Council Minutes

REVISED*
Minutes/Committee of the Whole
Monday, July 11, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, July 11, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were: Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman (teleconference), Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 7; absent: none.

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 during the past week and upcoming events.

He announced that tonight the Air Force is planning on aerial and City is planning on ground spraying ,
Congratulations and thanks to staff and leaders from both Grand Forks and East Grand Forks for honorary mention as a bicycle friendly community.
Also a special thanks to the community members and staff who agreed to sit on the Metropolitan Bikeway Committee last year when he and Mayor Stauss called for their help, hard work beginning to pay off and pressing for more hard work and bigger awards in the future.
He stated he spent time with the State Historical Society attendees and welcomed to Grand Forks last weekend, and gives us chance to be proud of our community, and meeting with State Historical Society was also a pleasure because we got to meet at Myra Museum and charmed by band called Prairie Rose in addition to city band and Dick King's Swing Band.

PRESENTATION BY PAT BERGER, UNITED WAY

Pat Berger, United Way, reported that listing of grant awards was distributed to council members for the Community Development Block Grants and thanked City for not only using CDBG grants for Bricks and Mortar but also funds for program service dollars, that these go out to non-profits in the community and what they mean in the community, and are for low to moderate income individuals and families. She noted that 12.3% of the families in Grand Forks County fall below the poverty level as established by HUD, and on a given month there are about 1700 families that need food stamps. She reviewed the listing of agencies and funds awarded to them for 2005
Council Member Gershman thanked Ms. Berger for her work. Mayor Brown also thanked her on behalf of the council.

SUSPEND AGENDA

Council Member Kreun moved item 2.13 Negotiations regarding property purchase in Turtle River Township, Grand Forks County, as city council may go into executive session, as the last item on the agenda. Council Member Hamerlik seconded the motion. Carried 7 votes affirmative




* These Minutes have been revised pursuant to the Open Records and Meetings Opinion 2005-O-18 issued by the North Dakota Attorney General on November 8, 2005 (See item 2.13)2.1 Municipal Court relocation.
Rick Duquette, administrative coordinator, stated they wanted to introduce discussion with the council regarding potential relocation of Municipal Court from its current location in the Police Building to the proposed County Correctional Center in the fairgrounds area and staff report will be asking the council to consider this proposal and allow them to begin the details on the funding scenario, operational details related to that.

Gary Malm, Grand Forks County Commissioner, stated they started looking about a year and half ago at a new county jail, over 4th of July had 80 people in county jail, their capacity is 94, and that this has been happening over a period of time. He stated they should be ready next Tuesday if they have secured what is necessary, bonding in place and will proceed. He stated it shouldn't cost the taxpayers any money, only federal dollars, that the federal government can house prisoners in the county jail and pay for costs. He stated they will be vacating their jail and that Mr. Morken, E911 will move into that location and building can be wired very inexpensively because they have a connection from the police department across the street. They talked to the Highway Patrol to see if they wanted to move into their new building but they wanted too much space and will look someplace else. He also talked to Mr. Campbell, EOC, and that he wouldn't like to move but will do so; and will have space vacated in the Police Building and after discussed that perhaps the City would like to join them in this, and asked if the City would like to look at this, and need to know quickly because next week will let their first contract for the grading of the site. He also noted that they will proceed no matter what the City decides to do but if the City decides to move departments to that location and do things that will cut City's costs and have more efficient operation; will be able to handle prisoners more rapidly. He stated this will be as modern facility as there is. .

Council Member Brooks asked location of building on the fairgrounds. Mr. Malm stated it will be across from Home of Economy, north of Reiten & Young, and are not removing anybody from the fairgrounds, building is on the open space on the far east end of the fairgrounds and will access from the highway, using area that was used for parking.

Mr. Mitchell from ICON Architects showed site plan on screen, stated current bed count is 94, have separate building for work release and house 30-35, and with new facility bed count of 192 beds with a dormitory setting of another 36 beds and holding cells that can hold up to 20 people in the intake area for processing term of 24 to 48 hours and also have four additional pods that could be built on the site and with additions could house up to another 400 people on the site, site is long term commitment.

Council Member Hamerlik questioned funding for this project, federal dollars, and if funding will come from housing of inmates. Mr. Malm stated they are in the process and have completed a long term contract with the federal government to house prisoners, and new contract will put in place sometime because federal government will not be ready to pay us until October or November and looking at $110/per per person per day and they will take 50 beds initially. Council Member Hamerlik stated costs for housing City prisoners is quite high; Mr. Malm stated what the City has agreed to will stay in contract.

Council Member Kerian asked what are the other things are they asking tonight, the rest of the City commitment. Mr. Duquette stated the preliminary estimate they have on the cost of building the municipal court with the jail is $480,000, that they will propose utilizing dollars that they programmed for the capital expansion of the police department to defer or pay for that cost in the future and that he and the city auditor will work that detail up. He stated there are some operational logistics that they have to figure out, visited with the clerk of court, police department and there are some operational issues to sort out and work through using technology or additional equipment as needed and some costs with that as well. He stated they will have some front end costs but in long term see some savings for not having to expand the police building in the amount of up to $600,000.

Mr. Mitchell stated on site and the entire building tried to address that quite effectively, and immediate to the court and lobby area is parking area and call for separate entry for staff, lobby shares visual visitation and for court, bathrooms conveniently located to courtroom, mechanical and electrical systems and try to share those systems, wanted to get court up and center if it is going to happen on the building, signage could be addressed easily. He stated they will want to work with staff to refine and define interior portion of that.

Mr. Duquette stated re. security issues, presently if continue to operate municipal court where it is located will need to make arrangements for transportation of prisoners from jail to court, etc. and those are some issues. Council Member Kreun stated they would need space in the court area.

Council Member Christensen asked what they want from us tonight, as they are bidding it with or without us. Mr. Duquette stated what he would be looking for next Monday, and if have other questions or discussions during the week, is approval from the city council to move this concept forward and to allow him and the city auditor to begin the funding scenario, work with the clerk of court and the police department to work through logistics issues and to begin to work with ICON Architects to develop that space for work function of the municipal court. He stated preliminarily they have 1500-1700 sq.ft. in court space and this maybe upwards of 3500 sq.ft. in the new design; essentially looking for approval to move this forward to begin working on the financing and operational details to bring back for the council and mayor for approval.

Mr. Malm stated they have been delayed because of other problem they have had re. title and which they now have, and are ready to move and would like decision as quickly as possible so they can move forward and prepare the site, bid is already in, but cannot wait much longer as want to be in there by Thanksgiving of next year ready to function, and then move in other agencies and make more efficient operation for everybody. Mr. Mitchell stated their next bid package which is the entire shell of the building will be bid August 11 and are looking to having their drawings done in two weeks for the shell and tight window to keep things on schedule.

Council Member Kreun stated they would also be looking at 911 and County EOC at the same time and give more space in the police department, and does take considerable amount of time and if on Monday would vote to approve the concept and relocation and financing, if that would be acceptable. Mr. Malm stated it would be.

Mr. Duquette stated if the city council approves the concept and is a worthy concept and saves the taxpayers dollars now and over the long term, they will work to keep the Commission's schedule.

Council Member Christensen stated they have a meeting following the JDA meeting next Wednesday and asked if they would bring forth ideas as far as financing, but concerned about is that have some money in capital budget for $480,000 and if spend this and get part of that financing, will be some issues of where finding the funds. He stated they are now paying $150,000 extra for our prisoners, annual contract, and we are paying additional for housing prisoners to help finance this facility.

Darla McLaren, municipal court, spoke re. relocating their office and that they have material that expresses their concerns and asked for additional time to review some of those concerns. She stated Judge Eslinger also has concerns about municipal court relocating, but because a lot of this involves financial issues, as a judge he cannot be involved in those issues.

COUNCIL MEMBER GERSHMAN EXCUSED

Ms. McLaren reviewed her concerns with relocation
Council Member Kerian stated she works with info. technology and interested in what info. looked at - and hoped they could do more of that because police officers need capacity to do more electronic as well so not deal with so much paper.

Gary Euren, city prosecutor, stated concerns with relocation and for him less of problem than courts but still matters of efficiencies and costs, and cause them more time to be spent in their jobs and deficiencies both for them and for public if located out of downtown; need more technology if go out there.

Mr. Duquette stated these are important points and respects fact that they have been brought forward and to work on these things and continue to do that. He stated there are some issues out there and not just talking about services for the next three months but talking about services in the next 3 to 6 years in this community, doing things more effectively, more efficiently, more electronically - there is room to do this with these services and will continue to look for those; and is also talking about the need to expand the police department and to save having to do that through this initial expenditure upfront. He stated the police department has expressed the intent to help solve these problems. He stated they are trying to avoid a capital expansion of that building.

Council Member Hamerlik stated we've heard a lot of reasons or obstacles not to do, now let's find out how to do it.

Council Member Christensen stated to address some of the court's concerns, but that rules have changed to point where electronic filing is permitted in every court except U.S. Supreme Court, and that electronic signatures are now permitted and if this is the current state in which we operate, hope in the next 12 to 24 months we bring our municipal court system and PD in sync and they are electronically connected. It may eliminate some of the issues. He stated when
looking at issues that we don't loose sight of the fact that we are called upon time and time again to embrace technology to hope that we can make the delivery of these services more efficient, and that there are some issues and have to be worked through with staff. He also asked what are the additional proposed capital improvements for the police department if we don't do this.

2.2 Construction and Maintenance Agreement for Project No. 5695 - Traffic Signal at 32nd Avenue South and South 24th Street (Wal-Mart)_______________________
There were no comments.

2.3 Bid Package for EOD equipment - Police Department.
There were no comments.

2.4 Consideration of loader-mounted snow blower bid.
There were no comments.

2.5 Agreement for Wastewater Planning Services to complete the following projects:
1. Water/Wastewater Utility System Planning Baseline Considerations
Report
2. Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
3. Wastewater Treatment Concept Plan
4. Wastewater Capital Improvement Plan and Rate Model
Council Member Kerian asked for summary. Todd Feland, director of public works, stated on staff report on page 35 he has a contract figure of $255,500 and should actually be $244,100; and on page 37, under Doc. 1 it shows $36,000 and that should be $24,600 which gets you to a total of $244,100.

Mr. Feland stated they were going to be doing a lot of planning, water utility, modeling of distribution system, existing water treatment plant and at what point look at a new facility, either at existing site or new site, and are working on those issues - and is presenting wastewater report and asking for approval next Monday. He stated they have a collection system which distributes the wastewater and a treatment system, and what want to study and assumptions they are making and those are same assumptions of how design things, important parts are 2., 3. and 4. and largest is collection system and last time did a master plan on collection system was in 1984 and that was a 20-year document and are beyond the 20 years. A lot of things have changed in Grand Forks, esp. in south end of Grand Forks, and one of the large projects they are going to look at is part of that collection system as well as the existing pumping stations or existing O & M and revisit what doing there. He stated we have proposed in our CIP and should actually do a master pump station No. 3. and our associated forcemain on the southend. He stated as our city has moved south we have two master pump stations and one forcemain that goes down Columbia Road, some of the concerns we have is the over-taxing of that system, and have this project in our CIP for some years and to look at it more in depth and to transfix what we should do, will it be reasonable in the near term and the long term, where risks associated with not doing something and what risks are to spend a lot of money to make large capital infrastructure improvements. He stated in the collection system they are going to look at the entire collection system what they have been doing and how doing it, and there is a large project that would go to the water treatment plant in the southend of Grand Forks. The third document is important called wastewater treatment concept and they have constructed a wastewater treatment plant but there are some further improvements and perhaps if had done some better master planning back then we would have already studied some of these things but do have some issues on the horizon on longer term horizon has issues with direct discharge, issues with FOG or fats, oil and grease in our system, and have issues with out lagoons and will do an interim bio-solids project of which continue to use our lagoons; the lagoons are an issue and look at what can do as part of that project.

He stated the big one is putting together the CIP and the Operation and Maintenance Plan to go along with it, which will come back with rates which citizens of Grand Forks, industry and commercial will have to pay. He stated in our wastewater rates we are in upper quartile in our region, which is not a good position. Our goal has been to get down to the mid-point but with our large expenditure on wastewater treatment plant and the additional O & M we are in the upper quartile and plan to fix tht through good planning in the long term.

He stated they have a lot of challenges and this document is to help prepare for the next 20 years and also helped us prepare for the immediate future - next 5 years. Advanced Engineering is going to be the prime on this and Nate Weisenberger is going to be the project manager; also in the audience is Dave Kresel, wastewater superintendent, and he and his staff do good job when have heavy rains, flooding; and that is the team including engineering and is a road map for the future and providing better vision for Grand Forks.

Mr. Feland stated they do not bid out consultant as they select consultants on qualifications and the City does two-year consultations, and felt that Advanced Engineering, and working with WFW on our collection system, and Advanced Engineering is regional leader in a lot of the master planning and felt best positioned to help the city of Grand Forks.

2.6 2006 Community Development Block Grant Program.
City Council Hamerlik stated at the finance standby committee there were $295,000
available for public service projects and your recommendation at that time was $200,000 because of fairly tight budgets, and what would be wrong after seeing the extreme needs in the non-profits to use the other $95,000, what would be negative.

Mr. Hoover there would be nothing wrong with that, this year we have $1.8 million , projecting next year will have $1.3 million and that is a 38.5% decrease, and the staff's proposal had been to have city administration at $259,000 and that is down 39% from last year, public services would drop from $250,000 to $200,000 which is a 25% decrease and were trying to bring things back in line. According to staff with respect to the United Way this would be the fifth year they have been administering the program for the City which allows for a great deal of efficiency and use of their money along with our leverage and that dollar amount has gone up and down over the years, and with respect to the $295,000 that is something you could do, and only caution would be, have had a lot of money come in because of the flood and have to be very careful about maintaining these people on life-support system because in 5 years, probably, if not good stewards of money, there won't be any money to distribute to anyone.

Council Member Hamerlik stated if he could be assured that the $95,000 won't be spent, that it will really be saved to balance off further reductions that we have but all too often, and not your fault, that council is the one that spends that and if going to be spent sees no better way than to give it to United Way to spend rather than for us to start to decide who is going to spend that money, then have a dual system work and doesn't like that, that we supercede or have requests come forward, and would like to be assured by colleagues that it would be saved and used in the future to balance off the deficiencies, would fee better.

2.7 Request from Advanced Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Steve Loegering for preliminary approval of plat of Real Presence Radio Addn. (loc. in NE Quarter of Section 24, T151N, R51W (to be replatted to Lot 1, Block 1, Real Presence Radio Addn.)_______________________________________________________________
Council Member Brooks asked if this creates any interference/problems for transmission
systems, 2-way radios, etc. Steve Loegering, Real Presence Radio, Casselton, ND, stated some high powered ones, AM signals and FM can interfere with some, 1 kilowatt which is low and in fact even if it does do it, there is a simple grounding systems, and if interference there is a little filter to put on the building or individual units if it is an issue. Council Member Kreun thanked them for finding a difference location and had received letter from UND that this was acceptable and no interference and thanked him for working with those individuals to find a better location.

2.8 Request from Steve Loegering on behalf of Real Presence Radio for approval of a conditional use permit to construct a radio broadcast tower to be located in the NE Quarter of Section 24, T151 N, R51W (to be replatted to Lot 1, Block 1, Real Presence Radio Addn.)__________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.9 Request from Crary Development for approval of petition to vacate a portion of a utility easement in Lots 16 and 17, Block 3, Southbrook First Addn. (located at 4814 and 4820 Curran Court).___________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.10 Request from Houston Engineering on behalf of Tim and Frank Properties for approval of final replat of Lot 27, Block 1, Boyd's Second Addn. (loc. at 3805 Gateway Drive)._____________________________________________________
Council Member Brooks thanked Pete Haga and staff in Planning and members on
Planning and Zoning Commission for work they did on this in coordinating with citizens and addressing their concerns.

2.11 Request from Tim and Frank Properties for preliminary ordinance to rezone and exclude from B-3 (General Business) District and to include within R-4 (Multiple-Family Residence, High Density) District, Lot B, Block 1 of the replat of Lot 27, _
There were no comments.

2.12 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of LPF Properties for preliminary approval of replat of Lots 1-8 and Lots 13-20, Blk. 1, North Pines Addn. (loc. at 4718 -4778 Pines Circle)._________________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

3. INFORMATION ITEMS

3.1 Portfolio Management/Portfolio Summary as of June 30, 2005.
Informational - no comments.

6 MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Hamerlik stated the UND Concerns/Rezoning Comm. meeting for tomorrow switched to 5:00 p.m. rather than 4:00 p.m.

2) Council Member Kerian congratulated the Park District on the effort re. houses built around the golf course to help pay for a good course for the community. She stated they need to appoint people to the Advisory Committee about the CDBG and if anybody in Ward 6 who would like to be a member of the Advisory Comm. that helps prioritize Bricks and Mortar, to contact her and requires several meetings.

3) Council Member Kreun reminded council that identified the intersection at 47th and Washington and there was a press release and study was for open house for those comments and thinks news media should give closer look.

4) Jason Schaefer, 36 Parkview Circle, Grand Forks County Citizens Coalition, stated the City of Grand Forks is proposing to build a landfill in Turtle River Township, located about 17 miles north of Grand Forks, that the City has applied for a conditional use permit and went through 4 days of hearings before the Township Board that were completed on February 22, 2005. The City of Grand Forks along with the Grand Forks County Citizens Coalition turned in their brief summations which were a summary of those hearings and the matter is before Township Board who will make the final decision and that is still pending.

He stated he understand the council will go into executive session and discuss the possibility of purchasing more property near the Turtle River Township site, and assume this is related to the landfill. He stated they think it would be wasteful to spend taxpayers dollars and more money on the project when it is yet to be approved, and believe this project will never receive the approvals that it needs from the governmental agencies that have jurisdiction. The City has already spent more than $750,000 on this landfill proposal with nothing to show for it and to pour more money into a questionable project that may never see the light of day seems irresponsible, wasteful and negligent. The Grand Forks County Citizens Coalition proposes that the City save the money that they would spend buying out property in Turtle River Township and invest some of that money into exploring more sensible sites or technologies and this way the City would be better prepared should the proposed landfill in Turtle River Township be unable to gain approval from the governmental agencies involved; that there is no backup plan, City leaders are gambling with taxpayer money, and be prudent to start preparing a backup plan. He stated that Council Member Christensen had pointed out at a council meeting on May 17, 2004 that alternatives should be looked at more closely and that they couldn't agree more. He showed several recent photos of the proposed site (areas showing rain filled fields), and to keep in mind that the City is proposing to build a dry tomb landfill, intention that the garbage will remain dry; and this is where the City wants to spend $10 million to locate a dry tomb landfill.

Mayor Brown thanked them for the presentation.

2.13 Negotiations regarding property purchase in Turtle River Township, Grand Forks County (under separate cover). (city council may adjourn into executive session pursuant to NDCC 44-04-19.2)__________________________________________
2.13 Discussion on negotiation strategies and instructions regarding property purchase in Levant Township, Grand Forks County adjacent to proposed Turtle River Township balefill site (under separate cover). (City Council may adjourn into executive session pursuant to NDCC 44-04-19.1(9) and 44-04-19.2)*

It was moved by Council Member Kerian and seconded by Council Member Brooks to go into executive session pursuant to NDCC 44-04-19.2 to discuss negotiations noted above. Carried 6 votes affirmative.

The City Council convened in executive session. In attendance were Mayor Brown, presiding, council members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun. Also present were Todd Feland, Director of Public Works, Rick Duquette, Administrative Coordinator, Howard Swanson, City Attorney, John Schmisek, City Finance Director, Alice Fontaine, City Clerk. Mayor Brown announced that City Council was meeting in executive session. The executive session was convened at approximately 8:40 o’clock p.m.

The executive session was held pursuant to NDCC Section 44-04-19.1(9) and 44-04-19.2 for the purpose of discussing negotiation strategies and instructions regarding on-going negotiations for the purchase of property located in Levant Township, Grand Forks County, adjacent to the proposed Turtle River Township balefill site.

Mr. Swanson said the purpose for the executive session was to discuss a counterproposal that has been made by the property owners Mr. and Mrs. Heebink and the potential response to that counterproposal by the City.

Mr. Feland advised the City Council that he erred in the agenda as the property is actually located in Levant Township on the border of Turtle River Township and Levant Township on the section road or border where you earlier saw pictures of where water is. The water was not where the City would be putting any of the garbage.

Mr. Feland indicated that the City had worked with the Heebinks as the owner of property in Levant Township immediately across from the landfill, within the half mile buffer of the county. The City defines the landfill tract as that land in which we plan to permit as a landfill. The landfill tract does not extend to the property line of all of the land the City owns.

Mr. Feland said that the Heebink property is within one-half mile of the landfill tract. The township requires a two mile buffer which as was shown at the hearings would preclude a landfill anywhere within the township. The Heebinks first came to the City and indicated they did not wish to live near a landfill but they were willing to negotiate with the City. This goes back to when Chuck Grotte was here in the 1998 time frame. The City was looking at negotiating that property at that time. The Township suddenly passed ordinances relating to the landfill and that stopped everything. The City stopped negotiations in 1998 with the property owners. Those negotiations were going on at or around the time the City purchased the land for the landfill, 760 acres.

As we have been negotiating with the Heebinks we have told them and Howard Swanson has told them that the City would treat them as any other buyout conducted during the flood protection acquisition. This project obviously is not a federal project. It is not a Corps of Engineers project. But we try to treat them the same as we would treat our own property owners. Basically our philosophy is to treat others as we treat ourselves so that has been our mode in operation with the Heebinks. The Heebinks are represented by an attorney. We arrived at a price for the property and the associated dwellings with comparables at about $132,000 or thereabouts which we felt was fair. This also included reasonable relocation expenses and a few other fees. They responded with a counterproposal in the one hundred sixty-some thousand dollars range plus attorneys fees and additional relocation assistance.

This has taken quite awhile. The property was appraised by the City for $67,500 but may have increased slightly in the last year as all property has increased. We were concerned about any criticism we might receive for buying the property as we have been criticized for the purchase of the 760 acres without permits being approved. At the time the 760 acres was purchased the City Council felt, having been working with the county, that they had a reasonable process, included the county in their participation and that zoning would be approved by the county. Suddenly the township created zoning ordinances before the application was filed with the county. Everything changed. The City bought the property assuming that we would go to the county, get a fair hearing, and we’d be much further ahead than we are right now, had the township not adopted ordinances.

Mr. Feland said he had political concerns because of the policy making process as to whether the City will get a permit from Turtle River Township and if we did what other legal issues or suits would follow.

The balance of the executive session was a discussion of negotiation strategy and instructions to city negotiators relating to the acquisition of the premises.


The City Council reconvened into public session at approximately 9:40 o’clock p.m.

ADJOURN

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


Respectfully submitted,



John M. Schmisek
City Auditor




* These Minutes have been revised pursuant to the Open Records and Meetings Opinion 2005-O-18 issued by the North Dakota Attorney General on November 8, 2005 (See item 2.13)