Council Minutes

MINUTES/COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Tuesday, November 12, 2002 - 7:00 p.m._____

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, November 12, 2002 in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 6; absent: Council Member Brooks - 1.

Mayor Brown announced that when addressing the committee to please come forward to use the microphone, give name and address for the record, and advised that the meeting is being televised live and taped for later broadcast.

Mayor Brown commented on various events during the past week and upcoming events:
1) The committee is meeting tonight because City offices were closed yesterday due to the observance of Veterans Day, and would like to thank our veterans and take a moment at this time to think about their sacrifices and contribution to our country.
2) Tomorrow our community will welcome the US Ambassador to Norway, John Doyle Ong, and we're pleased he's coming here, esp. considering how much our culture is owed to Norwegian immigrants and their families. He noted we have the more Norwegian students at UND than any other U.S. college.
3) He reminded everyone that Dale Brown will be at the Engelstad Arena next Monday at 7:30 p.m., the event is sponsored by the Answer.
4) Congratulations to winners in election and everyone who put their name on the ballot for public service.
5) There will be a public meeting re. the Grand Cities Art Fest at 5:30 on Thursday at the Grand Forks Herald Community Room, the Art Fest is a huge outdoor, fine artisans show that will be taking place downtown Grand Forks and East Grand Forks next June (information about event).

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ITEMS

3.1 Ordinances extending franchise fees for the electric and natural gas franchises Xcel Energy.
Mr. Swanson stated provision in the ordinance for consideration of extension of the franchise fees after a five-year period of time and has given notice to Xcel Energy that the City intends to continue the franchise fee and proposed ordinances had been submitted. Council Member Gershman asked if the rate of 2% is rate around the region, and how much money does the City raise with the 2% franchise fee, and where does the money go. The city auditor reported that the City raises approx. $700-900,000 per year and money goes into the General Fund. Mr. Swanson, city attorney, stated the 2% appears to be most common rate.

Council Member Christensen stated that during the last legislative session there was some discussion as to REA's and cooperatives and asked who gets to serve the city, etc. and are we precluded from suggesting to another provider that we're open for bids. Mr. Swanson stated that his understanding under present ND law is that State of ND under Territorial Act determines what utility will serve what area, and in the city of Grand Forks have a split and in general sense at S. 34th Street from east and west - areas west of that are generally served by a co-op and area east of that are served by Xcel, the city does have a franchise with Nodak on the west side of S. 34th Street but under that franchise there was no provision to examine their rate, is a set rate for the term of their franchise, and not sure when that franchise ends.

Council Member Kreun questioned whether private companies provide service to individuals and businesses and work with them in that same respect. Mr. Swanson stated franchise agreements are primarily limited to those regulated by federal law or by State Public Utilities Commission (Public Service Commission in ND); we do have some private entities that are in the right of way and have occurred prior to legislation in the last session or even under agreement with the City, the Legislature took away a large ability of the City to regulate the use of right of way and to oppose fee except through franchise agreements; the engineering department and his office have been reviewing options and what fees can be approached on the right of way, and if have private entities they should be subject to the same conditions as others.

3.2 Technical corrections ordinance.
Mr. Swanson reviewed the ordinance modifications; and noted that he had received some questions on the Growth Fund - whether or not they were to make modifications broadening the use of the Growth Fund, and what he did and the intent and purpose was that he picked up the definition of economic development that has been used previously in the Code, his concern was not to have two separate definitions or characterizations of economic development, what he thinks has been perceived is that this was an attempt to increase or expand the use of the Growth Fund - that was not the intent; and if not comfortable with this language which he thinks is appropriate to be in there to reflect what is occurring, is the phrase "enhance the economic climate" and also where have "promote public, private or public/private enterprises or partnership", and that some people have expressed concern over the phrase "direct or indirect actions" and the phrase "improve the quality of life, enhance tourism and local events.."; and intention was to utilize the same definition as economic development as previously used in the Code. He stated the other substantive change dealing with the Growth Fund which was included as a suggestion and is one that you would not need to incorporate - it occurs that there maybe instances for many reasons that you cannot get the review committee together or that it's an action that the Growth Fund itself wishes to act upon and modified Section 24-0108, sub part 1, to make it clear that the committee is required to act upon anything referred to them but that the Growth Fund itself, which is the Authority, does not have an obligation to refer it to review for the committee; that is the substantive change and is one that does not need to be included in this technical corrections ordinance if you feel it should have further study or doesn't need to be included.

He stated in 24-0110 Records and Reports, that the Code has an obligation to report to yourselves what actions you actually undertook the prior year, that report has not been done for several years and appears in the periodic minutes of the Growth Fund, and he deleted that provision that required on or before the first day of June. He stated the other item in 24-0111, subdivision (3), he identified what was in the budgeting process, you budget certain items for the Growth Fund which may be bonded indebtedness, maybe lease payments, contract payments and he was exempting the actual payment of those amounts provided they appear in the budget from any public hearing requirement, has not been problem in the past but expressed it there.

He stated the other change deals with the Convention & Visitors Bureau, he broadened in sub part (A) of their authority where it says they have the power to market, promote, advertise and sponsor and fund events, also included authority to make grants and identified that events or activities, but requires them to be within the area of promotion, tourism, etc. That in subsection (C) is a reflection of what has occurred for years, that Convention & Visitors Bureau does sell advertising and do sell services. He stated on paragraph 22, this goes back to tie in the provision earlier on the hotel/motel tax, and wanted the authority of the Convention & Visitors Bureau clearly stated that they can expand those sales tax item, which include hotel/motel tax, or any other funds that are allocated by the city council to the Bureau or other revenues or funds received by the Bureau that they have the ability to spend those, allocate them. He stated that perhaps gives more information than you needed on the technical corrections ordinance, and those that raised most discussion were the Growth Fund corrections - that there was no conspiracy and if his idea of consistent definitions is outside the realm of what you'd like to do with Growth Fund, his advise is to amend or delete that from this draft.

Council Member Kerian asked Mr. Swanson to review if subsections (23) and (15) on pages 3 and 4 could be compressed if sufficient similarities and same with (8) and (26); and questioned if it was state law that someone under the age of 18 could not play in a bar: Mr. Swanson stated he would check that.

Council Member Glassheim stated he would oppose the deleting of the report, any use of public funds for economic development should have reporting attached and should have a report on jobs created, taxes paid and valuations increased and not remove that section but have to have monitoring and reporting. Mr. Swanson stated that could be addressed outside the City Code by resolution.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that when use a generic term, don't have to change the Code as often - and since changing the word "auditor", not sure should put director of finance and administrative services unless legally have to do it - better off using a generic term and suggested where changed from "auditor" to "chief fiscal officer".

Mr. Swanson stated he would invite the council, department heads or others that have had a chance to review this and if see that there are errors made, grammatical errors, etc. to please point them out and is open for any suggestions that might come forward.

3.3 Public hearing on application for moving permit to move single-family home from 117 Park Avenue to 1824 North 4th Street.________________________________________________
There were no comments.

3.4 Application for Class 3 (On & Off Sale Beer and Wine) license at 1210 South Washington Street._______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Swanson reported that this is a new location, formerly occupied by Premier Video and is within 300 ft. of an existing licensed premise (Mexican Village), that he has not reviewed the application and unless comes in prior to next week, any action the council would take would be contingent upon 1) waiver of the 300 ft. requirement by the existing license holder, and also review by the city attorney's office, police, health, fire and inspections, and payment of all fees. He stated he has spoken with the applicant and is intended to be for a billiards facility.

3.5 Additional excess earth material from Project No. 5116, English Coulee Diversion Project.
There were no comments.

3.6 Storm Water Lift Station No. 89 and drainage improvement study to surrounding area.
Tom Hanson, WFW, made a presentation and reviewed the drainage improvement study they did for Pump Station 89 (the area is bounded by DeMers Avenue to the north, 32nd Avenue to the south, South Washington Street to the east and Columbia Road to the west), and noted that the area is approx. 1,000 acres and noted there are 3 pump stations in the area (one across from Ben Franklin School, #89 is in Bringewatt Park and #88 is in Westward Drive area on 11th Avenue South) and connection systems are connected and the forcemains that serve them and discharge to the Coulee. He stated the study shows that this area has experienced street flooding 24 times in the last 7 years and their calculations show that the pump station and collection systems will handle about a 1.1" rain; and that Pump Station #89 project has been on the CIP for quite some time and needs an upgrade - the pumps and electrical system are original from when built in 1980 - that there are no replacement parts available for many components - cost of repairing this alone would be about $340,000 (to replace pumps and electrical gear), but wouldn't solve any of the drainage issues. He stated new regulations are expected soon which will require the City to have a plan to reduce the sanitary sewage overflows and basements in the area are at risk of sanitary sewer backup. He noted public safety problems, public inconvenience, etc. He stated est. construction cost to upgrade the lift stations, forcemain and trunk gravity storm sewer system is $17,175,000.

Council Member Gershman stated that at previous CIP meetings there was discussion relative to eliminating special assessment districts and taking certain projects and spreading them out over the entire city, which most cities do, and would like to see if the Mayor would consider possibly convening the CIP committee to take up some of these issues, and stated with this large an area and impact to the residents and how it cuts the city, and that this is an area where should start with a project like this to overlay for the whole city - and would like to see us begin the discussion to consider a 10-year implementation program of special assessments where eventually they would get to the point that the city as a whole pays for these types of things rather than each neighborhood or each special assessment district.

Council Member Hamerlik stated he received a call tonight and that they have had some difficulties on the north end and that ties in with what Mr. Gershman has been saying - that they did a study on the north end in the area south of the cemetery, draining to Hugo's, (from El Roco to Columbia Road) - and call referred to having that study done with nothing done about that and now having another study. Council Member Kerian stated this should be not only citywide funding but also citywide solution and look at where the water is traveling. Mr. Hanson stated they have looked at the coulee issues and are still working on those and those are not being ignored.

Council Member Kreun stated this is a long process that has been taking place for many years - and as to what is going on in the north end - that when North Washington was reconstructed a whole new manifold system was installed underneath that street to make the water run to the river (and that was part of the first study); and as far as the coulee goes, that study and portion is also being done, done in pieces as they come up and as the funds are utilized through the State funds and other funds available - and some of those things are being done as the money becomes available and as the projects are done. Mr. Hamerlik stated that he understands the water was to be diverted but is still going west - Mr. Kreun stated that's because it's not completed yet - next portion where it will be hooked on and added to that manifold system so that the water will run to the river - and is a city-wide project and is being put together by the engineering department over a long period of time - and is large city-wide problem and this maybe good test for us to take a look at what we can do to accomplish all of it without special assessing each individual area. He stated the staff report is to direct the engineering staff to hold a public information meeting - and thinks want to continue that because want to involve the public and inform the public but also take to CIP program to see how it's going to be brought forth and paid for. Mr. Hamerlik stated if we have a public information meeting and indicated that its a $17 million project and now have all these things being done by special assessment, will that take away from focusing on what is needed in comparison to how much is it going to cost individuals, etc. and would be concerned at having a public information meeting without seeing whether we're going to do it by special assessment or change procedure. Mr. Kreun stated concern is legitimate but our policy procedure is going to take longer than the actual construction and gathering information procedure and should be two separate items - should go forward with the project as the study has been completed but at the same time do the CIP study and if can incorporate it, will at that point in time - and that this is a suggestion.

Council Member Christensen stated this is addressing one of the issues we are addressing this evening - tapping fee and are going to change that to "connecting fee" - and when you look at stormwater fund we have a gross revenue of $2.1 million and as part of that we pay for installation of various watermains, etc. and amortize that cost and defer it and charge it against the homeowner who takes out a permit to build a house, and agrees that the time has come to implement a study, and as part of discussion of the tapping fee, that is overlaying and should be part of our overall discussion as to an elimination of special assessments, not saying ones currently assessed, forgiven - more beginning and trying to develop a philosophy on delivering these types of public improvements for the city, not sure have to deal with the CIP, thinks have to deal with funding plan to implement a CIP - that this is great opportunity to begin that discussion and once develop a policy it will be easy to do the things that Mr. Hanson is suggesting that face us in the southeast portion of the city and in the southwest portion of the city; and when the mayor chooses to convene this session, would hope those will be part of the agenda items.

Council Member Glassheim asked if these were protestable; Mr. Swanson stated if they were to special assess improvements, they are not. Mr. Glassheim stated he was concerned about whether starting to shift the cost, esp. for new projects, that everybody in the city has paid special assessments for their new projects of this kind, maybe one wants to limit it to, if go city-wide, the second time around but doesn't know who benefits and who loses in switching from a property investment to city-wide and whether it becomes easier to spend city-wide money than money that will be felt by persons - need to find out what it means. Mr. Gershman stated we need the discussion and would hope design or construct something that everyone would be the winner and reason suggested CIP is because that is the full council, public meeting.

Tom Hasman, 1901 24th Avenue South, Liberty Estates Condos., stated what he heard in presentation and discussion mirrors what he has to say, and that as a resident would be willing to pay to have this problem fixed, and stated that this is a problem (inconvenience, public safety, damage to property, etc.) and urged that this project be done.


3.7 Policies and procedures on financing infrastructure for city growth-connection fees.
Council Member Christensen stated that he had requested that they have something in their rules where they create a lien against the property so that the title examiners will know that there is a "tapping fee" assessed against the area so that it is of record and show up in the title policies so the homeowners who buy the lot will have it disclosed to them when they get the lot and close the deal that there also is going to be another fee when they come to get the building permit; and included in the policy that requires it be of record - not to say we shouldn't have it but that people should know it.

Council Member Kerian stated she would appreciate it being called a connection fee.

Al Grasser, city engineer, explained the connection fee and these come about when dealing with areas outside the city limits that may benefit from a project, the areas inside the city limits will be special assessed according to current policies for the improvement, and the project will benefit area outside the city limits and we cannot special assess it and therefore using the connection fee. He stated that normally a project will occur on a section line or quarter line where have different property owners, and generally speaking the connection fees won't apply because special assessed or paid by the developer and talking about trunk infrastructures and in the past have developed a number of tapping fee areas and now looking at examining those policies to see if want to change them. He stated what they are talking about on the policies is how they depreciate them and if and how they charge interest for the carrying costs of that installation, and the area outside the city limits that the City would be upfronting and those are dollars talking about recouping.

He stated they had a meeting of a working group of the council and examined some of our current policies and reviewed current and proposed policies for connection fees (depreciation schedule), and that the proposed policy stated that the life expectancy of a project and depreciation schedule will be identified as part of the cost calculation procedure for each project, the date from which depreciation is calculated will be the date that the council accepts the project certificate of completion. Our current connection fee deprecation for pavement would have zero depreciation for the first 5 years, straight line depreciation down to zero at year 25; and good reason to extend the zero depreciation portion of the paving out to 15 years and again depreciation recognizing the street is going to deteriorate over time but always going to be a residual value of that street and they selected 30%. He stated the old policy for connection fee depreciation for sewer and water had zero depreciation for 5 years, and straight-line depreciation out to 50 where it zeroed out; new policy would have zero depreciation for the first 30 years and depreciation line with residual value of 30% that would remain after 50 years.

Mr. Grasser stated that under the current policies the dollars get paid upfront, sell bonds and the City pays that bond out of one of our funds.

Council Member Christensen stated in depreciation schedule, the amount would decrease and the community would be paying and eventually would go away and we're extending it out rather than starting the depreciation in the 5th year, and start wearing out in the 30th year and then a gradual depreciation and that area probably not stay out of the city that long if there is that type of development and the community are going to capture our full cost for the period of time that is out of the city, and the depreciation schedules were developed by engineering department based upon what wears out, when it wears out and what is residual value, there is forethought in schedules that were put together.

Mr. Grasser reported that the second part of policy is the question of interest and reviewed the combined depreciation and interest policy tables included in the staff report showing current policy and proposed policy. He stated on the proposed depreciation and interest policy - that ratepayers have invested a lump sum upfront and entitled to a return on that investment to that fund, and that would eliminate financially any impacts to the general overall residential ratepayer.

Mr. Gershman stated cost of money raises the cost of the lot and a deterrent for people to build a home, but putting the bond cost in seems to make some sense because that's an actual cost but raises the cost to build a home in Grand Forks. Mr. Kreun stated that the people selling the lots over that period of time don't have to pay that special assessment but only pay that portion when they come into the city, but they take the cost of money themselves and add that to the lot so change is not going to be any, cost same is if we add it or the owner of the lots adds it.

Council Member Christensen stated we're trying to even out the community's costs when we suggest as having as part of our policy that the rate be set by the city auditor and reflect the annual interest rate on the bonds sold plus 25 basis points and that's scary if extend it out 30 years but that is suggesting that all that land around is being developed - that the group thought it was fair that we make sure that the lien that these connection fees will place against this ground is of record so the lot owners know as that will impact their decision where they buy. He stated owners recognize there is a cost of keeping it out of the city and this induces them to bring it into the city, to minimize their costs, otherwise find themselves to be non-competitive.

Council Member Glassheim asked how these charts continue on for 30-40-50 years if the bond is paid off in 20 years, how does interest continue to accrue if the bond is paid off. Mr. Grasser stated the interest wouldn't continue to accrue but stay - that over the course of 20 years the interest generated $1,000 worth of interest, and in year 21 rather than that being $1,050 it stays at $1,000 because using bond payoff, year 22 stays at $1,000 and $1,000 continues to carry on out and do see some depreciation occurring there and that's why overall number starts to drop but not continuing to accrue interest on the $1,000. The city auditor disagreed because if we have accumulated interest of $1,000 and we have had to pay that dollar amount plus the principal for 20 years, that is a lost opportunity cost to all citizens in the city and if the property doesn't develop that is still money we don't have and are losing interest earnings on that other citizens for other projects would benefit from, and there would be an accrual of some interest on it. He stated he promoted the idea of the carrying cost of money because we are making a decision when we do tapping fees to take a revenue stream we presently have in hand that could be used for other projects, whether they be city-wide projects, street projects, etc. and concentrating them in a given area, therefore, it costs all of the citizens money, and this is relative on how we handle special assessments, we have paid special assessments for a given area but are now paying tapping fees through our utility fees for that area, so there is a cost to all of us when we do these connection fees, that he didn't think that these properties would not come in for 10-15 years because some idea here of trying to enhance and say we should be developing the property that is near the city and try to encourage that to some degree; that this is a major policy decision and is something need to consider so know where we're going with it.

Mr. Grasser stated in the connection fees general policies - that there's a time lag from when you do a project to when the council does the final certifications of the connection fees, that under cost calculations they talk about preliminary project cost will be identified by the engineering and finance departments and fees calculated on that basis, but prior to that will tell you what the project cost is and council will tell us what the formulas are, and will apply them before the council certifies them in their finality because there's usually a lag between doing a project and getting finaled, that the council will see 8 - 12 projects coming in the next month that are tapping fees that are done several years ago that need to be certified. He stated under cost calculations unit costs will be adjusted to reflect the net lot area remaining after consideration of dedicated right of way, that if looking at a subdivision it is gross area and when finished platting and take out city right of way, may have lesser area of net owned buildable lots. Fee collection - connection fees may be due and payable on a subdivision basis when the lateral serving that subdivision is connected to the facility requiring the connection fee. He stated on interest calculations they state that interest will be identified as part of the cost calculation procedure for each project, and outline what Mr. Christensen pointed out - interest will be calculated from the date the city council accepts the project and rate set by the city auditor and reflect actual costs of the bonds plus 25 basis points, interest rate will not accrue beyond the life of the installation (25 years for pavement or 50 years for sewer and water).

Mr. Swanson stated he has not had a chance to meet with engineering but there are some concerns on the language - where it states that connection fees maybe due and if a discretionary act need to identify under what conditions that may or may not be due or if mandatory should be written as will be due; any discussions about creation of a lien needs to be stated clearly that it does constitute a lien; and another recommendation would be to include that the building permit will not be issued until any connection fee that is due is paid. He stated he would like the engineering department to review is in Chap. 22, the authority for connection fees actually allows the payment of connection fees over a period of up to 30 years and doesn't see any reference in this policy to that ordinance (Sec. 22-0207); he stated he wasn't sure if they took into consideration the requirement of adopting a connection fee under that ordinance - and that there maybe some additional modifications that are required before it is ready for final approval.

Council Member Kerian asked about the implementation of this policy, as there will be some certified and if this policy would be applied to anything that is not yet certified. Mr. Grasser stated that is a decision of the city council but he would strongly suggest that any of the tapping fees we created previously under current policy we would honor that, thinks it would be a problem if we tried to implement these policies onto something already created, and would be his intention to bring it forward in that manner. Mr. Christensen stated we should get this policy in place before we certify the various projects ready to be certified; Mr. Grasser stated if we certify them under the old policy, doesn't think it matters. Mr. Christensen stated if we are so inclined to go with this policy and they are out of the city, maybe want to implement our policy and then certify them so that we start the process, and agrees with Mr. Swanson on the word "connection fees may be due and payable" and delete the word "may" and include "will" and there won't be discretionary issues here. He stated they want to make sure that public and landowners understand the potential change.

3.8 Request from CPS, Ltd on behalf of Grand Forks Park District for final approval (fast track) of Replat of Lot B, Block 1 of a Replat of Lot 1, Block 1, Ulland Park First Addition (located south of 47th Avenue South and east of South Columbia Road)_______________
There were no comments.

3.9 Request from Peavy Company on behalf of U.A.P Ostlund for approval of a conditional use permit for a dry fertilizer storage facility (located in the SE Quarter of Section 18, T152N, R50W (located at 4256 54th Avenue North)._________________________________________
Council Member Kreun reported this came through Planning & Zoning and had a lot of discussion re. usage of the alternative roadway that Ostlund Chemical is going to provide around their storage facility - came to agreements in the packet but still the question is that there is basically a very difficult way to enforce or no way to enforce any type of maintenance to make sure that road is accessible at all times when the railroad crossing is blocked and that is the main and legitimate concern as far as emergency or safety vehicles that might be required; and if blocked for 2-3 hours concern to get to your home - and has a recommendation to add to this as to how to solve the maintenance issue.

Roger Colt-- stated that his mother lives across from this elevator and that the 3-hour shutdown of the road was something he didn't expect, and if this road is to be built his concern is the safety issue, when will safety vehicles know there is an alternate route and during the winter with shelter belts snow will be a major problem and didn't know frequency of when this road will be blocked and if there is a time limit on the permit because the road that will be built will be on private property as road will be used by postal, fire, etc. and that is his concern.

Clarence Volk, 6033 North 42nd Street, supervisor on the Township Board, stated some of their concerns were width of the top of the road, knowing that the residents would have to compete with large truck traffic while the normal access road is closed by the railroad cars, another concern or guarantee they would be requesting is that both of those roads not be blocked at the same time and something would have to be in place to assure residents of that; and asked that the whole issue be tabled by the council until the residents and requesting organization get together and discuss concerns on both sides.

Council Member Kreun stated that the main issues that were brought up have been discussed in detail in Planning and Zoning, have come to agreement on most of the issues except for the roadway and how the roadway would be blocked at different times, not sure if need to postpone this at this time and requesters want to do some work this fall and are willing to work with residents in that area to make sure that is taken care of - main issue is what enforcement mechanism do the residents in that area have for an assurance that roadway will be open to their homes any given time that the railroad tracks are blocked and that he has discussed with engineering department is have someone available to work with Peavy Elevator and with Ostlund Chemicals and maybe township supervisor and if that road is maintained on a regular basis to the township supervisor's satisfaction, and conditional use permit would stay in use at that point in time and maybe enforcement mechanism - doesn't think that would be a great concern to the company if they are going to be utilizing that road all the time, will be maintained to the level of the township supervisor, and that is a suggestion.

Council Member Christensen stated there is nothing wrong with unit trains, very long, and that they may be there being loaded or unloaded for 15 hours, and difficult if township supervisor had to make sure that train wasn't blocking the road - the issue is not parking the unit train on this road that is going to be built north of the elevator; would suggest that the road has to be built to county road specifications, and should insist upon because protects the neighbors; and if the road is blocked would become an infraction. He stated that once it is granted or once it is built, not pulling a permit or taking it down and time to address concerns of the residents is now as to size and dimensions of the road.

Mr. Swanson stated this site is outside the corporate limits of the city and within the two-mile zoning jurisdiction - and stated that the council has no authority to impose an ordinance or to enforce an ordinance except through the context of your zoning code; that another concern is condition 3) can be read in such a manner that the City would not be authorized to do a conformance evaluation except upon the tenth year anniversary and only at that time if the conditions were not adhered to could the conditional use permit be revoked, and would want to carefully review 3) in the manner in which that is written, and his next question - is it the intent by 3) that what really is desired is that the permit is issued for a period of 10 years and at that time will be considered for renewal. Mr. Potter stated that was the intent - Mr. Swanson stated they could make that clearer. He stated it would also be appropriate to make sure that 3) does not suggest that the only time of review is at a 10-year anniversary, rather that the City has in case of conditional use permits, have continuous rights of review to insure compliance.

3.10 Request from CPS, Ltd on behalf of KTJ Ltd. for final approval (fast track) of a Replat of Lots E and F of Replat of Lots 1 through 6, Block 1, Columbia Park 27th Addition (located at Grand Forks Market Place in the SW corner of 32nd Avenue South and South 38th Street).
There were no comments.

3.11 Request from CPS, Ltd on behalf of Homestead Grove Partnership for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the zoning map to exclude from the A-1 (Limited Development) District and to include within the Homestead Grove PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan all of the W Half of the SW Quarter of Section 22, T151N, R50W of the 5th Principal Meridian (located east of S. Washington Street between 40th Avenue South and 47th Avenue South).______________________________
There were no comments.

3.12 Request from CPS, Ltd on behalf of LPF Properties for preliminary approval of the plat of Homestead Grove First Addition, being a part of the W Half of the SW Quarter of Section 22, T151 N, R50W of the 5th P.M. (located north of 47th Avenue South between Sunbeam 5th Resubdivision and South 11th Street)_______________________________________________
There were no comments.

3.13 Request from Pribula Engineering and Surveying on behalf of David Parker for preliminary approval of a Replat of Lot 1, Block 1, Perkins Fifth Addition (located west of South Columbia Road and south of 36th Avenue South).
There were no comments.

3.14 Reappointments to Grand Forks City Plumbing Board.
There were no comments.

3.15 Appointments to Grand Forks City Electrical Board.
There were no comments.

INFORMATION ITEMS

4.1 Portfolio Management/Summary Report as of October 31, 2002
The city auditor reported this was included in the packet; and has also placed on their desks the cash report as of October 31, 2002 for information.

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR COMMENTS

Mr. Duquette was not present.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Kreun thanked the veterans in our community for the service they have given to our country so that we can have this type of freedom of government that we are exercising this evening.

2) Council Member Kerian stated there is an America Recycle's Day - November 15; there are some thing that they might want to encourage other people to recycle and some other State activities.

3) Council Member Gershman stated he has had some comments re. holding ponds being built for flood protection project and mosquito breeding areas, and talked to Mr. Shields today and that is a very easy thing for them to do is to treat the mosquitoes in those ponds.

4) Council Member Gershman stated that we need better coordination between the department heads and the city attorney on some of the things that are brought forward because ending up doing some lawyering and some language that isn't correct or defect an ordinance and recommended that there is better communication on some of these issues with the city attorney.

Mayor Brown reviewed announcements.

ADJOURN

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

Respectfully submitted,



John M. Schmisek
City Auditor