Council Minutes
Minutes/Committee of the Whole
Monday, October 8, 2007 – 5:30 p.m.
Page 1 of 4
The City Council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, October 8, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in City Hall with President Gershman presiding. Present Council Members Brooks, McNamara (via phone), Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Bakken, Kreun - 7; Absent: None.
President Gershman made the following announcements:
1)
Kai Robert and his daughter Camilla from Sarpsborg, Norway, our sister city, are in town this week performing their music at some venues and President Gershman had a chance to meet with them yesterday and encouraged others to attend the remaining performances. He also distributed to Council Members copies of a Kai Robert and Camilla CD on which the first song was specifically written for Grand Forks.
2)
On behalf of Mayor Brown, read a proclamation designating the week of October 7-13 as Fire Prevention Week. President Gershman recognized the Fire Department for their educational efforts in the community and for the hard work that they put in to respond to fire and other emergency situations in the community.
2.1 Authorize call for bids and set sale date for $6,295,000 Refunding Improvement Bonds, Series
2007D.
2.2 Authorize call for bids and set sale date for $7,725,000 Temporary Improvement Warrants,
Series 2007E
Schmisek stated that item 2.1 is a bond that will finance the special assessment projects certified for collection in 2007 and will be repaid with payments collected from property owners and that item 2.2 is related to the flood control project and is a Temporary Warrant that will refinance the earlier issued temporary warrants and make available additional funds to cover the final costs of the project. He continued that at this time the project is not anticipated to have final cost numbers available until mid-2008 and these temporary warrants will have a maturity of December 2010, but are callable in December 2008. The call feature will give the City flexibility in the timing of the final phase flood protection special assessment, as it could be done anytime in the next 3 years once all the final costs are determined.
2.3 Plans and specifications for Project No. 6174.1 and No. 6174.2, Dist. No. 48, Rehabilitate Storm
Pump Stations Nos. 182 and No. 188 (underground bid package).
There were no comments.
2.4 Bids for Project No. 6192, watermain on 26th Ave N (N 42nd to 43rd Street), N. 43rd St. (27th Ave
N to existing line approx. 660 ft. south).
There were no comments.
2.5
Bids for Project No. 6150, Dist. No. 456, sanitary sewer for 5500 and 5600 blocks of 1st Ave N.
There were no comments.
2.6 Create special assessment district for Project No. 6241, Dist. No. 459, sanitary sewer for
McEnroe 1st Addn. (Garden View Drive)
2.7 Create special assessment district for Project No. 6242, Dist. No. 299, watermain for McEnroe
1st Addn. (Garden View Drive)
2.8 Create special assessment district for Project No. 6243, Dist. No. 460, storm sewer for McEnroe
1st Addn. (Garden View Drive)
Items 2.6, 2.7, and 2.8 were all considered together.
Kreun stated that his comment is not on the special assessment projects, but rather on this area of town and concerns on the zoning and that about one and a half to two years ago approved a concept plan for the area that seemed to be a good fit, but now the developer is bringing in plan to planning and zoning that does not fit that and is a higher density plan and that he wanted Council to be aware of this and that they will be seeing more information on that issue at an upcoming meeting.
2.9
Redevelopment of 1424, 1432, 1502, and 1510 Belmont Road.
There were no comments.
2.10 2008 CDBG and HOME Programs (Note: Because of timing requirements and meeting
schedules, this item will not appear on this item will be held on Tuesday, November 13, at a
special City Council meeting)
There were no comments.
2.11 Request from Widseth, Smith, Nolting Assoc.on behalf of Lithia Real Estate, Inc. for final
approval (fast track) of Replat of Lots 3 and 4, Blk. 1, Columbia Park 25th Resubdiv. (loc. at S. 20th St. and 36th Ave S.), and invludes variance to the Land Dev. Code, Article 2, Sec. 18-
0204 Rules and Definition, paragraph (2) Definition of a Minor Subdiv.
There were no comments.
2.12 Request from Elwin and Melody Kahlbaugh and the City of Grand Forks for final approval
(fast track) of Auditor’s Resubdiv. No. 33 (loc. at 3415 Belmont Road)
There were no comments.
2.13 Request from Grand Forks Housing Authority on behalf of Terzetto Village for final approval
(fast track) of Replat of Lots 19 and 20, Blk. 1, Promenade Second Addn. (loc. at 739 and 741
Promenade Court)
There were no comments.
2.14 Petition from Peabody Enterprises, LLC for approval to vacate northerly 15 ft. sidewalk and
utility easement in Lot 3, Block 1, Peabody’s 1st Addn.
There were no comments.
2.15 Request from Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Org. to amend Grand
Forks Comprehensive Plan by amending 2030 Transportation Plan Update, (2003 Street and Highway Element) together with all maps, information, recommendations and data contained
therein.
Earl Haugen, Executive Director of MPO, stated that there will be a public hearing on this plan at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on November 7, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers where a full presentation of the plan will be given. There will also be a presentation and public hearing at the City Council Meeting on November 19 at 5:30 p.m. in Council Chambers and that anyone in the public that is interested in obtaining more information is invited to attend either of these meetings or can contact him for information.
2.16 Request from CPS, Ltd on behalf of Peabody Enterprises, LLC and Desoto Assoc. for
preliminary approval of plat of Peabody’s Second Resubdiv. (loc. at S. 20th St. and 36th Ave. S.)
There were no comments.
2.17 Request on behalf of City of Grand Forks for preliminary approval of plat of Auditor’s
Resubdiv. No. 41 (loc. at Lewis Blvd. And Seward Ave.)
2.18 Request on behalf of City of Grand Forks for preliminary approval of plat of Auditor’s
Resubdiv. No. 42 (loc. at S. 3rd St./Minnesota Ave. to the BNSF Railroad)
Schmisek stated that both item 2.17 and 2.18 are areas that were acquired as part of the flood control project and now that work is completed can proceed with plat cleanup.
2.19 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Wilbur-Ellis for preliminary approval of plat of Wilbur-
Ellis Addn. (loc. at Bacon Road and Mill Road)
There were no comments.
2.20
City Council Structure
Brooks stated that he had requested this item be placed on the agenda and that on each of their desks there is a memo detailing his concerns on the current meeting structure that is in place, in particular that there are 4 levels of meetings that are all serving the same purpose.
Council Members noted pros and cons of different structures that have been tried in the past. Some of the thoughts expressed were:
§ Smaller standing committees lead to better knowledge base for Council persons as they interact more with staff. Committees also take place in a smaller room and promote a better discussion atmosphere.
§ Standing committee meetings are not televised currently so not as accessible and informative for the public. It was noted that these meetings could take place in Council Chambers and begin to be televised to overcome that and potentially could include every committee even those like Planning & Zoning.
§ COW meetings, as tonight, where there are no comments made on any items do not give the public any more information than if the item was discussed in depth at a nontelevised standing committee meeting. It was noted that many of the items on the agenda tonight were not controversial, thus no discussion took place, but that when has been a controversial item there has been good discussion at the COW meetings. Perhaps if something is coming to a standing committee that it is known will be of interest to all members of Council could make sure that they know and can attend or rather have that item at a work session.
§ Benefit to the COW meeting is that the public can hear that the item is being talked about and then has one week to get information or comments to/from staff and council members before the item comes up for vote, versus with standing committee, it may be only a few days from committee meeting until the vote at Council and it would be easy for someone in the public to miss an item that would affect them.
§ There has been prior discussion about possibly eliminating some of the various committees/task forces that currently review items prior to Council, who then reviews again and makes final decision and letting Council just handle alone.
§ Discussing the structure and getting a set flow will make it easier for those contemplating a run for elected office to know what the time commitment and expectation would be for them if they were successfully elected. Having a reasonable and realistic time commitment spelled out is helpful both the elected official and the public.
§ Committee Chairs should comment on items that come to COW/Council from their committees, as they have already reviewed the items in detail.
§ City government should be transparent, efficient and effective so that citizens have confidence in their government.
§ When all items go to the COW and then Council for vote, Council Members all become generalists and not as well informed as when they work on items more in depth with staff in the smaller committees. Perhaps more complex issues should be started in a standing committee and then moved to the COW, whereas less complex and noncontroversial items could go straight to COW.
§ The Chair of a standing committee is sometimes viewed to have a degree of power that can influence the flow of items and some question if that is good for the public.
§ A consistent structure should be developed so that the public and those interested in running for office in the future know what to expect.
§ Possibly all items should go to standing committees before coming to the COW, then the committee chair can be ready to comment on items from their committee.
§ Current structure has evolved from its initial design due to the need to fit schedules and requirements of those currently serving on Council and may need to adjust slightly whenever there is turnover on the Council.
Consensus of Council members was to take some time to think about all the comments made and any they receive from the public and bring ideas to the next COW meeting.
3. Information Items
4. Citizen Request
5. City Administrator Comments
6. Mayor and Council Member Comments
There were none.
7.
Adjournment.
Motion to adjourn by Brooks, second by Kreun. Aye: All. Nay: None. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
John M. Schmisek, CPA
City Auditor
SLL