Council Minutes
17505
April 2, 2001
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
April 2, 2001
The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in its regular session in the council chambers in City Hall on Monday, April 2, 2001 at the hour of 7:00 o’clock p.m. with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim (on telephone system), Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Bakken, Kreun - 11; absent: Council Member Gershman, Martinson - 2; 1 seat vacant..
Mayor Brown 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 advised that the meeting is being televised.
Fire Chief O’Neill recognized retiring employee, Linda Erhardt, for her 20 years service with that department.
The Information Center presented a 7-minutes video on the 2001 flood fighting protection. Kevin Dean of the Information Center stated this video was produced entirely in the Information Center and did not expend any funds to put this together as this is part of the equipment that they have gathered to make possible live TV broadcasts and underwriting and will use the same equipment and save the City additional money when they do things like this in the future. He stated they will be showing this on Cable Channel 3 over the next 3 weeks (Monday through Thursday at 1:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m.) and the purpose of the video is to let people know the degree of preparedness that the City of Grand Forks has, and want people to know that we are prepared and are ready to fight this year’s flood. He stated this is also a stepping stone to an entire marketing campaign that they would like to try to launch through the Public Information Center, that he has talked to a number of department heads and to the mayor’s office as well of being able to do this and the whole idea is of coordinating it through the Public Information Center is that they will eventually be able to save the City money; that in the future they can look for things in the newspaper, on TV, on radio where they will do an active marketing campaign for the city of Grand Forks and will coordinate that through the Public Information Center rather than having various departments doing their own campaigns.
Mayor Brown reported that a citizen called the mayor’s office and complained about garbage on 32nd Street, and this message has been forwarded to the public works director.
FLOOD REPORT
Al Grasser, city engineer, reviewed the update on the permanent flood protection:
1. Technical Work that the Corps of Engineers is doing: have consultants in the process of completing Phase I of the levees design, the advertisement for bid will begin in April and date dependent upon acquisitions; English Coulee Diversion Channel the design and bid package is tentatively scheduled for May, dependent upon property acquisitions; Gowan Construction has completed demolition of various homes and foundations and their contract, except for cleanup; Ayers Associates is designing the large English Coulee pumping station to be constructed in the coulee north of RDO Foods and found that they did have some geotechnical concerns there because of the depth of the levees (large amounts of settlement) and they are doing some redesign on that which will delay the design process by about 4-6 weeks and still expecting the station to be operational for the spring 2003 run-off.
2. City Staff/Consultants Update: Construction is underway on Lift Stations #1 and #5 near Lincoln Park and near St. Anne’s Guest Home - about 25% complete and caissons have been sunk. GFEG is finalizing the plans and specifications for the termination and re-routing of underground utilities on the dry-side of the levee, that’s part of the City’s responsibility before the Corps will come in and build the levees, looking for award in May. CPS is finalizing plans and specifications for removing the remainder of the utilities in the Lincoln area with a May bid date.
3. State Appropriation Process: things look good from the State right now, we’ve requested and haven’t heard any negative comments about the City’s accelerated request for funding from the State.
4. Local Funding: that they are working with Finance on a reporting format.
5. Acquisitions on Phase I: The City was awarded the Almonte Nursing Home on March 22, the final compensation hearing has not been set but do have possession of the building.
6. Phase II of the Levees: they are starting on some of the property acquisitions, and have demolition of those homes complete this fall in anticipation for an early spring start for the Phase II dike and floodwall construction activities.
7. Southend Update: The Barr Phase II study for the southeast levee alignment was received on March 27 and is being distributed (expanded executive summary) - a copy is available in their office for review.
He stated they have a number of comments on that report and will be soliciting input from some of the regulatory agencies to try to refine alternatives they will end up with on the southend.
8. Greenway: A meeting was held in the old Lincoln neighborhood on March 13 and looks like the Park District is going to install a gate at the entrance to the park which could be closed when the park is not in operation and putting an attendant there and think have consensus to keep that bottom ring road in the Lincoln area.
9. Mowing and Maintenance: Engineering and Urban Development are advertising for bids now, bids opened and will be ready for council on May 7. There will not be a Greenway Alliance meeting in April.
Howard Swanson, city attorney, reported he received a notice of trial today on the Valley Memorial matter at the request of the attorneys for Valley Memorial/Almonte Nursing Home, trial has been delayed until January, 2002, that only affects us with respect to the valuation, the Court did enter an order on the 22nd of March, and City now owns that property. He stated the latter part of last week they entered into several purchase agreements for the further acquisition of land for the English Coulee Diversion and also entered into additional agreements for the transfer of title which will allow us to continue negotiating with property owners on valuation. He reported that within the next 5 to 15 days he anticipates several new filings for eminent domain actions to occur in those instances where they have neither been able to reach a purchase agreement with the property owners nor have been able to reach an acquisition agreement, the time line requires them to move rather quickly on those properties and are intending to do so.
CITIZEN REQUESTS
Clint Rodningen, Jr., treasurer of the Nodak Flying Club, a non-profit organization in Grand Forks, stated they were hoping to invite council to a special meeting on Thursday night where they intended to discuss the proposed rules and regulations at the airport involving flying clubs but meeting was cancelled this morning, but their regular meeting is scheduled for April 19 at 7:00 p.m. and if council members interested invited them to be there.
APPROVE APPLICATION FOR MOVING PERMIT TO
MOVE HOUSE FROM 4615 LOAMY HILLS TO 3402
ODYSSEY CIRCLE
The city auditor reported that the notice of public hearing on the application by Rob Rogers to move a building from 4615 Loamy Hills to 3402 Odyssey Circle to be used as a residence had been published and posted as required.
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none.
The Inspections Department presented the moving permit application to move the house from 4615 Loamy Hills to 3402 Odyssey Circle, and for council to hold the public hearing on the issue of moving the house.
It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Lunak that the application for moving permit be approved and further that Mr. Rogers be and is hereby authorized to move the building subject to meeting conditions established by the Inspections Department. Carried 11 votes affirmative.
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING
OF ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO MULTI-TENANT
BUILDING, UNIFIED SHOPPING CENTER AND GROUND
MONUMENT SIGN(S) TO MAY 21, 2001
An ordinance entitled “An ordinance relating to the Grand Forks City Land Development Code, Chapter XVIII of Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, amending Article II”, which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on March 5, 2001 and upon which public hearing had been scheduled for this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading.
The city auditor reported that the required legal notice had been published calling for a public hearing to be held on this matter this evening and further that to date no protests or grievances had been filed with his office.
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reported having considered the request for final approval of the ordinance with a recommendation to table the ordinance.
It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Burke to continue the public hearing and second reading of the ordinance to May 21, 2001.
Dennis Potter, city planner, stated they are working through a complex ordinance with the zoning administrator’s office to be sure they have all the correct language so understand how they will enforce the ordinance. He stated they are trying to address a situation at the Wal-Mart Sam’s Club complex - that when that original development was put in place, they platted the entire property as a single piece of property, later they sold parts of the original plat and now have a property owner that is sitting between the Wal-Mart building and Sam’s Club building and according to the ground monument ordinance you must have frontage on the road that is the access point before you can have a ground monument sign; this particular property owner also has a small piece of property that fronts on the road but under our current ordinance they cannot put a ground monument sign on that property that fronts on the road, and are working with them to see if the ordinance can be amended to allow them since they are part of the larger shopping center complex to have the ability to put a ground monument sign on that piece of land that lies adjacent to 32nd Avenue South, and technical question is, if they are going to do that, how do they write the language so they understand what the language in the ordinance means and how it’s going to be enforced.
Council Member Christensen questioned why they didn’t grant a variance and allow the monument to be placed, rather than going through amendment of the ordinance. Mr. Potter stated that would be one option to do that; and their approach was to try to avoid having constantly coming back to the Planning Commission and the city council dealing with variances all over the community, and by drafting the ordinance felt it would be better to have the ordinance provide the mechanism and handle them at staff level rather than going through a variance process. He stated it’s a policy choice, can have a flow of variances coming up through the planning commission to the council or draft an ordinance that allows it to be handled administratively at the staff level. Council Member Christensen stated they have an ordinance and have a restrictive policy as to ground monuments on 32nd Avenue, rather than trying to anticipate all the issues that may come forth in the future because of the rule you’re drafting now, it may be want to leave the ordinance in place and do the variance and be done with it.
Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 11 votes affirmative.
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
ANTENNAS AND TOWERS TO MAY 21, 2001
An ordinance entitled “An ordinance amending specific sections of Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code and enacting a new section relating to wireless communication antennas and towers”, which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on March 5, 2001, and upon which public hearing had been scheduled for this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading.
The city auditor reported that the required legal notice had been published calling for a public hearing to be held on this matter this evening and further that to date no protests or grievances had been filed with his office.
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reported having considered the request for final approval of the ordinance with a recommendation to table the ordinance.
It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Bakken to continue the public hearing and second reading of the ordinance to May 21, 2001.
Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator, stated this is a complicated ordinance with a lot of detail involved and not ready for adoption as an ordinance because of enforcement and difference in antennas (ham radio antennas vs. cell tower antennas, etc.).
Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 11 votes affirmative.
HOLD PUBLIC HEARING AND ISSUE FINAL ORDER
FOR DEMOLITION OF SUBSTANDARD BUILDING AT
416 NORTH 5TH STREET
The city auditor reported that notice of a hearing to be held this evening on the matter of substandard building (residential building) at 416 North 5th Street had been served by certified mail to the owner of the property, said property being in substandard condition.
Mayor Brown asked if there was anyone present to submit any pertinent facts concerning the matter to the council. There were no comments and Mayor Brown closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Klave to adopt the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report which finds the property to be substandard as defined by Section 10-0401 of the City Code, subsections (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) and (9), and to issue an order of demolition and that if the building is demolished by the City of Grand Forks the cost thereof be assessed against the land upon which the building stands or did stand. Carried 11 votes affirmative.
HOLD PUBLIC HEARING AND ISSUE FINAL ORDER FOR
DEMOLITION OF SUBSTANDARD BUILDING AT 607
NORTH 3RD STREET
The city auditor reported that notice of a hearing to be held this evening on the matter of substandard building (residential building) at 607 North 3rd Street had been served by certified mail to the owner of the property, said property being in substandard condition.
Mayor Brown asked if there was anyone present to submit any pertinent facts concerning the matter to the council. There were no comments and Mayor Brown closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Klave to adopt the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report which finds the property to be substandard as defined by Section 10-0401 of the City Code, subsections (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) and (9), and to issue an order of demolition and that if the building is demolished by the City of Grand Forks the cost thereof be assessed against the land upon which the building stands or did stand. Carried 11 votes affirmative.
HOLD PUBLIC HEARING AND ISSUE FINAL ORDER FOR
DEMOLITION OF SUBSTANDARD BUILDING AT 1013
NORTH 4TH STREET
The city auditor reported that notice of a hearing to be held this evening on the matter of substandard building (residential building) at 1013 North 4th Street had been served by certified mail to the owner of the property, said property being in substandard condition.
Mayor Brown asked if there was anyone present to submit any pertinent facts concerning the matter to the council. There were no comments and Mayor Brown closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Klave to adopt the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report which finds the property to be substandard as defined by Section 10-0401 of the City Code, subsections (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (7) (8) and (9), and to issue an order of demolition and that if the building is demolished by the City of Grand Forks the cost thereof be assessed against the land upon which the building stands or did stand. Carried 11 votes affirmative.
HOLD PUBLIC HEARING AND ISSUE FINAL ORDER
FOR DEMOLITION OF SUBSTANDARD BUILDING AT
1024 LINDEN COURT EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2001
The city auditor reported that notice of a hearing to be held this evening on the matter of substandard building (residential building) at 1024 Linden Court had been served by certified mail to the owner of the property, said property being in substandard condition.
Mayor Brown asked if there was anyone present to submit any pertinent facts concerning the matter to the council.
Roger Sannes, 1020 Cottonwood Street, owner of property at 1024 Linden Court, stated he purchased the property at a tax auction last year and at that time had plans to remodel the property, using it as rental; that have since discovered that it is a substandard building and should come down and that he has no problems with that; that he had a buyer for the property that was going to move the building out of town but that fell through; that he listed the property with a realty company and they believe they can find a buyer and suggested to leave house on the property to give them a chance to sell it that way, and asked that no action be taken until the first of July.
There was some discussion relative to the property being sold to new owner and having to start the process for substandard building over again. Mr. Sannes stated that the property is listed with the realtor with the house to be demolished or gone. Ms. Collings agreed with this as long as that condition is indicated in the motion.
Mr. Swanson advised their options are if they wished to give the property owner additional time would be (1) continue the public hearing until the first meeting in July and make decision at that time, or 2) to find the building substandard tonight would be to make the factual findings that if it is substandard and issue the order effective July 1, 2001. Mr. Sannes stated he had no problem with either option.
Mayor Brown closed the public hearing.
Council Member Christensen moved to adopt the findings and analysis contained in the staff report which finds the property to be substandard as defined by Section 10-0401 of the City Code, subsections (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) and (9), and to issue an order of demolition effective July 1, 2001, that any purchase agreement entered into by Mr. Sannes and a prospective buyer of the property be reviewed by the city attorney for conformity to our motion; and that if the building is demolished by the City of Grand Forks the cost thereof be assessed against the land upon which the building stands or did stand. The motion was seconded by Council Member Burke. Upon voice vote, the motion carried 11 votes affirmative.
HOLD PUBLIC HEARING AND ISSUE FINAL ORDER
FOR DEMOLITION OF SUBSTANDARD BUILDING AT
219 COTTONWOOD STREET
The city auditor reported that notice of a hearing to be held this evening on the matter of substandard building (residential building) at 219 Cottonwood Street had been served by certified mail to the owner of the property (mail not picked up), said property being in substandard condition.
Mayor Brown asked if there was anyone present to submit any pertinent facts concerning the matter to the council.
Wanda Vaughn, owner of the property at 219 Cottonwood Street, stated that she still feels that she should be able to continue to work on her house as she has a permit to repair the house; that she is being required to floodproof her house and that she doesn’t feel she should have to do that as she already has a permit to repair the house (has installed furnace and hot water heater), and if had known she had to floodproof her house she would have taken the buyout.
Ms. Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator, reported that the original damage assessment on the building was well over 50% damage, they worked with her the best they could and got it down to 49.9% damage, issued her a building permit, and have since revoked that permit because the time had lapsed on that and she had not done substantial work on the building. She stated the building has continued to deteriorate over the next 4 years from 1997 until now and it is well over 50% damaged now, have it on the tax rolls presently at $4,400.00 and believe it’s in the cycle to be looked at again; that $4,400.00 is well over 50% damage, and has details on the damage. She stated several of the houses in that block have been demolished. Ms. Vaughn stated that in her block 2 houses next door have been torn down and 1 across the street; and stated she was ready to start work if she didn’t have to floodproof the house. She noted that she had flood insurance which she used to pay off the loan on the house. It was noted that floodproofing has been a requirement for rebuilding after the flood, and must have been stipulated when she received her building permit. Ms. Collings stated that requirement only if the damages were over 50% of the value of the house, which they clearly are now. It was also noted that as long as the building falls into that requirement, she would not be able to obtain financing unless you build that to City Code. Ms. Collings also noted that because we are a participating community in the NFIP it is requirement to floodproof the house, even though not caused by the flood.
Council Member Bjerke stated that it’s been 4 years since the flood and 2 years since the process started, and moved to adopt the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report which finds the property to be substandard as defined by Section 10-0401 of the City Code, subsections (3) (4) (5) (7) (8) and (9), and to issue an order of demolition and that if the building is demolished by the City of Grand Forks the cost thereof be assessed against the land upon which the building stands or did stand. Council Member Stevens seconded the motion. Carried 10 votes affirmative; Council Member Lunak voted against the motion..
ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3882, RELATING TO BOARD
OF HEATH COMPOSITION
An ordinance entitled “An ordinance amending Section 13-0106 of the Grand Forks City Code relating to the Board of Health composition”, which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on March 19, 2001, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.
Mayor Brown asked if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter; and closed the public hearing.
Council Member Bjerke stated they were considering reviewing committees and asked if reviewing all the committees as to whether staff voting on issues, and perhaps need more information to see that it goes along with their attempt to restructure the committees and whether staff should be voting. Don Shields, Health Department, stated that the Board of Health is an advisory committee and the Boards of Health throughout the state of North Dakota have the members of the health department on as voting members, that it is up to the council as a policy board whether they would want him to be a voting member.
Council Member Brooks stated they have reviewed the makeup of some of the committees but would rather begin the process of streamlining and membership of the Board of Health can be addressed later.
Upon call for the question and roll call vote, the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Bakken, Kreun - 11; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried and the ordinance adopted.
HOLD PUBLIC HEARING ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT 2000 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT
The Urban Development Office staff recommended to open a public hearing to receive public input on the City’s 2000 Annual Performance Report and to close the public hearing at the council meeting on April 2, 2001. The public hearing was opened at the committee of the whole meeting on March 26, 2001.
Mayor Brown opened the public hearing on the City’s 2001 Annual Performance Report . There were no comments and Mayor Brown closed the public hearing.
APPROVE FINAL PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL CDBG
COST MATRIX BUDGET TRANSFERS
The Urban Development Office staff recommended consideration of the final proposed Supplemental CDBG Cost Matrix budge transfers, and recommended approval of final project budget transfers as submitted.
It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Bakken to approve the final project budget transfers. Carried 11 votes affirmative.
APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO ENGINEERING
SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR PROJECT NO. 5140,
UPGRADE LIFT STATION 24
The staff report from the Engineering Department relative to Amendment No. 1 to engineering services agreement with WFW for Project No. 5140, Upgrade Lift Station 24, with recommendation to approve Amendment No. 1 with Webster, Foster & Weston.
Council Member Lunak questioned how much it will cost to rebuild all three lift stations, and if all three stations need to be replaced. Mr. Grasser stated approx. $800,000 to do all three and these stations were reviewed and scope of work detailed by Mr. Hanson of WFW several weeks ago. He stated these three stations were scheduled for repair through the budgeting process, that the ones bring up in the next few months would be part of the discussion for the 2002 budget if they want to include them in the budget. Council Member Brooks stated he felt this is something they need to look at in the future, concerned about the rate schedule, and not make a blanket approval of increases.
It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Klave to approve Amendment No. 1 to the engineering services agreement for Project No. 5140, adjusting the hourly rates charged for the remaining project work using the 2001 rate schedule, but not increasing the not to exceed contract price. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Christensen, Klave, Bakken, Kreun - 9; voting “nay”: Council Member Brooks, Lunak - 2. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.
APPROVE APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION OF IMPROVE-
MENTS TO RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AT 846 SOUTH 23RD
STREET
The staff report from the Assessing Department relative to the application for exemption of improvements to residential building at 846 South 23rd Street, with recommendation to grant exemption for a three-year period.
Council Member Burke stated that when this was last discussed he had asked for an estimate of the cost of the abatement on this item and future items and asked if staff could estimate the cost of the abatement.
Mel Carsen, city assessor, stated that in the future he would include the estimated cost, that it’s difficult to estimate the cost in the future but estimated on the owner’s statement of value and that would be an approx. $450.00 exemption per year and for 3 years, $1,350.00.
It was moved by Council Member Burke and seconded by Council Member Kreun to grant the exemption for a three-year period. Carried 10 votes affirmative, Council Member Bjerke voted against the motion.
APPROVE ENGINEERING SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR
PROJECT NO. 5229, UPGRADE LIFT STATIONS NOS. 19
AND 25
The staff report from the Engineering Department relative to consideration of engineering service agreement on City Project No. 5229, Upgrade Lift Stations 19 and 25, with recommendation to approve agreement with Webster, Foster & Weston for design engineering services in the amount of $56,897.00.
It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Kreun that we authorize entering into an agreement with Webster, Foster & Weston for design engineering services on an hourly, not to exceed amount of $56,897.00. Upon roll cal the following voted “aye”: Council Members Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Bakken, Kreun - 9; voting “nay”: Council Members Brooks, Lunak - 2. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.
DIRECT THAT NO SIGNALIZATION OF THE INTERSECTION
OF 28TH AVENUE SOUTHAND COLUMBIA ROAD BE DONE
UNTIL PERMANENT INSTALLATION IN 2003
The staff report of the engineering department relative to the matter of request from council for estimate to install temporary traffic signals at 28th Avenue South and Columbia Road, with recommendation that intersection be left unsignalized until permanent signals are installed in 2003, or if temporary signals must be installed that Option #5 be chosen which included video detection.
Council Member Hamerlik moved that we approve the recommendation of the engineering department regarding the unsignalization at 28th Avenue South until permanent signals are installed in 2003. Council Member Bakken seconded the motion.
Council Member Stevens asked to be excused from voting on this matter because of conflict of interest; and it was moved by Council Members Klave and Bakken to excuse Council Member Stevens from voting on this matter. Carried 10 votes affirmative.
Council Member Kreun asked to be excused from voting on this matter because of conflict of interest, and it was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Brooks to excuse Council Member Kreun from voting on the matter. Carried 10 votes affirmative.
Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 9 votes affirmative; Council Members Stevens and Kreun excused from voting.
INTRODUCE ORDINANCE RELATING TO DOWNTOWN
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
A staff recommendation from the Planning Department relative to information on establishment of the Downtown Design Review Board as requested by Council Member Bjerke, with recommendation for city council to receive and discus the report.
Council Member Bjerke stated he had three motions to make on the ordinance (No. 3809) and moved to amend Section 18-0311 (10) A and B. to delete “Planning & Zoning Commission” from both subsections and replace it with “city council”, and the reason for doing this is that a citizen who disagrees with the Board’s findings should be allowed to appeal to the elected officials versus the Planning & Zoning Commission. The motion was seconded by Council Member Burke.
Council Member Kreun reminded the council that there are two city council members on the Commission and are being represented by elected officials.
Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 10 votes affirmative; Council Member Bakken voted against the motion.
Council Member Bjerke moved a motion to delete Section 18-0311 (10) B. where it states that any adjoining property owner can object to the decisions of the board, etc., and the reason for disagreeing with this is that we have the zoning laws and have City Code, then to the Downtown Design Review Board and then their neighbors have to approve the project. Council Member Christensen seconded the motion.
Council Member Glassheim stated that what they are trying to accomplish here is to make a zone or a district out of the downtown area so that it’s not regarded simply 10, 20 or 30 individual buildings but regarded as an area as a group, this is much like the rules and regulations that malls have in order to have a common look to them and the theory is that when investing in a building you want to know what the rules are for the area as a whole rather than have each individual property do anything they want, that we do that in residential areas and want to protect people’s rights to do what they want with their property but this is a matter that the investment in the property on a whole would be better if it can be a common look or common theme or some control over projects and not simply each individual doing what they please; these rules and regulations took year after many public hearings, there was not opposition from downtown owners, and should leave it the way it is in order to have a common look to the place.
Council Member Klave stated that the buildings downtown are attached to each other, and in residential areas property owners within specific distance are notified and have a right for discussion, and here because immediately adjoined we’re saying the property adjacent has the right if have concerns.
After further discussion and upon call for the question and upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Bjerke, Stevens, Burke, Lunak, Brooks - 5; voting “nay”: Council Members Hamerlik, Glassheim, Christensen, Klave, Bakken, Kreun - 6. Mayor Brown declared the motion defeated.
Council Member Bjerke stated that we have a zoning law and a building code and this is additional ordinance, and moved to delete the ordinance.. Council Member Stevens seconded the motion.
Council Member Hamerlik moved to the question, seconded by Council Member Kreun. Carried 10 votes affirmative; Council Member Hamerlik voted against the motion.
Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Stevens, Lunak, Bjerke - 3; voting “nay”: Council Members Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Christensen, Klave, Bakken, Kreun, Brooks - 8. Mayor Brown declared the motion defeated.
Council Member Kreun introduced an ordinance entitled “An ordinance amending Section 18-0311(10) of the Grand Forks City Code heretofore effective relating to appeal from Downtown Design Review Board action”, which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.
TABLE PROPOSED TERM ADJUSTMENTS FOR GRAND
FORKS HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD
A staff recommendation from the Mayor’s Office relative to the Grand Forks Housing Authority Board term adjustments, with recommendation to approve proposed term adjustments as follows: Arvin Kvasager, term to expire August 2001; Keith Berger, term to expire August 2002, Joan Johnson, term to expire August 2003 and Duane Hafner, term to expire August 2004, and reappointing Judd Graham, whose term expired August 2000 with term to expire August 2005.
Council Member Christensen stated that the statute provides that the appointments are to be made by the mayor and confirmed by council, that the statute further provides that the auditor is to keep track of the appointments and if there’s been a proper accounting of the appointments and their terms, there would be a list of the appointees and terms, and was hoping to have that information this evening. He stated that the by-laws of the Grand Forks Housing Authority do not give them the authority to extend their terms, and if don’t know what the appointments are, should delay this until we get an accurate reporting of their terms. He stated if they want to amend their by-laws so that they can self-appoint, they could do but perhaps not prudent, that the statute gives them the right to amend their proposed by-laws.
Terry Hanson, Urban Development, reported that they attempted to go from June, 1967 to determine what the initial terms of all of the 5 board members were at that time, that they reviewed the minutes and the resolution but did not find the certificate that was apparently with the resolution that indicated the names and initial terms of the 5 directors that were appointed to the board. He stated that they did attempt to go back as far as they could to determine what the initial terms were, and were unable to do that.. He stated because of that they have suggested that they start a new expiration date which they are requesting so that they had five staggered expiration terms as presented. He stated this was presented to the Housing Authority and requested from the city attorney what his considerations were after reviewing the by-laws and the ordinance, and he suggested that what their intent was alright provided that they have a motion by the Board of Directors or the Housing Authority Commissioners and individual acknowledgement by the board members that they accept the revised termination of their membership to the Board, hat they received that in February and that’s what initiated their bringing this forward to the council.
Council Member Christensen stated they were in essence being asked to reappoint this board carte blanche for the next 5 years, thinks that the prior process or procedure of this council is that if you wanted to make new appointments you would solicit input from the council as to future appointments and that they might be given permission to suggest future appointees, and asked that we defer on this until they establish a process.
Mr. Swanson, city attorney, stated that those comments are correct - that the memo that is in the packet is a shortcut method to discussion he had with Mr. Hanson and other members of staff; in effect because neither the by-laws nor the statute provide for the correction of terms, he had two matters that he was considering: 1) that any potential liability the City may have in not having proper terms identified, and 2) potential liability that any existing member on the Housing Authority make a claim that their term terminated or shortened and was not done in appropriate due process; and his advise to the Housing Authority was that they take specific action concurring in revised terms, which occurred in February, and to complete the item as Mr. Christensen has identified in effect, what is occurring is the Mayor is making recommendations on appointments that do require council concurrence, and also by law they are allowed to continue until their terms are filled, so there are no vacancies that need to be concerned with, but not aware of any statutory requirements or other requirement that you would have to act this evening that would be a discretionary matter of the council.
Council Member Burke stated that we have agreement from the current Housing Authority members as to the term expirations, and his suggestion would be that they let those terms expire and associate those seats with the extended and adjusted terms on the table so when the terms expire the seat would then have an adjusted term and the mayor could make an appointment at that point with the consideration they have discussed. It was moved by Council Member Burke to table this item until the next city council meeting (April 16, 2001) and seconded by Council Member Christensen. After some discussion Council Member Christensen withdrew his second; Council Member Hamerlik seconded the motion. Carried 11 votes affirmative.
RECESS
Mayor Brown called for a 2-minutes recess at 8:27 p.m.
At the end of the recess Mayor Brown reconvened the council meeting with 10 members present; Council Member Lunak absent.
APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH UNIVERSITY OF NORTH
DAKOTA TO RELOCATE FIBER OPTICS CABLE FOR
ENGLISH COULEE DIVERSION PROJECT
The Engineering Department staff presented the University of North Dakota (UND) fiber optics relocation for English Coulee Diversion, with a recommendation to approve an agreement with UND to relocate their fiber optics cable along DeMers Avenue at 69th Street for the English coulee Diversion project.
It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Bakken that this recommendation to approve an agreement with University of North Dakota to relocate their fiber optics cable along DeMers Avenue at 69th Street for the English coulee Diversion project. Carried 10 votes affirmative.
REJECT BIDS FOR CITY PROJECTS NOS. 4648.2
AND 4948.1, TRANSMISSION PIPELINES AND RESIDUALS
FORCEMAIN, PHASE I, INDUSTRIAL PARK TO SOUTH
34TH STREET, AND AUTHORIZE REBIDDING OF THE PROJECTS
The staff report from the Engineering Department after review and consideration of bids for City Project Nos. 4648.2 and 4948.1, Transmission Pipelines and Residuals Forcemain, Phase 1, Industrial Park to South 34th Street, with recommendation to reject all bids received for March 22, 2001 bid opening and rebid the project.