and further that no protests or grievances had been filed with his office.
Vice President Glassheim opened the public hearing, there were no comments and the public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Kreun that we find and determine an insufficiency of protest to the proposed vacation, and introduced and adopted the following resolution, which was presented and read: Document No. 9189 - Resolution. Carried 6 votes affirmative.
DETERMINE INSUFFICIENCY OF PROTEST ON STREET
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 6271, DISTRICT NO. 98
The city auditor reported that the period for filing protests on the resolution of necessity for the improvements in and for Street Improvement District No. 98, Project No.6271, 2008 seal coating an area generally located between DeMers Avenue and the alley between Campbell Drive and Park Dive and from South Washington Street to Belmont Road, including Lincoln Park area, had expired on June 26, 2008, and that he had received no written protests.
Vice President Glassheim opened the public hearing, there were no comments and the public hearing was closed.
A motion for insufficiency of protest was moved by Council Members Bakken and Kreun, Carried 6 votes affirmative.
Council Member Kreun introduced the following resolution as to protests which was presented and read: Document No. 9182 - Resolution, and it was moved by Council Members Kreun and McNamara that the resolution be adopted. Carried 6 votes affirmative.
COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTENSEN REPORTED BACK
MATTER OF SALE OF BONDS REFINANCING VARIOUS
BOND SALES
The staff report from the city auditor relating to resolutions awarding the sale of bonds refinancing the following bonds: a) Sewer Reserve Revenue Bonds 1995D, b) G.O. Dike Bonds 1999A, and c) Refunding Improvement Bonds 1999B, with recommendation to adopt resolution awarding the sale of refinancing bonds.
Brenda Krueger, Springsted Incorporated, reported they had received bids today on 3 different series of bonds for the purpose of achieving lower interest rates and achieving interest costs on outstanding debt of the City. Handouts for bids on each series of bonds had been presented to council members. She stated they were pleased with response from underwriters, has been some time before had this many underwriters bidding on bonds, the market has been in disheveled manner for the last several months, The interest rates received have level of savings they would like to achieve, not as high as previously discussed. Series 2008A Refunding of Improvement Bonds, received 7 bids, winning bid is from GKST/Harris Trust Bank, seeing consolidation of investment firms, Chicago, Il and have a true interest rate of 3.66% and is about .17% higher than what had anticipated but savings is still level and feel is acceptable to the City, and were able to reduce the principal amount of the bonds by $30,000 that came into play because of the way the bid was submitted and a lower cost of issuance. On Series 2008B Bonds is a Refunding of General Obligation Dike Bonds and GKST/Harris Trust Bank was winning bidder with 3.80%, true interest rate, and were able to reduce the principal amount of this issue by $60,000. The final series if bids, 2008C Bonds are Sewer Reserve Revenue Bonds, winning underwriter is Isaak Bond Investments, Inc., Denver, CO and have a 3.94% and principal amount of this issue is reduced by $20,000 over what estimated. Summary of savings on 2008A, Refunding Improvement Refunding Bonds, percent of refunded debt service, and like to achieve a minimum of 3%, and on this series had a 5.24%, present value benefit to the City over the remaining term of the bonds of just over $166,000; on Series B Bonds, looking for a 3% savings, and have a 6.30% savings of refunded debt service with a present value benefit of almost $440,000; and on Series C, which is the smallest of the issues have a savings of 4.52% with a present value benefit of $35,500.00; those savings are within the levels they had discussed with the finance committee.
Ms. Krueger reported that the ratings for the City were re-affirmed, the Refunding Improvement Refunding Bonds and the General Obligation Dike Bonds have re-affirmed at the Double A3 rating and the Sewer Bonds which have not quite the credit quality of the G.O. Bonds because of their security of the sewer revenues has an A1 rating and that is re-affirmed. She reported that she and the city auditor had conversation with the analyst from Moody's Investor Service out of Chicago, talked about the development activities going on in the city, the results of the 2007 audited financial statements, 2008 budget and about the sewer in more detail and how the City goes about increasing rates or looking at the rates on that utility and the operations of that. The most significant on the sewer side was the question about deferred maintenance and the answer is that you have a system that is in very good working order and a lot of deferred maintenance or a lot of capital is not anticipated to be needed to make improvements to the sewer system.
She stated her recommendation to adopt the resolutions before you with the savings before you.
There was a motion to adopt the resolutions on all three issues by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Kreun. Upon roll call the following voted "aye": Council Members Bjerke, McNamara, Gershman, Christensen, Bakken, Kreun, Glassheim - 7; voting "nay": none. Vice President Glassheim declared the motion carried.
ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE,
AWARDING SALE, PRESCRIBING THE FORM AND
DETAILS AND PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF
REFUNDING IMPROVEMENT REFUNDING BONDS,
SERIES 2008A
Council Member Bakken introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, which motion was seconded by Council Member Kreun: Document No. 9183 - Resolution..
Upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Bjerke, McNamara, Gershman, Christensen, Bakken, Kreun, Glassheim 7; and the following voted against the same: none; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE AND
AWARDING SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION DIKE REFUNDING
BONDS, SERIES 2008B, CREATING A SINKING FUND THEREOR,
AND LEVYING TAXES FOR THEIR PAYMENT
The city auditor presented an affidavit showing publication in the official newspaper of the City of the Notice of Bond Sale of $5,745,000 General Obligation Dike Refunding Bonds, Series 2008B (the "Bonds") of the City bids for which were to be considered at this meeting as provided by resolution adopted June 16, 2008. The affidavit was examined and approved and ordered placed on file.
The City Auditor reported that seven (7) sealed bids for the purchase of the Bonds had been received from the following institutions at or before the time stated in the Notice of Bond Sale, and the bids were then opened and publicly read and considered, and were all found to conform to the Notice of Bond Sale and to be accompanied by the required security, and the purchase price, interest rates and net interest cost under the terms of each bid were found to be as follows: (Bid insert)
Council Member Bakken introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, which motion was seconded by Council Member Kreun: Document No. 9184 - Resolution..
Upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Bjerke, McNamara, Gershman, Christensen, Bakken, Kreun, Glassheim - 7; and the following voted against the same: none; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE AND
AWARDING SALE OF SEWER RESERVE REVENUE
REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2008C
The city auditor presented an affidavit showing publication in the official newspaper of the City of the Notice of Bond sale of $755,000 Sewer Reserve Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2008C (the "Bonds") of the City, bids for which were to be considered at this meeting as provided by resolution adopted June 16, 2008. The affidavit was examined and approved and ordered placed on file.
Council Member Bakken introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, which motion was seconded by Council Member Kreun: Document No. 9185 - Resolution.
Upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Bjerke, McNamara, Gershman, Christensen, Bakken, Kreun, Glassheim, - 7; and the following voted against the same: none; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
ACCEPT APPLICATION BY PRODUCTION SPECIALTIES
CORPORATION/PS DOORS FOR FIVE-YEAR PROPERTY
TAX EXEMPTION ON BUILDING EXPANSION, AND
ESTABLISH PUBLIC HEARING
A staff report from the city assessor relating to application for property tax exemption for expanding business by James Satrom, Production specialties Corporation/PS Doors, 1150 South 48th Street, with recommendation to establish date for possible public hearing on this exemption.
It was moved by Council Member Bjerke and seconded by Council Member Kreun to set August 4, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. as the date and time of the public hearing to hear any comments or testimony in favor of and in opposition to the granting of the tax incentive. Carried 7 votes affirmative.
CONFIRM REAPPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF HISTORIC
PRESERVATION COMMISSION
The staff report from Mayor Brown relating to Historic Preservation Commission appointments, with recommendation to confirm reappointment of Chuck Flemmer, Gordon Iseminger, Melinda Leach, and Sandy Slater and appointment of Sharon Bures.
It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Kreun to confirm Mayor's appointments to the Historic Preservation Commission. Carried 7 votes affirmative.
APPROVE ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR
PROJECT NO. 6303, RECONSTRUCTION OF ENGLISH
COULEE SHARED USE PATH
The staff report from the engineering department relating to engineering services agreement for Project No. 6303, Federal Project No. TEU-6-986(085)089, Reconstruction of English Coulee Shared Use Path from 24th to 17th Avenues South, with recommendation to approve agreement with CPS, Ltd for engineering services in the amount of $41,005.00.
It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Kreun that this recommendation be approved. Upon roll call the following voted "aye": Council Members Bjerke, McNamara, Gershman, Bakken, Kreun, Gershman - 7; voting "nay": none. Vice President Glassheim declared the motion carried and the contract awarded.
ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS AND ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS,
WATERMAIN PROJECT NO. 6309, DISTRICT NO. 301
The city engineer's estimate of total cost of the construction of watermain on 2500-2800 blocks of South 42nd Street and 4100 block of 29th Avenue South in the amount of $ , was presented and read.
The staff report from the engineering department relating to plans and specifications for Project No. 6309, District No. 301, watermain on 2500 - 2800 blocks of South 42nd Street and 4100 block of 29th Avenue South, with recommendation to approve plans and specifications and further that the city auditor be directed to advertise for bids on the project.
Council Member Bakken introduced the following resolution which was presented and read: Document No. 9186 - Resolution.
It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Kreun that the recommendation be approved and that the resolution approving the plans and specifications be adopted. Carried 7 votes affirmative.
RECEIVE TABULATION OF BIDS, ESTIMATES OF TOTAL
COST AND AWARD CONTRACT, STREET IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 6271, DISTRIC4T NO. 98
The city auditor presented and read tabulation of bids which had been received and opened on June 16, 2008 for Street Improvement Project No. 6271, District No. 98, 2008 seal coats, indicating that Asphalt Surface Technologies Corporation was the low bidder based upon their bid in the amount of $199,830.00: Document No. 9187 - Bid Tabulation.
The city engineer's estimate of total cost for Project No. 6271, District No. 98, in the amount of $
was presented and read.
The staff report from the engineering department relating to consideration of bids for Project No. 6271, District No. 98, 2008 seal coat project, with recommendation to award contract to low bidder, Asphalt Surface Technologies Corp. in the amount of $199,830.00.
It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Kreun that this recommendation be approved and the resolution awarding the contract to Asphalt Surface Technologies Corp. was presented and read: Document No. 9187.1 - Resolution. Upon roll call the following voted "aye": Council Members Bjerke, McNamara, Gershman, Christensen, Bakken, Kreun, Glassheim - 7; voting "nay": none. Vice President Glassheim declared the resolution adopted and the contract awarded.
APPROVE ENGINEERING/ARCHITECTURAL AGREEMENT
FOR PROJECT NO. 6320, RIVERSIDE POOL RENOVATION
The staff report from the engineering department relating to design, bidding and construction administration engineering/architectural services agreement for Project No. 6320, Riverside Pool Restoration, with recommendation to approve agreement with EAPC for design, bidding and construction administration in the amount of $88,000.00; and further approve use of up to $88,000 of Greenway Betterment Funds to fund agreement.
Council Member Bjerke asked if the City of Grand Forks has in its possession a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers or FEMA signed by the appropriate authorizing official granting permission to the City to renovate or maintain a pool on the wet side of the dike; or if they are sending a drop dead letter where they have so much time to respond and have it in writing that we have asked them for input on this and that they either responded or didn't, and have something in writing to prove that we have made that effort. Mr. Grasser stated they have been in contact of obtaining authorization but no response to date, that we need to show that have no impact on the flood profile and are going to request that the Corps do that analysis and the validation for us, they haven't committed to that and doesn't know timeframe they are at and that would have the Corps on board; that re. FEMA would be looking at the letter letting them know what our intentions are, what actions we are taking and if we don't get a response, that infers an approval. It was noted would have that information prior to opening bids for construction.
Council Member Bjerke stated that greenway betterment is a special assessment on every piece of property in the city of Grand Forks so are raising taxes if spend greenway betterment money, would not vote to raise taxes for a swimming pool, it is time to start cutting and time to stop continuing to raise taxes on the citizens of Grand Forks, and moved to approve the agreement and to fund it by transferring $88,000 from 2163 Economic Development Fund. The motion died for lack of a second.
It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Kreun to approve the recommendation.
Council Member Kreun stated that greenway betterment was a budget process put together in 1998 to utilize in certain circumstances for use of some of those funds, and the pool is one of those circumstances. He stated they put together budget of $5 million at the beginning of the flood protection project, $3 million was voted by the council to utilize and extend the concrete portion of the floodwalls, have listing of where the monies were spent, but asked the voters and they responded in a positive manner, and does agree with the requirement from the Corps of Engineers to get written authorization or response or non-response but believes the money that we set aside for these type of things is not over and above what they anticipated in the beginning and would move this forward.
Council Member Gershman asked that they check with the Park District, as they have built 3 buildings on the wet side of the dike, one in Lincoln and 2 in Riverside Park and there has been precedent set for building on that side, and imperative for our community to continue to have amenities for children and families, and seems prudent investment by our City and citizens by 2/3rds vote agreed because very clear that there would be additional taxation.
Vice President Glassheim stated there are two sources of funds for the $1.1 million and one is the $600,000 remaining from the $830,000 that was pledged to the Park District as a buy-out and contractually pledged, same as every other buyout in town, and the other is the $500,000 that the people of Grand Forks just voted on by 63% knowing that it would cost them additional funds and that we would be bonding for an additional $500,000, but people voted to tax themselves knowing what it would cost and can go ahead on that basis without being concerned.
Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 6 votes affirmative; Council Member Bjerke voted against the motion.
AWARD CONTRACT FOR PROJECT NO. 6177, STATE
PROJECT NO. SRU-6-986(079)083 PCN 17155, SAFE
ROUTES TO SCHOOL/PAVEMENT MARKINGS
The staff report from the engineering department relating to bids for Project No. 7177, Safe Routes to School/Pavement Markings, State Project No. SRU-6-986(079)083 PCN 17155, with recommendation to award contract to low bidder, Swanston Equipment in the amount of $73,760.64 for this project, and to return non-conforming bid to bidder, North Star Safety, West Fargo, ND because of bid did not include current license.
It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Kreun that this recommendation be approved. Upon roll call the following voted "aye": Council Members Bjerke, McNamara, Gershman, Christensen, Bakken, Kreun, Glassheim - 7; voting "nay": none. Vice President Glassheim declared the motion carried and the contract awarded.
APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO PROJECT NO. 6174,
DISTRICT NO. 458, REHABILITATE STORM PUMP
STATIONS 182 AND NO. 188
The staff report from the engineering department relating to Amendment No. 2 to engineering services agreement with Webster, Foster & Weston for Project No. 6174, District no. 458, Rehabilitate Storm Pump Stations No. 182 and No. 188, with recommendation to approve Amendment No. 2 for additional services in the amount of $39,911.38.
It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Kreun that this recommendation be approved. Upon roll call the following voted "aye": Council Members Bjerke, McNamara, Gershman, Christensen, Bakken, Kreun, Glassheim - 7; voting "nay": none. Vice President Glassheim declared the motion carried and the amendment approved.
APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH CPS, LTD TO CONDUCT
LANDFILL TIER II NMO SAMPLING, ANALYSES AND
REPORT
The staff report from the director of public works relating to Grand Forks Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfill Tier II Non-Methane Organic Compound Emission (NMOC) sampling and report agreement, with recommendation to approve a service agreement with CPS, Ltd. to conduct the sampling, analyses and report under a not to exceed amount of $53,391, subject to the city attorney review and approval.
It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Kreun that this recommendation be approved. Upon roll call the following voted "aye": Council Members Bjerke, McNamara, Gershman, Christensen, Bakken, Kreun, Glassheim - 7; voting "nay": none. Vice President Glassheim declared the motion carried and the amendment approved.
APPROVE AGREEMENT FOR GEOTECHNICAL
EVALUATION OF SOUTH SLOPE OF LANDFILL
The staff report from the director of public works relating to Grand Forks Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) landfill geotechnical evaluation, with recommendation to approve service agreement with CPS, Ltd. and its geotechnical subconsultant, Braun Intertec Corporation, to complete a geotechnical evaluation of the south slope of the Grand Forks MSW landfill under a not to exceed amount of $140,741, subject to the city attorney review and approval.
It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Kreun that this recommendation be approved. Upon roll call the following voted "aye": Council Members Bjerke, McNamara, Gershman, Christensen, Bakken, Kreun, Glassheim - 7; voting "nay": none. Vice President Glassheim declared the motion carried and the amendment approved.
APPROVE REQUEST FROM JOE BLACK'S TO SERVE
ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH OUTDOOR SEATING
The staff report from the city auditor relating to request from Joe Black's, 118 North 3rd Street, for authorization to serve alcohol in conjunction with outdoor café seating at their business, with recommendation to approve the request contingent upon review and approval by the city attorney.
It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Kreun that this recommendation be approved. Council Member Gershman asked to be excused from voting on this matter, and it was so moved by Council Members Bakken and Kreun. Carried 6 votes affirmative.
Upon call for the question on the recommendation and upon voice vote, the motion carried 6 votes affirmative; Council Member Gershman recused.
DENY REQUEST FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE
BY MOODDYZ BAR AND CASINO AT 3450 GATEWAY DRIVE
The staff report from the Service/Safety Standby Committee relating to request for liquor license application by Mooddyz Bar and Casino (Gary Edwards, 3400 24th Avenue South, #1104 and Doug Boushee, 111 Seward Avenue), with recommendation to deny the request for application.
Gary Edwards reported that application was denied the first time because of an incomplete application and was fault on their part as not knowing what they needed to include, they resubmitted a full application, and hoped the council will review and give them a chance to prove in giving them the privilege of a liquor license so they can move forward with it.
Council Member Christensen asked what the main reason was for denying the application. Council Member Kreun stated that they looked at the history of primary license holder, Mr. Boushee, having controlling interest in the business; some of the concerns they had were charges over a period of time that indicated a history of an attitude that wouldn't be forthcoming in operating a liquor establishment, terrorizing, assault, etc, let alone some of the traffic violations of that nature, and should be brought forward to the full council as a person that would be in control of a liquor license and the establishment with that history and background and that it was still a situation that they upheld the denial of the first recommendation.
Council Member Bakken stated it was based on past history but also on some very current history and have been working diligently at the city level in trying to make sure that our license holders and license establishments follow the regulations and have had big push for underage drinking and stopping underage drinking, etc. and will continue that trend and that is why denied this particular application.
Council Member McNamara asked if the application had been modified in any way, had dealt with this initially and based on conversation it went back to committee. Council Member Kreun stated there was no change in the application which was one of the suggestions they made to them to reorganize their business model, they indicated to us that they didn't feel that was necessary and that there was going to be another person involved and that Mr. Boushee would not have the controlling interest at that time and they would have to go through their refiling for corporation.
Mr. Edwards stated they are in the process in working with their attorney to restructure and his being the controlling interest, can do that, and their future goal was to have Doug's daughter come into business after graduating college and would give her 10% of the corporation which would leave him and Doug each at 45%. He stated that Mr. Boulsee's DWI was in 1995 and harassment charge and several other things that were listed that were thrown out of court. Council Member Bakken stated his background is good and no problem with the concept, the problem is with your partner and that is what basing this on, but if redo it and reapply would be happy to take a look at it.
Council Member Kreun stated the police department did not give a recommendation, the police department was not the factor in determining the percentage of ownership or who was in control or not - the committee made that decision as to Mr. Boushee's behavior, his explosive personality, and if read statements submitted by the police department and what we are saying is that we do not want that individual in charge of a bar that has that kind of explosive personality, and if Mr. Edwards wants to take and have control of that business so he can control it, would be happy as Mr. Bakken indicated.
Council Member Christensen stated that as they don't have an attorney here, but sounds like the criteria as to qualifications for a license may not be clearly stated, that he is going to vote with the committee but would recommend that they get this reviewed by our city attorney before we have an absolute denial and if we have an issue in our ordinance stating that and would be clear and not arbitrarily exercise your discretion or if we want to be somewhat discretionary you can have the license but the gentleman, one of the owners, can't be involved in management and that could also be in the ordinance, then not deemed to be arbitrary or capricious or we better find some facts, and if find facts, should have criteria to find the facts on rather than just how we feel today.
Council Member McNamara stated that when they reviewed this application, either Mr. Swanson or Mr. Warcup was there and we talked about the criteria for denying an application, and were informed that if had a concern over the owner or the manager, according to the application, that was basis for denial, based on their record and Mr. Boushee would operate it - Mr. Edwards stated they would operate it together and that they will have a manager in place and working owners and that manager will answer to him or to Doug. He stated that based on that they rejected the application and subsequent phone calls were talked about this exact thing which was that you need to reorganize and yet the application has come back, essentially the same application, with more detail about his record but that really wasn't the concern because we knew about his record when we denied it the first time. He stated their conversations were more about when we grant liquor licenses and with all the different violations that we see and the problems that we have, we want to make sure that when we look at the owner, and that this was a good decision, made in good faith, and that is our obligation to the citizens and that was basis of the denial.