Council Minutes

Minutes of Grand Forks City Council/Committee of the Whole
Monday, February 25, 2008 - 5:30 p.m.___________________

The City Council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in City Hall with President Gershman presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Hutchison, Glassheim, Christensen, Kreun, Gershman 5; absent : Council Member Bakken - 1.

President Gershman commented on events during the past week and upcoming events:
On Thursday he had the privilege of representing the City at the Valley Community Health Center Dental Clinic on South 4th Street, it is a facility that offers dental health care to those that cannot afford it, they have about 30 to 35 clients per day that tells you there was a tremendous need for it. Deb Swanson of the Health Department was instrumental in getting this done along with Sharon Erickson and Dr. John Eickhof. Senator Byron Dorgan spoke along with Mr. Glassheim who spoke as ND State Representative. He asked Mr. Glassheim to distribute his speech to the city council members. CDBG funds of approx. $170,000 went into the project; and congratulations to the City for participating along with Urban Development in helping with the process.

On Saturday evening he went to the Carmina Burana Concert at the Chester Fritz Auditorium and was a combination of the ND Ballet, the Grand Forks Symphony, the Master Chorale, the University of North Dakota Concert Choir, Allegro, a choral group, University Bards, Northland Chamber Choir and the percussion department from the Music School and that it was one of the finest performances he has seen in Grand Forks, and had close to 2,000 people attending. Part of the reason they were able to do it was because of a grant from the City of Grand Forks to the North Valley Arts Council through out granting program; and wonderful way to see how the City participated in promoting the arts in the city, and to remind the public that that funding comes from sales tax and not from property taxes and helps our economic development and quality of life. Congratulations to the Symphony for putting this together.

Council Member McNamara reported present.

2.1 Appointment of Bill Hutchison to Finance/Development Standby Comm., Growth Fund Committee, Gateway Drive Committee and 911 Authority Board to fill unexpired term of Bob Brooks.___________________________________________
There were no comments.

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

2.3 Grand Forks Flood Protection Project - Purchase of property from Jackie Grass.
There were no comments.

2.4 2008 budget amendment - Police Department.
Chief Packett, representing the police, fire and health departments in this endeavor, stated
the budget amendment brings a 2006 Technology grant and a 2007 JAG grant into the police
department's 2008 budget, approx, $299,000 left in those grants and that will allow us to purchase
software, hardware, training materials and furniture for the Public Safety Training Center, this is
not a match and no public dollars and is not part of the original bond. Council Member Kreun
stated that Chief O'Neill also has been instrumental in bringing in some of those types of funds
for the training facility and that will affect the health department and the police department as
well, may see more funding coming through again.

2.5 Authorize Public Transportation Department to resubmit applications to NDDOT for New Freedom Funds to enhance Fixed Route and Dial-A-Ride/Senior Rider Services._______________________________________________________________
Todd Feland, director of public works, stated under the original grant they requested to
start the fixed route service 4 hours earlier on Saturday at 6:00 a.m. rather than 10:00 a.m. and to
start the bus route on the south and southwest part of the city, but held off on adding the
additional hours and have now come back with resubmitting the grant and proposed rather than
starting at 6:00 .am. start at 8:00 a.m., that most of the demand on Saturday is more limited later
in the day and propose to stop service at 4:00 p.m., that they have a night bus and would start that
service at 4:00 p.m. so have continuous operation. He stated that would provide 2 more hours on
Saturday for disabled people on para-transit service and 2 more hours for senior rider service, and
also add a capacity by adding a new multiple load van because of demand for wheelchairs, etc.

Cost of the van is $35,500, with 83% paid with federal monies and 17% would be match from
Grand Forks Taxi; that the City owns the van for 5 years and that the provider provides the local
match and contract is a 5-year depreciation schedule and at the end of 5 years the provider takes
over the van. It was also noted that if the provider has time left on the agreement and a new
transit provider takes over, the new service provider would buy out the remaining years or the
City would come in to pay out whatever the residual value of the 17% would be.

Feland stated that the additional cost to the City annually would be the $10,172.00 for extending
the night bus route for 2 hours and the additional Dial-A-Ride cost. The primary funding will be
60% federal funding and another % for State funding and do have 4 to 5 mills on fixed route and
1 mill on Dial-A-Ride; we have received additional money on the State side and funding also
comes from the users.

Mr. Christensen questioned what percentage of mills and property tax collected is used to sub-
sidize our transportation. Feland stated city government probably pays about 20% of the entire
public transit budget, and 60 to 70% federal, 20% State and 10% user, and the federal share is
taxpayer, the State share is taxpayer but is probably the best deal the City gets on any of its
operations, given the fact that we transport people around that otherwise would not be.

2.6 Bids for Project No. 6240 - Phase VIII Landfill Closure and associated budget amendment.________________________________________________________
Council Member Glassheim asked if it wouldn't be good for the public to know the cost
and liability and our responsibility in closing the current landfill and assuring its future safety for
the environment; and suggested providing that information at the next meeting for council and
public. Mr. Feland stated that in 2 years will be in the post-closure phase and know what
responsible for the next 30 years and what we have done over the last 5 to 7 years in closing this
facility and would be willing to do that at the next council meeting.

Council Member Hutchison asked what is the timeline for this closure. Mr. Feland stated this
will happen over the summer, that they have closed a large portion of the landfill over the past 10
years and this year's closure project is 31 acres at a cost of $1.3 million, final area they are
working in has enough space to get us to fall of 2009, and are winding down with the closure
project, there is an adjacent area, inert landfill, which is the construction/demolition landfill and
that will stay; and landfill proposing to move to Rye Twp. 13 and transition this operation.

Mr. Feland asked Mr. Glassheim if he wanted more information than what has been said; Mr.
Glassheim stated that he wanted the public to know the extent of what has to be done to insure
environmental safety and duration of time we are legally responsible, cost of complying with
good environmental safety, and can prepare something for next meeting.

Council Member Christensen stated that when we site the new landfill and set bonds in place, that
we have to have money set aside for closure, and in this situation we have $1.3 million to close
31 acres, that we have $3.4 million set aside to close this in addition to this on-going expenditure
and when we get down to siting and constructing the next landfill with some of the improve-
ments, the council will have to make big revenue decisions and not sure what estimate is to close
the next landfill that will be good for 35-50 years, and would be instructive for the citizens and
Info. Office to get that information out. It is an incredibly big financial decision for this
community, and in the long term because we are looking at adding technology, and probably the
last time see a regional landfill sited as we have gone through this, there are issues going on now
some backlash in the community when you see people complaining about the ET, extraterritorial
jurisdiction, and some of those things that would be at the legislature this year but perhaps this
would be a poster child for the State so the citizens of the State in major metro. areas realize that
we are going to have to have a plan for landfill sitings and landfill closures because it is
something that you can't let it go on as it has this time, and there are a lot if financial issues and
the State has a lot to learn from what we went through here.

President Gershman stated that waste management around the country has about 60 plants that are
taking the methane gas from landfills and commercializing them, and if this is big enough to
capture the methane gas they use at the airport for energy. Mr. Feland stated they have a pre-
feasibility study that is being completed by the EERC and should get completed report in March ,
and will bring it back to Service/Safety for review; and would look at either transporting that
energy to our wastewater treatment plant or our baling facility and/or Airport, and would be a
cost benefit. He stated that Waste Management has commercials of all the great things they do,
and in part the reason they are selling methane is that they have huge landfills and interstate
landfills and have a lot of methane; that we are in a smaller landfill category where the costs
benefit ratio is less, but when we come back with the pre-feasibility study will have some sense if
whether we should proceed further, but is potential for the future.

Council Member Kreun stated why the costs are high, that we have been doing this for 10
years and along with that are test wells and monitoring wells for potential seepage that could take
place, gases released and those are built into bids as they go through that so that the testing
procedures don't disturb the groundwater, air, that closure is covering the landfill permanently
with certain amount of fill and dirt, grass, etc. put on top of it. He noted the responsibility that
we have when this is completely closed, we are responsible for that for 30 years, and that this is a
huge financial responsibility and is called Subtitle D that the federal government has put on us
through the State, and State has taken those particular laws and transferred them to the City
without taking the responsibility for monitoring and testing and financing, another unfunded
mandate is what it is, and that is why it is a difficult issue for the council to go through - that we
have to have all of those components brought into play every time that we do any of these bid
processes and any work out there; and as we go through the new process all of the regulations that
the federal government has put on are going to be even more stringent than the old ones; and
those are the concerns that we work with every day.

Mr. Feland reported that we have $4 million in landfill closure account, the area for closure will
cost $1.2 million, and $1.4 in post-closure account, leaving $1.5 million that is incremental
amount to reinvest in a new project. That our goal has been to keep as much cash as can in the
sanitation utility account and keep the landfill closure, then would have some cash in an account
to look at a new development (landfill) and that is why trying to close this at the same time we
redevelop a new landfill, and those are some decisions that council will have to make in the next
couple years as we look to a new site as we close this one. The State should be very pleased that
the cities handle a lot of these issues, without the major municipalities doing this, many of these
major things would not get done.

President Gershman stated this is a regional landfill and not a Grand Forks landfill.

2.7 Surplus real property.
Meredith Richards, Urban Development, reported the item is to declare property surplus
in preparation of the redevelopment process, the listing included in the staff report shows 39
properties, first section is what they anticipate will make available this year assuming that the
market is willing and staff is able, these are properties they anticipate offering at market rate, not
an affordable infill program other than a guided market rate development process. She stated that
if everything goes well, will then offer more, but if not an appetite for these lots, slow the process
down; that all of the lots in the city's residential inventory are intended to sell at market value.
She stated they have already offered the 4 Belmont Road lots through a RFP process and next
item on the agenda is approval of one of those proposals, and those 4 lots have been publicly
offered. In terms of redeveloping the rest of the area assuming council does gives them a
declaration of surplus tonight, they are ready to issue a request for proposals for the 8 lots that are
north of 15th Avenue South that front on Walnut and Chestnut and would offer immediately upon
declaration of surplus.

Council Member Christensen stated lots on Chestnut Place and 15th Avenue South and what
would they anticipate offering an RFP for those. Ms Richards stated that would be done in
several different packages rather than all at once, the lots that front on Walnut that have alley
access are concerned to make sure we get a good handle on drainage and those will be offered as
one package and those are probably not going to be offered this year; there is a lot of neighbor-
hood impact to anticipate redeveloping half of these lots this year and anticipate staging it, the
lots north of 15th Ave.S. are similar and would be asking in their proposal the criteria that is very
similar and natural packaging of those 8 lots. That as they move farther south, have to make sure
that the market is there and work with the neighborhood to make sure that their needs are met as
we develop our parameters for those lots; and the farther south you go in terms of finding light
criteria because mixed neighborhood and more diverse home styles get.

Council Member Christensen stated that in speaking with several smaller developers, they are
anxious to see as much of this being offered to them as quickly as possible so if they are selected
they can get into the ground this spring, and what is criteria for the RFP's on the 8 lots, and now
that don't have any flood insurance issues and that Mr. Carsen is suggesting that these lots sell at
$27,500 would be minimum proposal, and the size of the homes, 1520 ft. without a garage and
thought that they would be in the range of $200,000 per house, and that a lot of the homes to the
west on Walnut, range of values is $170,000 to $200,000 and assuming a $200,000 home and
how get ourselves geared up so you think that affordable housing is less than that and if could
get the 20 or 15 of these lots to the market as quickly as could to let the developers start on that
this summer, would be good for everybody to get this back on the tax rolls.

Ms. Richards stated that is Urban Development staff's desire is to redevelop these lots as quickly
as possible and still be reasonable and do it right, that if council declares these lots surplus next
Monday will issue the RFP for the 8 lots the next day. At the following council cycle have an
affordable infill RFP, Mr. Kreun will be on the Review Comm., and that will be coming back to
council for action to get another 8 lots under construction in the near northside, the Riverside
neighborhood, that they have some lots on Belmont Road in the southend that those under
proposed sales type, have auction, and getting calls everyday on those too.

Christensen stated he didn't see declaration as a problem but concerned about after they get that
done how fast they can move because they have rezoned and reconfigured those that are
bordered on Walnut and Chestnut, resized those lots and those lots would be ready to go also.
Ms. Richards stated they will offer the 8 in RFP next week if possible, allow 6 week advertising
period because expect complete proposals, and if that is a successful process and get good
proposals on all 8 will come back with another 8 to 10. She stated they have heard that these are
very desirable popular lots and want to offer them in a way that everybody wins - City gets good
value and neighborhood gets appropriate attractive homes and the City gets rebuilt tax base.

Christensen asked what else are they looking for after putting the RFP out after paying the price.
Ms. Richards stated there is a package listing the criteria that your proposal will be reviewed on -
combination of many things, minimum bid, compatibility with the neighborhood and the
neighborhood wanted to see development that was not necessarily affordable or starter homes but
would raise the value of the neighborhood in general; and the home with a higher property value
would score higher than the home that was more affordable. They look at the qualifications of
the builder or developer, financial capacity to complete what they say they will, construction
schedule; and is comprehensive package that they ask of the people who submit proposals and go
over with a fine-tuned comb. She also noted that once council approves a proposal they have to
go through the transfer of ownership, deadline would be mid-April and should be in the ground
by Memorial Day.

Council Member Kreun stated that we want to get as many homes built as fast as can and back on
the tax rolls, but one of the things have to take into consideration is at the meetings about 90% of
those were from that immediate area, and their requests are that this is an RFP process rather than
a bid process so don't through a bunch of houses out there built in any particular style and also
wanted homes that created an enhanced property values as opposed to just taking an entry level
home, that these houses fit the neighborhood very well but don't want their neighborhood torn up
either - take those into consideration - that if go well, put another group out and go through
process as fast as can with well managed approach; probably not go as fast as we would like it to
but find a nice balance.

Ms. Richards stated the greatest number of city-owned lots is in this Walnut/Chestnut/Belmont
neighborhood and looking at 35 lots and impact of redevelopment on that neighborhood will be
huge, no other part of town will have such an impact of redevelopment just because there is not
that volume of contiguous lots to be redeveloped, they are looking at having some similar
neighborhood meetings in Ward 2 as there are 4 lots in University Park neighborhood, and they
have been very concerned about transitioning and rental properties vs. owner occupied and single
family vs. multifamily and want to listen to the neighbors and develop a redevelopment process
that listens to their concerns. When they have the Review Comms. try when possible or
appropriate to have a neighborhood resident sit in on them; and when they redeveloped the
Almonte Nursing Home site neighborhood very concerned and they went through process of
rezoning, replatting and got lot of neighborhood input and that was a very successful
redevelopment and that is the model they will follow for redevelopment. They want to make sure
that everyone is informed of the process and knowing what the City is doing.

Council Member Hutchinson asked if this was meant to be affordable housing; and the value of
the lots was $27,500. Ms. Richards stated they do have an affordable infill program, lots listed
here are not part of that, these are in areas where have homes valued at $1 million doesn't make
sense to try to put affordable housing in that neighborhood. She noted that the 8 lots they
anticipate advertising next are $27,500 and based on city assessor's estimate of current market
value, and as city-owned property it is on the tax rolls at zero, but city assessor's estimate if
privately owned what its value would be based on comparable properties. She stated that several
years ago it was the City's policy to offer properties at 95% of appraised value to get offer that
incentive, and when talked about in the work session, these are very desirable lots, why need to
discount them.

Council Member Christensen stated that if lots sell for $27,500 and if a 1520 sq.ft. home and his
estimates are that $125 to $135 ft., that is $200,000 plus, and that is what it is going to cost for a
home to be built in this area and that will blend into other homes based upon assessed value of
existing homes, and that if take the first 8 to market, and why not try to make sure that the value
of the minimum home would be in the area of $200,000 so don't impact neighbors and also why
not think about applying some of our affordable housing criteria to help first time home buyers
get in; and suggest that get some help on paying for the lot, and try to repopulate the area with
younger families. Ms. Richards stated that if the issue is sales price of the lot, their policy has
been that this is a desirable neighborhood, not necessarily an affordable or high end
neighborhood, but market and rely on predictions of what program income would be for CDBG
program and rather than selling these lots at market rate, sell them at discount, that will impact
projections for what program income budget would be. Mr. Christensen stated would like to
declare this surplus and bring the first 8 to market and see how that goes and bring it back to
finance/development committee to see if can overlay it with some of the concepts they have had
in the past and work on the district itself and make it available for younger families in that area.

Council Member Kreun stated that the RFP indicates that there are several programs for first-time
home buyers, and programs that we administer through Urban Development and Housing
Authority and RFP's do exactly what Mr. Christensen is asking but put the development of the
type of home into that neighborhood, whether $200,000 or $180,000 and depend on the builder
and what capable of putting in there, and are going to be blending in with the neighborhoods and
with the RFP process and format, think accomplish those goals.

President Gershman stated they have to consider the market very careful because there are low
specials and at $27,500, and wonderful value, tree lined, established neighborhood. Mr.
Christensen stated young persons just look at what is their payment, could combine some of these
ideas to bring this to market and could do that with other areas too.

Greg Hoover, director of Urban Development, stated that as directed last summer to put this
process in place and did that with the Belmont lots and that these lots were never intended as
affordable homes, they were market and if the council would like to consider them but have also
published these assessed values in our documents to date and do have a waiting list of people who
have contacted us and they are aware of the cost, they are young people and have children, some
empty nesters, etc. and believes first go around will give us good indication of what will see in
the future, and if don't come in at value, then may have to re-evaluate where we go.

He also noted that these were never intended as entry-level homes for first time homebuyers, and
if they would like that, the Promenade that is being developed by the Housing Authority is a good
place for that, running from about $90,000 to $150,000 and is more of true workforce entry-level
homes. Mr. Christensen stated that if we can assist people getting there we should, and not
willing to let it go after 8 lots and if doesn't work wants to be prepared to move forward.

2.8 Redevelopment of 1510 Belmont Road.
There were no comments.

2.9 Request from Grand Forks Planning Department for preliminary approval of an ordinance establishing a moratorium on the installation, erection, construction, replacement, modification or improvement of static or changing electronic, digital, video, display signs or billboards and flashing, motion, animated, changeable copy and illuminated signs proposed to be located within the city of Grand Forks and its extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction.________________________________________
Brad Gengler, city planner, stated that the staff report under recommended action calls for a date of April 7 for public hearing and that date should be March 17. He stated that they designed with the assistance of the city attorney's office a moratorium that would be placed upon the approval of any request for electronic message centers, LED signs, have seen them in ground monument signs, pylon signs, etc. and noticed proliferation of these signs; and that staff is recommending a 90-day cycle for the moratorium which would allow staff time to write the ordinances and go through the sign subcommittee. He stated that following tonight's committee of the whole would introduce the ordinance for the moratorium on March 3 and grant final approval of March 17, and then run for the specified time, whether 90 days or more, and that staff will mobile the sign subcommittee to review various types of regulations. He noted that the existing sign code is very silent on regulating these types of electronic signs - there are a few on South Washington which tend to be obtrusive to motorists (flashing, high intense lights) and purpose of the ordinance to revamp the code would be to implement some forms of regulatory provisions to apply to the signs, staff will recommend that we do these regulatory measures city-wide rather than in planned unit developments.

Howard Swanson, city attorney, stated he would encourage thinking longer term than 90 days, and do a fairly comprehensive study, not only of the industry but on regulations from other communities, jurisdictions and states, not convinced they can do that broad of a study and run it through Planning and Zoning Commission meetings, public hearings and council in a 90-day timeframe; and suggested 6 months.

Council Member McNamara asked if they are a safety hazard. Mr. Gengler stated there are studies sponsored by the Federal Highway Adm. and evidence nation-wide that there are concerns and have been documented incidents; in Grand Forks not aware of any specific accident or something attributed to it but want to head that off before getting to that point; and regulates not only intensity of the light but flash rate and proximity of the roadway. He stated there is such a wide variety of signs and how they operate is critical at this point before you get to the extent that you see them everywhere and can be a distraction to the motorist.

Chief Packett stated that some of the studies locally, do track on the State crash report boxes that the officers can check as far as contributing factors and if desire of council they can do a preliminary check within the last couple years to see if that was indicated by drivers and get that info. to council through the planning department.

Mr. McNamara asked if there was any feedback indicating they are currently planning a sign and would injure them during the moratorium period. Mr. Gengler stated they haven't heard anything specific but doing because of knowledge of moratorium, the sign subcommittee took action on two proposed ground monument signs that have the reader board last week, approved the signs which met the bare bones of code but there was a stipulation placed in the motion that the owners need to recognize the fact that once these newer rules are in place, they will be subject to those rules; but once talk about this in public sense, will get some calls, ands this does apply to the billboards which have newer technologies which don't have here but controversies in Minneapolis area where full sized billboard that is electronic, they have a moratorium and have battle with Clear Channel and as a matter of record will be addressing that under the moratorium.

Council Member Hutchison stated he agrees with Mr. Swanson and if nothing in the sign committee code, not going to happen in 90 days and if put out to the public, and look at this and would be 6 months so public aware.

Council Member Kreun stated he sits on the sign subcommittee and many comments have come up with existing signs and types of signs already up, not physical size but duration of the flash, intensity of flash ands type of message that is on there, and those are regulations they will be looking for; there are two signs on Washington and two on Columbia Road that that get a lot of notoriety and get calls on, should look at and be controlled so that it doesn't distract drivers and the neighbors as well who say signage so bright takes away from their signage.

Mr. Swanson stated this issue is very national right now and that based upon web pages for city attorneys, this is being studied all over and typically has seen one year moratorium and have seen longer than that, and nothing shorter than 6 months. Mr. Christensen stated he would be in favor of one year, can roll it back, but that these electronic signs seen more in the last 12 months than previously - that we have lot of competing interest here, number of signs in specific area, more time required so leave corridors more attractive. Mr. Gengler also stated that this moratorium will not affect normal signage and will affect the use of LED signs or electronic message centers.

ADJOURN

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

Respectfully submitted,



John M. Schmisek
City Auditor