Council Minutes

Minutes/Committee of the Whole
Monday, March 14, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, March 14, 2005 at7:00 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. present at roll call were: Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim (teleconference), Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 6; absent: Council Member Gershman - 1.

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 Brown commented on various events held during the past week and upcoming events:

He wished a Happy Birthday to one of Grand Forks' most celebrated citizens, George Widman, who turned 85 this past Saturday.
He stated he had the honor to attend the ND Boys/Girls Club State Youth of the Year competition Saturday, that clubs from Grand Forks, Air Force Base, Minot and the 3 affiliated tribes were present and enjoyed meeting the competitors.
He stated he had the pleasure to speak to the local Girl Scouts Troop this weekend about the importance of understanding other cultures, talked about difference between Japanese and U.S. cultures and shared values.
This week is the Home and Garden Show at the Alerus, city government will be represented by Planning, Inspections, Greenway, Flood Protection, Urban Development, Police and Public Information Departments and it is one way to get to know our people out there and be available for any source of questions or discussion about city services and programs.

2.1 Application for Class 3 (Off and/or On-Sale Beer & Wine) license by Dek-Mak, Inc. dba Al's Grill & Catering, 1206 S. Washington St. (Robert Decker and Schawnn Decker)._______________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.2 Application for abatement of taxes for 2004 by Grand Forks Herald, Inc. for property at 375 2nd Ave.N.___________________________________________
Council Member Hamerlik asked for explanation as reduction is quite large. Mel Carsen,
city assessor, reported that the last appraisal by their department on this building was done in 1999 on a cost approach, no regard for market indicators and no regard for income analysis, the building is owner occupied. Mr. Harrington of International Appraisal Company, Libertyville, IL appraiser for Knight Ridder, reported his initial analysis indicated a value somewhere between $2.1 and $2.3 million; City was at $3.2 million. Mr. Carsen stated he looked at the value for 2005 and his analysis showed on the Industrial Park property were a tad high and are reducing that by something less than $100,000. He stated that the downtown building when analyzed it based on income approach and by the cost approach it indicates the value should be reduced to $2,362,500; that doesn't give the owner the right to go back and get a refund for prior years, although you can file an abatement to challenge values on property going back 2 years and bringing in documenta-tion to support any reduction request, and what they are doing here is that they accept the value of $2.36 million and request was for $2.3 million.


It was noted that there were no comparable properties, none that have been sold in Grand Forks similar to that, and did not go out of the market.

Council Member Glassheim asked what the actual cost of construction was after the flood. Mr. Carsen stated they never get the actual cost of construction, that there was a building permit in 1997 for $2, 976,000 to build the addition and to rehab existing building, and some of that would be demolition. He stated that he finds the income approach, if used for nothing else than to determine how much economic obsolescence there is in a property, the income approach seems to support that there is a 15% economic obsolescence in this property, and used 15% depreciation because of where it is built.

2.3 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5767, Dist. 610, paving S. 20th St. from 36th Ave.S. to 40th Ave.S.______________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.4 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5794, Dist. 149, street lighting in Southbrook Addn. Phase II.______________________________________________
2.5 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5795, Dist. 150, street lighting in Columbia Park 29th Resubdiv. Phase II.____________________________________
2.6 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5796, Dist. No. 151, street lighting in Promenade 1st Addn. and Promenade 2nd Resubdiv.________________________
2.7 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5797, Dist. 152, street lighting in Lydia Circle.___________________________________________________________
2.8 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5799, Dist No. 154, walkway lighting in Sertoma Park._____________________________________________
2.9 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5800, Dist. No. 155, walkway lighting in University Park.____________________________________________
2.10 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5801, Dist. No. 156, walkway lighting in Optimist Park._____________________________________________
Council Member Kerian reported she had call from individual about being able to view
the sky at night - whether or not in the park areas looking at some ways to either have lights low enough and directed enough for safety but not prevent them from night vision of seeing stars. Cindy Voigt, asst. city engineer, stated the lights they are installing will not reflect back into the atmosphere and cause problems for potential observatory - that the Grand Forks Historical Society is starting to take this cause on too. She stated the lights the City installs for street lighting have a cut off shield to prevent the light from being directed upward and the rays going out towards the street are sprayed down and out in area wanted to light - the lights they are going to install are the standard fiberglass poles, not any special dome that would prevent light to come out the top and doing best to keep light directed at path and street where supposed to be.

2.11 Location list for Project. No. 5739, 2005 Sidewalk Repairs.
There were no comments.

2.12 Infrastructure funding for Project No. 5774, sanitary sewer along 40th Ave.S. from
S. 20th St., east approx. 1900 feet.__________________________________________
Al Grasser, city engineer, reported there was a correction in the staff report that the
funding source should be 5200 rather than 2169, that this is part of the trunk infrastructure that the council discussed last year, the money from this fund comes from carry-over funds in Wastewater Department and those funds are being re-invested back into the system. Council Member Christensen stated that they also talked about 16" vs. 12" pipe and apparently this is a big pipe, 16", and the difference between the two pipes was going to be picked up perhaps by the City but questioned we have in the last several council meetings created future special assessment districts for land that will be annexed in the future, and in looking at this report it seems that there should be a future special assessment district created for the benefited landowners that will hook into this trunk line in the future, and asked how that could be done and still get this moving. Mr. Grasser stated he didn't think they could, that last two times they did it was on property that we owned, put infrastructure in and had the necessary easements and rights of way to put the property in. He stated that part of the trunk infrastructure was that it was to encourage development in areas and encourage connections and collection of taxes for the community, the agreement they are trying to hold with the property owners is that if they provide the property on which to install this is in turn install the infrastructure. He stated there is a letter from Mr. Gransberg who owns the property on which this would be installed expressing concerns about special assessments as he is not ready to develop his property at this point in time. Council Member Christensen stated that the real issue is that they do not want to go under the Southend Drainway because they could go across the street and come along 40th Ave. and go under the Southend Drainway and not have this issue and Mr. Gransberg could tap into our existing trunk line when he chooses to annex his property and asked what was cost of going under the drainway. Mr. Grasser stated if you drop over to the drainway you are going to have to re-establish another line at a future date to reach those properties to the west - the map in the staff report outlines what the trunk infrastructure needs are for this particular section of land.

Council Member Christensen stated they are suggesting that we spend $250,000 of City money to extend this infrastructure to benefit areas that are being built along 47th Ave. and S. Washington, why wouldn't we extend the cost of this to those property owners; that if they didn't pay for this cost they would have to pay for septics, or their choice. Mr. Grasser stated they have a large amount of development occurring on the west side of S.Washington, north of 47th and now don't have any sanitary sewer to reach those properties, they are trying to make due with some interim pump stations, etc. that they are privately owning but the amount of development that is going on out here is getting to be a substantial amount of flow and had discussions with developer who is looking at developing an area and all this interest is along this corridor and we don't have a mechanism to reach those areas with sanitary sewer, that a lot of the commercial type buildings that are going on would not be conducive to septic tanks, not single family homes with large lots, they are multi-story buildings with apartment type uses and generating large amounts of wastewater from relatively small parcels of property. Christensen stated the $250,000 is money we have received from our citizens through their wastewater charges, and someday could use this money for the construction of an addition to our wastewater treatment plant or to our water treatment facility.

Christensen stated that this is going to benefit the developers, those doing this for profit, why wouldn't you say if you want this you don't have those other costs, i.e., your grinders or septics or things not conducive to your development, why not come together and work out something among yourselves and pay the $250,000 rather than have the taxpayer pay it, and why not do that. Mr. Grasser stated the most likely reason that would not work particularly well is that these property owners in one area have no relationship with property owner in another area under which the line would have to be installed, they have seen reluctance from a developer to pay $250,000 that will serve other properties and other property owners have indicated that they are not ready to develop yet and not want to incur those costs. Christensen stated whenever they choose to develop (property owners to the north of line), could be a future special assessment district upon annexation because we just did it, is it if you won't get the easements if you create the special assessment district if that is what is going on here. Mr. Grasser stated that the steps if we did this outside of the parameters that we talked about with the developers is if we have the wherewithal to do this, have to go in and do some condemnation on the property in which to put this in, and that would take quite a bit of time and not sure how to handle the developments that are going on, create a problem as far as allowing this to develop without having the facilities there to serve them. Christensen stated he has trouble with taking $250,000 of taxpayer dollars to enhance future development and/or to enhance continuation of development without some type of agreement between those who are going to be benefited, i.e., the developer or the future property owner to get it back sometime, and is hearing that not to create the special assessment district and costing citizens $250,000 for the easement to extend the trunk line, and not sure what the value of the property would be if you were to condemn it. Mr. Grasser stated what he is hearing is a policy on trunk infrastructure and if we have been communicating that improperly to developers, etc. then have to go back and regroup, was under the impression they were developing the trunk infrastructure policy to encourage these developments, where allocate a certain number of dollars each year to do this, and this is one of the ones identified as being the most needed in this particular year, that the piece of infrastructure they are talking about would finish off the trunk infrastructure needs for this entire section of land, the existing trunk line along 20th Street was installed with CDBG money and with FEMA money from the School District, and that was put together under the cooperative nature of the property owners providing the property and the City put in the trunk infrastructure; the benefits they have seen from that is that the School was able to be installed and also seeing development coming off of this infrastructure and enhancing the growth of the city and holding down special assessments for some of those new areas.

Council Member Kreun stated the other developers are going to pay as they hook onto this main infrastructure and special assessed for the hookups and we are taking in exchange for the main line infrastructure, the land and easements having the land to put that on if we have to buy it at a later date after partially developed may cost us close to that. He asked if that was the policy that started with the streets and then went into the sanitary sewer portion of it to take money from our excess funds, fund that to bring in the mainline infrastructure and then peel off of that; that they are saying how does that get paid for, and what saying is that we put that money aside to get the mainline infrastructure and when that is in, then the special assessment districts are created and the rest of the project is paid through special assessments. Mr. Grasser stated what instigated the project to a degree, that they had been talking about this as a city on how to hold down special assessments, encourage development, control where development is going to go, etc. and part of what triggered the discussion were remembering the assessments that would have gone along 55th Avenue South and had some assessments that would have brought in part of
Anderson's Subdivision and a number of existing residential homes as it went by those properties and ended up developing a policy that implemented part of that this year, and finished running the water and sewer past those areas so that the cost of the infrastructure doesn't go against those people, the problem with the trunk infrastructure is like the sanitary sewer as nobody has a direct service connection to the trunk infrastructure so nobody has a direct benefit, there is a general benefit because you need this to serve the general area, that these developers and property owners will be responsible for running the main, and be special assessed because that is the lateral and doesn't meet the definition of the trunk infrastructure because these properties will be able to tie directly into that line, their services will go directly into that line and that will be special assessed and are assuming that the end part is shallow enough where there may be some direct connections and that will be special assessed, and what they are looking at here is the deep stuff that can't be used very reasonably as direct sewer connection and hard to identify who is going to be benefiting from that, can make generality. Kreun stated just about everybody will benefit from it as they hook on with their lateral lines but one of the most important portions is that we get that in before development starts so we can direct the direction of the development and have adequate sanitary service line in place to handle all of the development in that area, and remembers policy discussions on this and maybe go back and look at that to refresh our memories on how we developed that.
Christensen stated he thought it best if they review this policy to make sure that we have a consistent policy as to what part of this community we are going to divert monies from our various utility funds for sewer lines, but having developers coming at you wanting sewer line construction and then have to develop some type of criteria as to who is first, who is second, etc. kind of our scoring deal on annexation. Kreun stated only good thing is putting this in before developers come in, we direct it, where it goes, etc. Mr. Grasser stated he has to give apology to Cindy, she had all the background data in here but he said to take it off and probably should have provided council with that information. Christensen asked if they could have information supplied to them so they can refresh their memories.

Mr. Feland stated Mr. Grasser was talking $200,000 to $250,000 in sanitary sewer and about $150,000 to $200,000 in water and in a given year what they would expend on a large trunk infrastructure project and engineering prioritize early in the year where projects were going to be for this year and how fund it; that at the end of each year see how did the previous year, and direct so much for sanitary sewer and so much for water, didn't budget but looked to see how they did the previous year. Mr. Grasser will provide information to council.

2.13 Bids for thermal imaging camera for fire department.
There were no comments.

2.14 Bid package for metal detection equipment for police department.
There were no comments.

2.15 Vehicle bid specifications for police department.
There were no comments.

2.16 BDT/LPH (joint venture and system supplier for the wastewater treatment plant) Project Contract #4371 closeout agreement._________________________________
Todd Feland, director of public works, reported this project started in 1996, pushing 10
years on this project and reviewed agreement; that for this project there was a little over $9 million performance bond that was provided as part of BDT/LPH, a system provider in regards to process equipment, part of that equipment was what makes the wastewater treatment plant function as it does today. During the process of 1997 and 1998 there was a performance bond that was provided and warranty parameters in regards to the effluent and as part of this agreement one of the more important factors is that this agreement will provide that the closeout of that performance bond in the amount of over $9 million; there were 2 or 3 runs of performance testing in regards to the effluent, which are attached as part of the agreement. He stated on Attachment H (supplemental agreement), IV, not closing that part of the agreement out, that was for a dollar amount of $500,000 over a 5-year period for purpose of design, purchase and installation of capital improvements for purposes of compliance; wastewater began to be processed at this plant in June, 2003. Part of the agreement is in regards to the wastewater treatment plant the City staff feels comfortable that the parameters have been met and the requirement was of the process provider, BDT/LPH was to provide a system which would meet those affluent parameters and provide support for a year and they would have around a year in which to perform those functions; but there have been delays but not because of the process provider but because of other issues we have been dealing with and some equipment failures - those are issues we are dealing with in other litigations but does not pertain to this agreement with BDT/LPH. The other thing is that they have held retainage in the amount of about $63,000, in the agreement in Exhibit 1 it provides that there are 6 task orders that need to be completed in order for that $63,000 to be provided to BDT/LPH and that on March 9 they are about 70% complete with those task orders and from all indications at this point in time, they should meet that March 31, 2005 deadline and at such time we would release that $63,000 excluding $10,000 which would be held because there is some automation programming that is on-going and not completed and would hold that back until such time as that was completed. He stated that in section IV, BDT/LPH has agreed to be around to help us with consultation and advise relative to the wastewater treatment plant, and the $9.1 million performance bond would be released and (6) in the staff report is how they release the remaining amount of retainage up to $63,000; that (7) of the staff report as part of this agreement re. litigation and not giving up any rights in regard to that and also some issues as part of the supplemental agreement and other part of the agreement is that the City is not closing out as part of this agreement. He stated reps. of BDT are present as well as Beecher Vaillancourt, to answer any questions that council may have.

Council Member Kreun stated that wastewater treatment plant is up and running, some problems but not with this group, and some of those problems have been mitigated and on path to finishing this project. Mr. Feland stated there has been a lot of negative press re. the project but now at a point in which we can release the $9 million bond because the plant is working up to its effluent parameters, taken a lot of hard work to get to this end.

2.17 Water meter and remote read bid summary.
There were no comments.

2.18 Request for approval of a resolution to annex parts of deeded lands known as the Kindness Animal Hospital and Interstate 29 R/W easterly thereof, except those lands previously annexed (loc. at 4400 32nd Ave.S. (public hearing was continued to March 21, 2005)________________________________________________________
Dennis Potter, city planner, stated this was started in December, 2004 and Planning
Commission report shows the most recent action and previous actions with Dr. Odegard. Dr. Odegard stated he was opposed to the annexation, that he went to Planning and Zoning Commission with a smaller proposal that he thought was being received fairly well until they got deeper into the discussions; there is one thing that is not mentioned in the staff report - there was another motion to make the portion smaller to about 2 or 2.5 acres and came in as a 6-6 vote and when that was defeated went back to the original motion; and his position is if come to some agreement similar to what he had proposed but not that small but around the margins of the building to make it as small as possible and then would not oppose the annexation, but if annexing 5.5 acres he would oppose it. Council Member Hamerlik stated he was not opposed to negotiation but that is why sent it back the last time, and would like to make it palatable for both sides if possible. Dr. Odegard stated there was an amendment that was defeated and then back to the original motion - trying to get more manageable because of impact for taxes and dike assessment and if more manageable won't protest but if stays at 5.5 acres will protest it.

Council Member Kerian stated they discussed this in various meetings and one of the problems she has with the proposal that came back is that it actually leaves land to be annexed all around a fairly small property but that we need orderly development, and area removed in the proposal doesn't contribute to that, Mr. Kreun came up with the amendment that received a 6-6 vote and her concern was that she didn't hear that was acceptable either, and Commission couldn't find any middle ground that was acceptable and came back as originally presented.

Dr. Odegard stated Map D is his proposal to Planning and Zoning, and there are parcels A, B and C and his proposal was that annexation would be staged, that parcel B would come in January 1, 2006, and parcel A to come in 2008, C in 2009 or both in 2008, January 1, and with determination like that wouldn't protest the annexation if phase in rather than all at one time. Mr. Potter stated that Map A was recommendation from Planning and Zoning.

2.19 Request for final approval of ordinance to amend text of Land Development Code, Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, amending Article 2, Zoning, Section 18-0204, Rules and Definitions, Subsection (2), Definitions, Section 18-0301, Signs, Subsection (9), Paragraph (B), relating to ground monument signs. (public hearing was continued to March 21, 2005)______
There were no comments.

2.20 Second reading of ordinance to annex all those lands to be known as Homestead Grove First Addn. (loc. in 4600 block of S. Washington St. (public hearing scheduled for March 21)________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.21 Request on behalf of Crary Development, Inc. for final approval of plat of Homestead Grove First Addn. (loc. in 4600 blk. of S. Washington St.) (public hearing and second reading of ordinance to amend Street & Highway Plan scheduled for March 21)._____________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.22 Request for final approval of ordinance to amend zoning map to rezone and exclude from the A-1 (Limited Development) Dist. and to include within the Homestead Grove PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, all of Homestead Grove First Addn. and unplatted portions of West Half of SE Quarter of Section 22, Twp. 151 North, Range 50 West of the 5th Principal Meridian (loc. east of S. Washington St. between 40th Ave.S. and 47th Ave.S.). (public hearing and second reading of ordinance scheduled for March 21).__________________________
There were no comments.

2.23 Second reading of ordinance to annex all those lands to be known as Prairiewood First Addn. (loc. in 5600 blk. of Belmont Road). public hearing and second reading of ordinance scheduled for March 21)_______________________________________
There were no comments.

2.24 Request on behalf of Crary Development, Inc. for final approval of a plat of Prairiewood First Addn. (loc. south of Adams Dr. and east of Belmont Road) (public hearing and second reading of ordinance to amend Street and Highway Plan scheduled for March 21)__________________________________________________ There were no comments.

2.25 Request on behalf of Crary Development for final approval of an ordinance to amend the zoning map to rezone and exclude from A-2 (Agricultural Reserve) Dist. and to include within the R-1 (Single-Family Residence) Dist. all of Prairiewood First Addn. (loc. east of S. Washington St. between 40th Ave.S. and 47th Ave.S.) (public hearing and second reading of ordinance scheduled for March 21________ There were no comments.

2.26 Second reading of ordinance to annex all those lands to be known as Vern's Southern Estates First Addn. (loc. in 1900 blk. of 47th Ave.S.) (public hearing and second reading of ordinance scheduled for March 21)_________________________ There were no comments.

2.27 Request on behalf of Vern and Judith Gornowicz for final approval of plat of Vern's Southern Estates First Addn. (loc. in 1900 blk. of 47th Ave.S.) (public hearing and second reading of ordinance amending Street and Highway Plan scheduled for March 21)_______________________________________________________________ There were no comments.

2.28 Second reading of ordinance to annex all those lands known as Southern Estates 4th Addn. (loc. west of S. 20th St. and north of 44th Ave.S.) (public hearing and second reading of ordinance scheduled for March 21)________________________________ There were no comments.

2.29 Request on behalf of Crary Development, Inc. for final approval of plat of Southbrook Third Resubdivision, being a replat of Lot 18, Block 1, Southbrook Second Addn. (loc. in 1500 block of 48th Ave.S.)__________________________ There were no comments.

2.30 Request on behalf of Wally Rogers for final approval (fast track) of plat of McKelvey's Addn., being a replat of Lots 1 through 4, Blk. 14, McKelvey's Addn (loc. at 613 8th Ave.S.)_________________________________________________ There were no comments.

2.31 Request on behalf of Crary Development, Inc. for preliminary approval of plat of Johnson's West First Addn. being a part of the SE Quarter of Section 18, Twp. 151 North, Range 50 West of 5th Principal Meridian (lying north of and adj. to 32nd Ave.S.)_________________________________________________________________ There were no comments.

2.32 Petition from Crary Development for approval of ordinance to annex all those lands to be known as Lot 1, Block 1, Johnson's West First Addn., except those parts previously annexed (loc in 4400 blk of 32nd Ave.S.)__________________________________________ Council Member Kerian stated that they were asked to size down the amount of property that TSC is going to use and questioned that - the concept of holding on one area (Dr. Odegard) and changing on this one. Mr. Potter stated from a technical standpoint the answer is that you can make it as big or as small as you want, but then get into the issue of having it protested and would probably replay the discussion we just went through with Dr. Odegard, that they have traditionally used the plats as the legal description and that makes it easier to get a description into the County's hands - if you want to go larger, there is nothing prohibiting you other than going too large and having the property owner who has made this request and owns the property around it changing from a willing annexation to a protesting annexation.

Council Member Kreun stated reduction is about 8500 sq.ft. and is small reduction and could leave it either way, but if looking at the east side of the property, Johnson's West First Addition, we are going to be having a protest on property east of there and in order to protect the citizens of Grand Forks because that property we are going to annex meets 95% of the requirements of the point system and would propose next week that we take 25% of that land and continue east with it, which is about 85 ft and that will help protect us in case the protest does not fall in our favor will still get a portion of that, and will make that next week an addendum to that motion.

Mr. Potter stated it was 3.60 acres, Council Member Christensen stated they have a useless piece of property until it is brought in. Council Member Kreun stated he thought it was 8500 sq.ft. on back property line - shortening the lot on back lot and reduces sq. footage by 8500 sq.ft. and brings property line closer to 32nd.

2.33 Request from Warren and Colette LeClerc for preliminary approval of Young Resubdivision, being a replat of Lot 2, Block 1, Young Subdiv., including a platted strip of land 30 ft. by 306 ft. lying between the west R/W line of County Hwy. 81 and the east line of said Block 1, previously designated as an access road and including an unplatted strip of land 123 feet by 508 feet lying south of and adj. to said Block 1 and south of and adj. to the previously described 40 ft. wide access road. (loc. at 7274 S. Washington St.)___________________________________________________
There were no comments.

3. INFORMATION ITEMS

3.1 Portfolio Management/Portfolio Summary report ending February 28, 2005.
Informational - no comments.

6. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Hamerlik stated the staff recommendation for ordinance annexing Kindness Hospital, Dr. Odegard, should be made more clear at their next meeting - have definite motion that they are voting on. Mr. Potter will take care of that.

2) Council Member Kerian reported she has had some comments this week about smoking ordinance, those she hears are positive, and thinks this community seems to be interested in that health issue - this item tabled until May 16 and will want to continue the discussions then to see where we can come to some agreement but basically a worker issue, people who need to be protected and that is a role of government.


7. ADJOURNMENT

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

Respectfully submitted,



Saroj Jerath
Deputy City Auditor