Council Minutes

Minutes/Committee of the Whole
Monday, December 8, 2003 – 7:00 p.m.

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, December 8, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were: Council Members Brooks, Glassheim, President Gershman, Kerian, Kreun, Christensen, and Hammerlik. – 7; absent: none – 0.

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

Mayor announcements:
Our main concern in the community continues to be on finding Dru and bringing her home to her family. Our thoughts and prayers remain with Dru’s family and friends. We are committed to keep up the search as long as we can. I want to commend the businesses that have given so much to this effort. I am also proud of all the law enforcement that have been working now for over 2 weeks straight. We as a community are deeply affected by this tragedy.

I wish hearty congratulations to Coach Lennon and the UND football team. Good luck in Alabama.

Unfortunately we had to cancel the MAX VAX mass vaccinations exercise and flu shot clinic yesterday. But the experience has proved to be incredibly valuable. Because of all the preparation, we now have a very strong plan in place.

I had the opportunity to kick off the “Making Homes for the Holidays” program at Slumberland this morning. More than 1000 beds will be donated to needy families around 8 states. I want to say thanks to Carol Jagow and Marcey Van Camp from Slumberland for organizing the event here. Thanks to all the area volunteers and businesses for helping. They include the Grand Forks Fire Fighters Local 1099, Applegren Construction, RBB Electric, Lumbermart, Prairie Harvest, Deitz Business Promotions, Alerus Financial, Hanson Ford, and Walmart, which donated $1000 for bedding.

Friday December 12, 2003 has been proclaimed as “Mike Maidenberg Day” for all of his contributions to our community. Mr. Maidenberg will be stepping down as Publisher of the Grand Forks Herald this year. There will be a public reception for him at the Herald this Friday afternoon.

Welcome back to Dorette Kerian.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION ITEMS

2.1 Application for transfer of liquor license (Class 4-Food & Beverage Establishment) by Joe Dimaggio’s Sports Cafe, 118 N. 3rd St.

Council member Hamerlik asks, “If a transfer of a liquor license is requested by a non-relative listed as the owner of the license, does that change the dollar amount?” Attorney Swanson states that according to code there are various exceptions. There is not a direct exception for the change of ownership to family members when a corporation is involved unless certain circumstances are met. In this particular case according to the code a substantial change was made in the ownership in that there are additional owners now being added to the corporate structure. All other matters relative to this application are in order. The fee remains the same regardless, once it meets definition transfer whether it is a family member or non-family member.

2.2 Change order No. 2 for Project No. 5416, 2003 Storm and Sanitary Sewer Repairs.

Council member Gershman questions if approval is necessary based on the $30,000 department head decision. Cindy Voight states that this amount does not fall within the percentage without council approval. Council member Brooks questions the amount of change order number one. This amount was $16, 249.92 and several other funds helped pay for that including a grant from the water department for security. The sanitary sewer department also paid for some of the items on change order number one. Council member Gershman questions why this change order is different than the $30,000 based on the percentage basis. Mr. Schmisek explains that different percentages are established at different levels. At over one-half million dollars worth of construction it is 10% and below that amount it is 15%. If the change was that great, then council must approve.
Ms. Voight states that another change order will come in a few weeks to final out this project.

2.3 Lease agreement with the Park District for Lincoln Drive Park

Mark Walker addressed the council with background of the lease agreement. In June 2000 there was an agreement between the City Council and the Park District to transfer property owned by the Park District to the city that was needed for the flood protection project. Also in that agreement there was discussion regarding potential lease agreements of park facilities once completed that are constructed in the Greenway and Flood Protection Project. This document before you tonight is the proposed agreement for the Lincoln Drive Park, which is on the wet side near where the Almonte Nursing Home was located. This proposed lease coincides with the Finance Committee review. There is a desire from the Park District to get into the area and begin operations of the facilities (warming house, skating rink, etc). This agreement proposes a 99-year lease between the City and Park District pending findings of the Finance Committee. Mr. Walker commented that council might want to change to a one-year lease at this time. When all related issues are complete, look at a longer term.

Council member Christensen feels that Mr. Walker’s recommendation is prudent. Mr. Christensen feels that a one-year lease term would be more advantageous at this point until all dike phases are completed in this park and then enter into a 99-year lease at that time. Mr. Swanson clarifies that this land was not purchased from the Park District but was actually acquired by the city in other acquisitions from various owners following the flood. This particular land is platted property in the Lincoln Park Area. Council member Kerian questions taxes on this property. Mr. Swanson states that since the City and the Park District are both exempt from real estate taxes, there would be none. There would be special assessments assessed to the Park District if necessary, but in this particular situation, the property is on the wet side of the dike. Council member Kreun states that there will be approximately 4 potential parcels to be brought in yet. He suggests we use this as a guide until all the properties are brought in and then use a 99-year lease for the entire project. The next properties to come in are Lincoln Golf Course, and then Riverside and Central, which are both Phase 3. Mark Walker anticipates that the Golf Course would come in 2004 and the other two properties in 2005.

Some discussion ensued as to what area is encompassed in this lease. The preliminary plat of this area was shown. The lot identified by Mark Walker encompasses the property proposed to be leased to the Park District, which includes all of the recreational facilities built in the Lincoln Drive Park area under the Corp of Engineers and Greenway project, and includes all of the recreational facilities built including the sledding hill, warming house, ice-skating rinks and bathroom facilities. Mr. Swanson clarified that Exhibit C provided in the packet was never completed. This exhibit contemplated additional information including a significant legal description of a number of areas. This particular document describes the areas as Riverside Park, Central, Lincoln and the Golf Course. Much of that land is unplatted and without a meets and bounds description or a platted description, they were unable to sufficiently describe it. Mr. Christensen states that we now have a specific description, which is attached to the plat. We now have an entire area of Lincoln Memorial Park other than what is described on page 17 in the packet that will have to be dealt with in relation to maintenance of the Greenway. This agreement does not address the issue of maintenance. Council member Christensen concurs with Council member Kreun regarding this and feels that these issues need to be addressed.

Mr. Swanson feels that significant more work needs to be done with regards to identifying other areas. Much of the Lincoln Golf course area is not platted. He feels that the draft is only a small portion of the larger picture.

2.4 2004 Salary Plan

Charles Bunce appeared before the council to review the Salary Plan. All the work done for the Salary Plan for 2004 fulfills the requirements adopted by the city council on 12-16-02. The method as to how it was approached is very similar to 2003. The only difference between the 2003 and 2004 plan are the requirements for the Pay for Performance system. These new requirements are 1) Determine the amount required for in-range Pay for Performance increases based on the 2004 budget as approved by City Council. 2) Develop a Pay for Performance Increase Guide (Cost Matrix) commensurate with the funding level of 3.25% and 3) Provide individual Pay for Performance increases and Range Assignments effective January 1, 2004.

The actual changes to the payment plan for 2003 to 2004 are listed in the right hand column of the plan. There are three new positions. The 2003 salary plan included 452.55 Full Time Equivalent (FTE’s) for classified positions. The 2004 plan includes 448.25 FTE’s or a decrease of 4.3 positions or 1% of the total. These positions eliminated were not through attrition, but through actual reorganization of creating new positions and eliminating others. Those eliminated positions amount to $236,000 (100% mid-point of salary range). This was actually used in the budgeting process to decrease the total budget to come to the budget for the rest of the plan. Even though there are three new job descriptions, there are not actually three new positions hired.

Program Analyst Senior position was not correct as the consultant was benchmarking. After analyzing this position it fit the new position description better.

Equipment Operator Lead – this position will promote 4 equipment operators in Street and Sanitation Departments to Lead Operators, rather than promoting two equipment operators to the supervisory level. This gives more room for people to advance in this department and also reduces the cost approximately $54,651/year.

Urban Development Deputy Director – this position was reviewed per request by the Urban Development Department Head to see if there was any justification to have a Deputy Director. Upon review it was felt there was justification to have a Deputy Director and especially based on the new talents and skills the present Urban Development Directors bring into the system They also felt it was necessary to have backup at that position. As a result of Mayoral approval, the position of Community Development Manager position was eliminated.

There are some job title changes especially in the Water Treatment Department, which are based on an EPA report, which provided the required job descriptions.

Based on the council requirement to have all employees at no less than 80% minimum of the mid point salary range, there were numerous range changes which did not affect salary. However, there were 17 positions that were identified as having a salary less than the 80% minimum. The cost to the general fund is $8428.00.

Mr. Bunce provided the council with a chart, which shows the Pay for Performance Review and grievance process. This report allows the process for a grievance review all the way to the Civil Service Commission. It allows for review to the Administrative Coordinator’s office for specific evaluation questions and review.

The phrase “Remember, the score (performance evaluation score) in and of itself is not grievable to the Mayor/Civil Service Commission, only how your how your evaluation was conducted and the final results” was questioned by the council. According to Mr. Bunce it is the results of the number that they are looking at. For example a 2 and a 4 are very hard to justify. If they could be justified, it went to the 3 position. This can be reviewed with documentation. Council member Gershman feels that you cannot question the number. He feels that an employee can question a number. Mr. Duquette states that he does not agree with the statement. He says that it is appropriate for an employee to have his evaluation reviewed either by the Department Head, Administrative Coordinator’s level and then on to the Civil Service Commission and he feels that it is appropriate. He trusts the supervisors, department heads and the manager’s that they will do things thoughtfully and will resolve these things at their level if at all possible. If there is a sincere reason for a number that doesn’t match performance, we want to take a look at it. This portion will be re-written in the Salary Plan. Council member Gershman feels that the original Wage Study Committee should review this in their meeting. Mr. Bunce reiterates that he would like this statement retracted also. The Civil Service Commission decides what is grievable and what is not. They do not review pay issues. You can go to them with any issue, but they decide what they feel they have the authority to hear or not.

Council member Christensen states that the City Council has the power to amend the Civil Service Code. He feels that it may be beneficial to make a specific reference in the Civil Service Code that there is no review of pay issues by the Civil Service Commission. He goes on to say that is why the council adopted this new pay for performance structure based on changes in job classifications that were granted by the Civil Service Commission which resulted in people getting reclassified and an increase in pay. He feels that this should be reviewed in the Wage Study Committee.

Mr. Swanson states that the code was changed substantially one year ago to accommodate the new Salary Plan. The ability for the Civil Service Commission to intervene in a salary issue has been greatly reduced. They have no authority to enter into any issue with reclassification. He feels that the grievance process does still exist under a Pay for Performance Review under existing code. The Commission has no authority over classification issues.

There was discussion at length regarding the evaluation number process and how or when that is grievable and to whom.

2.5 Matter of post-employment health plan.

Mr. Goetz appeared to represent the post employment health plan. There is a no opt out option, which means once an employee enters into the plan they must remain in the plan. Mr. Schmisek pointed out that there is no additional cost to the city. Employees are allowed to choose 0-100% in 10% increments into the plan. The 10% increment is allotted to assist the payroll department. Mr. Swanson has spoken to Lt. Robert Johnson
regarding review and has no objections to the plan at this time. Mr. Duquette provided some history of this project. He thanks Mr. Goetz, Charlie Bunce, Mike Shea, Mr. Hamerlik, Rae Ann Burger, Carol Diamond and Lt. Johnson for their hard work on this project.

2.6 Matter of budget amendment request (Urban Development)
No comments

2.7 Matter of budget amendment request (Urban Development)
No comments

2.8 Matter of budget amendment request (Urban Development)
No comments

2.9 2004 Special Events Program

Mr. Bill Palmiscino, Superintendent of Recreation of the Grand Forks Park District appeared before the council to ask that they reconsider to be a sponsor of the 2004 Prairie Rose State Games. They will be held in Grand Forks this summer. The Park District has asked for $8000 to assist in added staff to help for these games. In 2000 Grand Forks city was a $10,000 sponsor and in 1996 they were an $8,000 sponsor. The games will bring approximately 5,000 people to town with 450 volunteers. Five hundred motel rooms have been blocked off for this event.

Council member Glassheim responds to the financial requests. There were requests totaling $193,000 and only $100,000 in available funds. The committee first voted on events they would not fund. Some of these events had other funding sources. The reasoning for the non-funding of the Prairie Rose State games is that the Park District is a public entity and therefore have their own taxing monies and they are mainly involved in recreation. From that point the committee reviewed the balance of the entities and averaged out the total dollar amount.

Council members Christensen and Kerian both feel that the games should be funded.

Mayor Brown states that the council may have to review the Special Events budget as this budget has been set at $100,000 for the last 4 years. As the city grows, he feels the events money should also grow to have more money available for these events, which are important to the city.

Council member Glassheim states that if the council were to choose to amend the results of the special events committee, the action would not offend the committee members. He feels that it is within the right and ability of the council to amend as they choose.

2.10 Renaissance Zone expansion and administration

Council member Gershman commented on an e-mail received from Mary Jo Deitz regarding why the Renaissance zone ended prior to the Red Pepper and not carried around the corner to encompass the Red Pepper and the block adjacent to it along University Avenue. The area in question by Ms. Deitz is the 1100 block of University Avenue. We may need to look at picking up 2 additional blocks to encompass her area

Greg Hoover and Dennis Potter reviewed a number of areas in the first 22 blocks. When they reviewed the area they are recommending there is a good potential to do a lot of housing since the city owns a number of lots in this area. This was weighed in a balance and took into account the resources available to Urban Development they decided to further affordable housing. These areas are not mutually exclusive. State legislation limits the area to 9 blocks and they must be contiguous and continuous. According to Mr. Hoover this restricted going around the periphery of the existing zone. This particular area had the greatest opportunity for re-development potential as far as vacant lots and the condition of the housing in the area. Also this area is part of the Historic Preservation District and also with a new look at revitalizing downtown this area seemed logical to continue along this bias, which continues along toward downtown.

Council member Christensen states that University Avenue is a corridor to downtown. He would like some clarification as to how many lots the city owns, whether there are houses on them, and also how to expand the Renaissance Zone for the University Avenue.

Council member Brooks asks for clarification of the blocks in question by Ms. Deitz. He feels that we may need to re-visit this area to see is this can be accomplished in this area. This area may not have a lot of potential, but when we have someone asking to be included we may need to identify it.

2.11 Waterworks Capital Reserve Fund Allocation.

Mr. Feland appeared before the council regarding the future water treatment plant project. The proposed cash balance to put in is 3.5 million.. When the loan to the Alerus begins to repay it will be put into the reserve account. He states there will be a lot of planning in the next two years and would like to set a process to review funding, cost estimates and timelines, etc. His goal is steady increases in the next 5 years. He did budget 2 million for a cash balance and that will be reviewed each year. The city council allocates this money from the general reserve fund and can withdraw it for other projects if necessary.

2.12 Petition to vacate streets, alleys and easements in Lindsay’s Addition lying within lots east of Almonte Avenue, south of 8th avenue South to Lincoln Drive.
No comments

2.13 Petition to vacate public right of way and 20 ft. bikeway and pedestrian walkway easement, being part of Lot E, Block 1, Countryview Second Resubdivision of a replat of Lots 9 through 14, Block 2 and Lots12 and 13, Block 1, Countryview First Resubdivision and unplatted parts south there of to the city of Grand Forks, ND.
No comments


2.14 Request for preliminary approval of the plat of Auditor’s Subdivision No. 36 to the city of Grand Forks, ND (located at areas east of Almonte Avenue south to Lincoln Drive.
No Comments

2.15 Request for preliminary approval of ordinance to amend the text of the Land Development Code, Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, amending Article 2, Section 18-0204, Rules and Definitions, subsection (2) and Article 3, Rules and Regulations, Section 18-0301, Signs, subsection (5) relating to permitted signs in the B-2 (Shopping Center) District.

Mr. Potter relates that this particular question is a sign to be installed in the B-2 Zoning district on 17th Avenue South and South Washington near the Grand Cities Mall. This is the only area of B-2 Zoning on South Washington from Gateway to 32nd Avenue South. Signs are more restrictive in B-2 than they are in B-3 as you cannot install pylon signs. When the Herzog Company first purchased the Grand Cities Mall the Planning Department had conversations with them to change out their sign. The dept. suggested a ground monument sign as The Herzog Company wanted to eliminate the pylon sign. They proposed a sign that would measure 300 square feet and a maximum height of 20 feet above the ground. This proposal was taken to the sign sub-committee to propose a draft. Mr. Potter states that they have designed this particular sign specifically for the B-2 area.

Council member Gershman questions whether other businesses will want to change their signs if we go along with this new sign. This would open up the signage issue again. This practice of specifying certain signs for certain areas is like as spot-zoning. He agrees that getting rid of the pylon sign is a positive.

Council member Kerian questions clarification on the sign specifications of Columbia Mall and the other areas. Mr. Potter states they are in a planned unit development and use the ground monument sign formula. Standard ground monument is 8 ft. high and 15 ft. wide. When the Columbia Mall and 32nd Ave South stores went into that area, they knew the rules for signage. This particular area is an isolated area of B-2 zoning competing with a signage package that is different in B-3. B-3 is allowed a pylon sign approximately 35 feet high and approximately the same square feet. It has a great visibility because it is so high in the air.

The sign proposed by Herzog’s is 20 X 20 with a 5-foot base and 15 X 20 feet of sign and placement of this sign has not yet been discussed.

Council member Brooks feels we need to look at this through the view of being “Business Friendly”. This particular business has a need and has approached the Planning department and has come up with a compromise. He feels that because Dr. Kweit agrees to this proposal we should consider it.

Council member Kreun states that this is the start of a program that we would like to extend on South Washington Street. The reason for the size is that this is the only off premise advertising and in order to accommodate the number of businesses that will be advertised it needs to be large enough. It will also advertise the movie theaters. He believes that it will result in less square footage.

Mr. Potter will research several other signs throughout the community and report back to the council.

2.16 Request for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend zoning map to exclude from I-2 (Heavy Industrial) Dist. and to include within A-2 (Agricultural Reserve) Dist. Lots 3-6, Block 2, Lots 4-6, Block 2, and all of Block 5, Walsh’s Industrial Site No. 1 (located between 27th Ave. N. and 33rd Ave. N. and between N. 32nd Street and US Highway 81 N).
No comments

2.17 Matter of change in Defined Contribution Plan contribution percentage (staff report provided separately)
Held

2.18 Matter of request from employees for additional years of service in the Defined Benefit Plan (staff report provided separately)
Held
INFORMATION ITEMS

3.1 Portfolio Management/Summary as of November 30, 2003.
No comments
CITIZEN REQUESTS
There were no comments.
ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR COMMENTS
There were no comments
MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS
1) Council member Glassheim commented on the Chamber of Commerce comparison which shows that Grand Forks is at 95% of the cost of living index. The only problem is that it is more expensive than Bismarck, Fargo/Moorhead, and Mandan. In the areas of housing and utilities we are between 5 to 15 points higher than those cities.

Council member Glassheim has received a letter with an idea to attempt to lower DUI’s and drunken drivers around town. They propose that the city and the bars enter into an agreement to purchase and place in bars breathalyzers. He will turn this letter over to the Service and Safety Committee to review.

2) Council member Kerian states that it is nice to be home. Her heart goes out to Dru Sjodin’s family and friends as well as all of those who went out to search for her as well as the Police department. She appreciates the GF Herald story today relating to keep careful and ask for help if we need it. This event is rare, but we need to be as aware with our friends and acquaintances as well as with strangers.

3) Council member Gershman states that he is proud of our Police Dept. They are handling this kidnapping situation with dignity and sensitivity. They are very professional. It is quite moving.

Go Sioux.

ADJOURN
It was moved by Council member Gershman and seconded by Council member Brooks that we adjourn. Carried 7 votes affirmative.


Respectfully Submitted,



John M. Schmisek
City Auditor


JS/cd