Council Minutes
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
October 17, 2005
The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in the council chambers in City Hall on Monday, October 17, 2005 at the hour of 7:00 o’clock p.m. with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 7; absent: none.
Mayor Brown announced that anyone wishing to speak to any item may do so by being recognized prior to a vote being taken on the matter, and that the meeting is being televised.
Mayor Brown commented on various events during the past week and upcoming events:
He congratulated all the local teams who did well over the weekend, the Red River State Soccer Title and the win by Red River Football team.
He thanked the organizers of the Tour de Forks who asked him to be a part of this event, bike ride and memorial walk were inspiring events and appreciates all the people who attended events like these and in doing so support their families, friends and neighbors.
He stated today he had the pleasure and opportunity to join with Council President Gershman and representatives from the CVB, EDC and the Chamber to meet with Canadian Counsel General from Minneapolis, the Honorable Kim Perry Butler, and had an excellent conversation about partnerships in general and things like border security proposals, trade, tourism and economic development specifically and our community will have good contact with the Counsel General Butler and looks forward to conversations and discussions.
He noted that leaf pickup has begun and will try to do two full sweeps through the city and expect this to take about 3 weeks, weather permitting, that they have picked up 30 tons of leaves from the berm and 5 tons from the compost site, last year they picked up 690 tons of leaves and for critics of that program, if didn't pick them up we would have 690 tons of leaves rotting on our berms, good program and serving the community well.
He stated that Grand Forks is once again been named as having the best tasting water in North Dakota, and announcement was made by the ND Section of the American Waterworks Association, AWWA, and last week at its 77th Annual ND Water and Pollution Control Conference in Bismarck, ND, and one gallon samples were submitted by 11 water utilities around the state and the water from the city of Grand Forks was selected as the overall winner in a blind taste test, and congratulations to Hazel Sletten and the entire water crew and dedication recognized by this award. He presented award to Ms. Sletten.
APPROVE ASSESSMENTS, PARKING RAMP PROJECT
NO. 4796.1, AND REFER SEVERAL PROPOSALS TO
COMMITTEE
The city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the Special Assessment Commission and the approval and confirmation of assessments by the Commission on Project No. 4796.1, District No. 11, Corporate Center Parking Ramp, and reported that the legal notice to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been published as required, and further that several protest had been filed with the auditor's office.
Mayor Brown opened the public hearing on the assessment project.
The city auditor reported that they have had some discussion on this project and that a memo was sent out last week regarding these assessments and would like to recommend this evening is that we certify the special assessments as they have to be to the County at the end of this month but in addition to that would like to have council (1) recommend that we pay the annual assessments for the Parking Ramp Project No. 4796.1 for one more year out of the JDA Funds, 5996, $72,151.00; (2) authorize staff to do a request for proposal for a usage study; (3) that we authorize an increase in the parking fee for leased spaces in both ramps to $50.00 per month effective January 1, 2006, these fees go to the maintenance and operation; and (4) to refer the matter of future special assessments for the parking ramp to the finance/development standby committee for determination of other methods of payment of a portion of or all of the uncertified balance.
Mayor Brown closed the public hearing.
Council Member Gershman stated he thinks people assume that in reading some of the concerns that there is an assumption that there is actually a zero benefit to other property owners and asked if the parking ramp were not there (350 spaces) in downtown Grand Forks those people would be parking somewhere else downtown and would hear another argument, that there is no parking for customers, and would propose that the City pay 60% of this year's assessment and 40% be picked up by the surrounding benefiting businesses and property owners. Council Member Kreun seconded the motion.
Council Member Hamerlik questioned how he came to 60% - 40% for the split for property owners and the City. Council Member Gershman stated he felt that property owners and businesses should pay something because if the ramp were not there, those parking in the ramps would be on the street, doesn't think it should be 100%.
Council Member Brooks stated he felt the recommendation from the city auditor was a good recommendation and moved an amendment to the motion to change the 60% to 100% and pick up the other recommendations that the city auditor recommended. The motion died for lack of a second.
Council Member Kerian asked if we validate this in some way that we would have more difficulty changing it at a later time after the committee does their work. Mr. Swanson stated the council has no authority to change the boundaries, no authority to change the allocation of benefits unless by decreasing the benefit to one parcel you increase an equivalent amount benefit to another but in effect what the motion would do, either motion, whether Mr. Gershman's motion or the city auditor's suggestion is what in effect you are doing, you are not changing the determinations by the Special Assessment Commission as to benefit or determination of assessments, rather you are from an outside source contributing portions of those funds to pay that, not violating any of the tenets of the special assessment law. Determination of special assessments has been made by the Special Assessment Commission but council is looking at is telling the Commission that you have another source of funds that will be used to pay this year's assessment; and that you are looking at options of maybe won't have any special assessments in the future, maybe allocating or subsidizing portions of it.
Council Member Christensen stated he cannot vote on this matter because he has a small interest in a building that is affected and is directly across from the first parking ramp, but can speak to the issue, there are 14 years left, of a 19-year obligation, and how much would the payment be on balance of $511,000. The city auditor stated with interest, about $72,150.00.
Council Member Christensen stated the issue becomes who is really benefiting the most and who isn't, that most of the people who are at the end of the special assessment district have absolutely no benefit, except that if not parking in the Corporate Center would be on the street, and his response to that is that those that benefit the most should pay the most, and if increase the rates throughout the city parking, a study should be undertaken so that those within the ramp pay more than they are paying today and that would defer going forward with the $74,000 payment; and could figure out an annual parking fee to generate sufficient revenue to cover most of the payments and then let the rest of the specials be spread as was done in the past. He stated this hasn't been addressed since it was built and have 122 Corporate tenants at $50/month and that is $600, $73,000 and payment made per the motion and the rest of the people don't pay, and should come to some resolution of this this evening and the rest of the people wouldn't pay if we have a fair fee.
Mayor Brown reopened the public hearing.
Council Member Gershman stated that we can't change the special assessment district, that businesses receive no benefit whatsoever doesn't wash, looking for sense of fairness, that we do have maintenance and would like to go with this and continue to study it.
Council Member Kreun stated a lot of people benefit from this and the people outside this district have to provide their own parking, have to provide space, buy the land and pay taxes on the land, maintain it, etc. but there is a large benefit not to do those things and believes that if the parking ramp wasn't there, would have more people lined up indicated they do not have parking for their business, there is a benefit even though a long ways away, other people in the community pay for their parking spots and with the motion on the floor, those people all over the community are going to pay a part of those parking spots through the JDA, which isn't out of general tax dollars, but could be used for other projects that take place in the community, not just affecting the individuals in the special assessment district, and the people who benefit more are the properties closer to it and should pay a portion as indicated in the motion.
Council Member Gershman stated that a statement was made that those who use the Corporate Center should pay more, they do pay a fee which is going to be raised, and they pay 16 times more on their assessment that other areas, next ring is 4 times and goes down to 2 times and as rings go out they do pay less.
Dan Sampson, 100 North 3rd Street, stated he thinks the ones who should pay for it is the person that is using it and that is the Corporate Center renters, there are open spaces in the ramp, that to assess buildings that are blocks away that aren't using it or some buildings (Lander Building) only half block away, have their own parking lot and don't need that parking, these properties have already paid for one parking ramp, which they aren't using. He stated he sees no reason to be charging people that don't use the parking ramp these assessments, that parking on the street is two-hour parking and people at Corporate Center would not be able to park there all day, they are the ones who needed the ramp and use the ramp, and should pay for the ramp. He thinks they should pay for 100% of it but if think some other people get some use, maybe 90-95% would be fair but doesn't think it is fair to charge other people for parking that they don't use.
The city auditor stated the matter of providing parking in the downtown area, that in the formula if you have parking spots you are given a credit for those spots, and when speaking of new developments you have parking spot requirements which the downtown units do not have and they do not have to provide the number of spaces.
Mayor Brown closed the public hearing.
The city auditor asked Council Member Gershman and the seconder if their motion would include all of the recommendations except changing the percentage; and it was noted that it did.
Council Member Christensen asked to be recused from voting on this matter, and it was so moved by Council Member Gershman and Council Member Brooks.
Council Member Christensen stated that the recommendations from the city auditor, authorizing an increased parking fees for leased spaces up to $50.00/month, that covers both parking ramps, 354 spots and 411 spots in ramp that has been paid for, and the money is for special assessments for the Corporate Center ramp (354 spots) and that covers the payment if you adopt this, and if adopt fee increase tonight, $50/month per space for leased spaces, and in light of what done in the past, is that we get some information, discuss and deliberate, and if in 10 minutes raise everybody's parking fees per space at $600, that the motion asks for 60% of the $72,150 payment being paid, and the rest goes back to study.
The city auditor stated for clarification that he has no issue with taking that recommendation back to study but keep in mind that the recommendation also says that will go to maintenance and operation costs of the ramp because although we did adopt an operational budget we do not have the revenue stream coming in to pay for that, and in the past have had to do a maintenance assessment against the buildings in the downtown and that also caused them issues, and has no issue with taking back the study and then determine the operational costs to make sure, because if you are leasing the space, perhaps should be paying for the maintenance and operation, and this wasn't intended to go to debt service, but trying to come up with a way of buying some time to study both of these issues and come up with a proper approach.
Upon call for the question of recusing Council Member Christensen from voting on this issue. Carried 6 votes affirmative.
Council Member Kreun stated he would make this amendment to take items 2, 3 and 4 on staff report and put those back to the finance/development standby committee to be studied and ask for proposal after the particular study. Council Member Gershman agreed that was acceptable to the mover of the motion.
Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the following voted "aye": Council Members, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Kerian, Kreun - 5; voting "nay": Council Member Brooks - 1; and Council Member Christensen recused from voting.
APPROVE ASSESSMENTS, VARIOUS PROJECTS
The city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the Special Assessment Commission and the approval and confirmation of assessments by the Commission on the following projects and the amount of the assessments, and reported that the legal notice to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been published as required, and further that no protests or grievances had been filed with the auditor's office.
Project and District Nos.
Amount of Assessment
Annual Installments
Parking Ramp Project No. 4796.1, Dist. 11 $ 511,134.42 14 years - unless
above action approved the assessment.
Street Lighting Project No. 5479, Dist. 148 35,775.00 9 Years
Street Lighting Project No. 5511, Dist. 140 48,174.00 10
Street Lighting Project No. 5618, Dist. 141 10,330.00 9
Street Lighting Project No. 5619, Dist. 142 41,676.00 9
Street Lighting Project No. 5620, Dist. 143 24,580.00 10
Street Lighting Project No. 5621, Dist. 144 17,400.00 9
Street Lighting Project No. 5622, Dist. 145 7,150.00 9
Street Lighting Project No. 5623, Dist. 146 10,650.00 9
Street Lighting Project No. 5624, Dist. 147 18,500.00 9
Street Lighting Project No. 5797, Dist. 152 4,820.00 10
Street Lighting Project No. 5799, Dist. 154 23,500.00 10
Street Lighting Project No. 5800, Dist. 155 29,210.00 10
Street Lighting Project No. 5810, Dist. 156 31,550.00 10
Paving Project No. 5493, Dist. No. 595 352,500.00 19
Paving Project No. 5603, Dist. No. 602 139,100.00 19
Paving Project No. 5606, Dist. No. 599 169,300.00 19
Paving Project No. 5653, Dist. No. 598 331,768.00 20
Paving Project No. 5661, Dist. No. 600 68,400.00 19
Paving Project No. 5669, Dist. No. 601 160,674.00 20
Alley Paving Project No. 5628, Dist. No. 597 56,000.00 19
Sanitary Sewer Project No. 5514, Dist. No. 423 185,831.00 15
Sanitary Sewer Project No. 5677, Dist. No. 434 612,970.00 19
Sanitary Sewer Project No. 5776, Dist. No. 436 91,092.00 15
Watermain Project No. 5515, Dist. No. 278 96,297.00 15
Watermain Project No. 5678, Dist. No. 283 407,927.00 19
Watermain Project No. 5777, Dist. No. 284 88,958.00 15
Storm Sewer Project No. 5516, Dist. No. 424 96,980.00 15
Storm Sewer Project No. 5605, Dist. No. 430 149,874.00 19
Storm Sewer Project No. 5652, Dist. No. 429 90,194.00 15
Storm Sewer Project No. 5778, Dist. No. 437 77,652.00 15
Mayor Brown asked if there was anyone in the audience who had comments to make on these assessments. There were none.
Council Member Hamerlik questioned who was paying for the assessments for the lighting in the parks on walkways. The city auditor reported that those assessments on Sertoma Park, University Park and Optimist Park are special assessed against the Park District.
It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Kreun that these assessments be and are hereby accepted and confirmed, and that they be levied against the property benefited in annual installments as shown of principal together with interest on the unpaid balance yearly, to be collected with other taxes by the proper authorities. Carried 7 votes affirmative.
APPROVE ASSESSMENTS ON VARIOUS PROJECTS
The city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the city engineer and the approval and confirmation of these assessments by the city engineer on the following projects in the amounts as shown, and reported that the legal notices to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been published as required and further that no protests or grievances had been filed with the auditor's office.
Project and District No.
Assessment
Years of Installments
2004 Sidewalk Project No. 5572.1 $ 40,501.86 4 years
2005 Sidewalk Project No. 5739 97,402.80 5
Weed Control Project No. 5751 12,866.00 1
Delinquent Utility Accounts No. 9002.2 8,827.44 1
Mayor Brown asked if there was anyone in the audience who had comments to make on these assessments. There were none.
It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Kreun that these assessments be and are hereby accepted and confirmed, and that they be levied against the property benefited in annual installments as shown on principal together with interest on the unpaid balance yearly, to be collected with other taxes by the property authorities. Carried 7 votes affirmative.
ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 4097, AMENDING STREET AND
HIGHWAY PLAN TO INCLUDE PUBLIC R/W SHOWN AS
DEDICATED ON THE PLAT OF MEADOW RIDGE FIRST
ADDITION
An ordinance entitled "An ordinance to amend the Street and Highway Plan of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, to include the public rights of way shown as dedicated on the plat of Meadow Ridge First Addition, Grand Forks, North Dakota", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on September 19, 2005, and upon which public hearing had been scheduled for this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.
The city auditor reported that the required legal notice had been published calling for a public hearing to be held this evening and further that to date no protests or grievances had been filed with his office.
Mayor Brown opened the public hearing, there were no comments, and the public hearing was closed.
The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to the request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Crary Development, Inc. for final approval of the plat of Meadow Ridge First Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota (located in southeast quadrant of 47th Avenue South and South Washington Street), with recommendation to give final approval to the plat, subject to the conditions shown on or attached to the review copy, and to include final approval of an ordinance amending the Street and Highway Plan.
It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this recommendation be approved. Carried 7 votes affirmative.
Upon call for the question on adoption of the ordinance and upon roll call vote, the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 7; voting "nay": none. Mayor Brown declared the ordinance adopted.
ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 4098, AMENDING ZONING MAP
TO INCLUDE WITHIN MEADOW RIDGE PUD (PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN,
ALL OF MEADOW RIDGE FIRST ADDITION AND TO INCLUDE
UNPLATTED LANDS LYING BETWEEN 47TH AND 51ST AVENUES
SOUTH, AND BETWEEN SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET AND
THE WESTERLY PLATTED BOUNDAIRIES OF NORTH PINES
RESUBDIVISION AND SOUTH PINES ADDITION
An ordinance entitled "An ordinance to amend the zoning map of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, to rezone and exclude from the A-2 (Agricultural Reserve) District, and to include within the Meadow Ridge PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, all of Meadow Ridge First Addition to the city of Grand Forks, ND, and also to include unplatted lands lying between 47th Avenue South and 51st Avenue South, and between South Washington Street and the westerly platted boundaries of North Pines Resubdivision and South Pines Addition, all located in Section 27, Township 151 North, Range 50 West of the 5th Principal Meridian", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on September 19, 2005, and upon which public hearing had been scheduled for this evening, was presented, read for consideration on second reading and final passage.
The city auditor reported that the required legal notice had been published calling for a public hearing to be held on this matter this evening and further that to date no protests or grievances had been filed with his office.
Mayor Brown opened the public hearing, there were no comments and the public hearing was closed.
The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to request from Tim Crary on behalf of Crary Development, Inc. for final approval of an ordinance to amend the zoning map to exclude from the A-2 (Agricultural Reserve) District, and to include within the Meadow Ridge PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, all of Meadow Ridge First Addition to the city of Grand Forks, ND and also to include unplatted lands lying between 47th Avenue South and 51st Avenue South, and between South Washington Street and the westerly platted boundaries of North Pines Resubdivision and South Pines Addition, with recommendation to give final approval to the ordinance, subject to the conditions shown on or attached to the review copy.
It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this recommendation be approved. Carried 7 votes affirmative.
Upon call for the question of adoption of the ordinance and upon roll call vote, the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 7; voting "nay": none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried and the ordinance adopted.
ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 4099, AMENDING ZONING MAP
TO INCLUDE WITHIN KANNOWSKI'S PUD (PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN,
AMENDMENT NO. 2, ALL OF KANNOWSKI'S FIRST ADDITION,
ULLAND PARK FIRST ADDITION, DEACON'S GARDENS
ADDITION, FOUNTAIN VISTA PARK RESUBDIVISION AND
ZAVORAL'S FIRST ADDITION
An ordinance entitled "An ordinance to amend the zoning map of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, to rezone and exclude from the Kannowski's PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 1, and to include within the Kannowski's PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 2, all of Kannowski's First addition, Ulland Park First Addition, Deacon's Gardens Addition, Fountain Vista Park Resubdivision and Zavoral's First Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on September 19, 2005, and upon which public hearing was scheduled for this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.
The city auditor reported that the required legal notice had been published calling for a public hearing to be held on this matter this evening and further that to date no protests or grievances had been filed with his office.
Mayor Brown opened the public hearing, there were no comments and the public hearing was closed.
The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Deacon's Development, LLP for final approval of an ordinance to amend the zoning map to exclude from the Kannowski's PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 1, and to include within the Kannowski's PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 2, all of Kannowski's First Addition, Ulland Park First Addition, Deacon's Gardens Addition, Fountain Vista Park Resubdivision, and Zavoral's First Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota (located in Section 28, Township 151 North, Range 50 West of the 5th Principal Meridian), with recommendation to give final approval to the ordinance subject to the conditions shown on or attached to the review copy.
It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this recommendation be approved.
Council Member Christensen questioned what "floating" acres of commercial/office type uses are; and stated they would be passing something that doesn't have any basis in law and nothing in the Planning Code. Mr. Potter stated that when they set this up they talked with the developer, Zavoral's, about two options, one to specifically try to define what a patch of 22 acres of commercial development would look like, given the fact that they do not even have a concept themselves how they would want to lay that on that piece of land, second option was to define it the way we did and leave it to the fact that to be able to ultimately develop that, they will have to come back and define it by both platting and by a zoning amendment, and that was the option we chose, to give them flexibility and work in the market place to ultimately define what it would be and then come back and get the appropriate approval.
Council Member Christensen asked where the 22 acres located that are floating. Mr. Potter showed that the 22 acres generally floats between access point on South Washington Street and would float in an area between this point in an arc to an access point on 62nd Avenue South. Council Member Christensen asked why they didn't have a dotted line reserved for future commercial development, rather than no line because whenever someone wanted to do some other building will know that there might be some commercial development in this corner which is 100% logical and very rational. Mr. Potter stated they were using the arrow lines to indicate the outer boundaries, your suggestion is just as good and a little bit more definitive than what they had, and can do that.
Council Member Christensen moved an amendment to require that as part of this plat that the 22 acres that are designated to be floating be included on the plat before it be filed and approved; seconded by Council Member Gershman. Carried 7 votes affirmative.
Upon call for the question on the motion, as amended, and upon voice vote, the motion carried 7 votes affirmative.
Upon call for the question of adoption of the ordinance and upon roll call vote, the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 7; voting "nay": none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried and the ordinance adopted.
TURTLE MOUNTAIN GAMING RESOLUTION
The staff report from Mayor Brown relating to Turtle Mountain gaming resolution, with recommendation to adopt the gaming resolution.
Council Member Christensen moved adoption of the gaming resolution, Council Member Hamerlik seconded the motion. Document No. 8776 - Resolution.
Council Member Glassheim stated that we ought not to encourage this unless we really mean to encourage it, if really want to do it supposing that the financial arrangements seem to be good enough and then want to vote for the motion but thinks this is a bad idea whether we are offered $100,000 or $500,000 as a city, this is money masquerading as economic development, and should draw a line and say this activity is not good economic development, not good moral development, not good family development, not good for the city of Grand Forks, the jobs that are created are almost all low skill and low wage jobs, that we know that there are public safety problems that come with casinos, that wherever there is easy money and large money moving around, there is danger, and is all the more so in an industry which produces nothing, doesn't make anything, just moves money around. He stated if we go further with this we should hire a full-time person to do the full research; and made comments about information found on the internet: that it involved sterile transfers of money or goods between individuals creating no new money or goods; gambling addiction rates, that there are many studies and seem to be between 3 and 7% of serious gambling addiction rates, increased police costs, increased adjudication costs, criminal and civil justice, incarcerations, supervision costs, lost job productivity, bankruptcy, illnesses, therapy and treatment costs, social services, welfare and food stamps, family costs, etc. He stated there are some positives to it and proponents can bring those out but basically it is not a good idea to go ahead with this, and doesn't know that we need a lot more information, it is not the direction that the city of Grand Forks needs to go, we need solid job creation, to be known nationally not as a destination for gambling but as a place for intelligence and skill and that is what our economic development people have been striving for. He moved to amend the motion by substitute his resolution #1 for the proposal. The motion died for lack of a second.
The following individuals addressed the city council opposing the resolution for gaming:
Marianne Allen, 207 Chestnut Street
William Allen, 207 Chestnut
Nancy Melland, 620 North 26th Street
Council Member Gershman stated that last week he attended the faculty lecture by Professors White and Rand who have written a book called "The Casino Compromise", about Indian sovereignty and what has happened to communities, that he started reading this book and that some of the things that were said tonight are not factual, others are, poverty rates where there are casinos actually goes down because people are working, compulsive gambling is an issue but it is est. 1.2 to 1.5% of the population, not 3%, and re. crime, that anytime you have a lot of people together you have the opportunity for increased crime. He stated that the proponents of this might be overstating their case and opponents might be overstating their case, that he would like to see us go forward with the original resolution so that the community could have an honest discussion and try to bring out the real facts, and need to have conversation in this community based on real facts and not emotion, but the community needs to know more, and if enter into that discussion and have an honest debate about the issues, then perhaps have a vote and then the community will know whether they want this or not, and will support the resolution to encourage the Tribe to continue to study this for those reasons.
Council Member Hamerlik stated that he wished to remind the people that this is not a pro or con casino vote, that it is a vote on a resolution of whether we want to listen to what the Tribe wishes to propose and their findings, and if take a vote yes or no tonight, it would be entirely different if voting on a casino rather than on a resolution, and moved the question, The motion to move the question died for lack of a second.
Debbie Jungels, 907 South 20th Street, spoke in opposition to gambling, that we have enough problems with drugs and alcohol without brining in gambling.
Council Member Christensen stated he has been trying to make sure the public understands that this resolution is not an affirmative vote if it passes this evening by this council that there will be a casino in Grand Forks; he stated he would appreciate if the Grand Forks Herald would publish the resolution or at least paragraph 3, that paragraph 3 of the resolution says "..the Grand Forks city council will at a later date when it appears there is a greater probability that TMBCI, could locate a casino upon trust land within the city, engage in further discussions with proponents and others regarding the proposed benefits to the city on the one hand, and the citizens and the County on the other. Said discussions will include but are not limited to the following, the amount of real property the City would allow to be treated as Indian Trust Land located within the city of Grand Forks…" He stated it could be 5 acres, 10 acres and that it won't be 40 acres if he has anything to do with it, that they talk about the various fees they would pay in lieu, that there are other issues they have to address as a community, that they brought this resolution forward after a presentation at the Mayor's request, and all we are saying is that we are interested, tell us more when you get closer if there is a probability that it could happen, keep us aware, that there is no casino coming to Grand Forks at this time, that the Tribe has a lot of hurdles to cross and may never happen but they need some type of resolution from this community to at least begin the discussion, and that they should at least afford them the courtesy of listening, and it may come that this evolves into such a community debate that it should go to a vote of the people; and give the proponents an opportunity to present something forward.
Council Member Kerian stated she has heard that people are concerned and that she also understands and has her own biases, that she doesn't see Grand Forks as a gambling city, and that she has some questions about what the true benefit in terms of workers of having a casino on your tribal land is that it puts the people who are there to work and how that will work in the Grand Forks area, and has heard from some people that there are some economic developments, some things worth looking at and has more to learn on this topic as well; and thinks when it comes to the point that there is a decision that greater public input needs to come into this - that casino is fine but no way should taxpayers have to put anything on the table to gain that business in town..
Council Member Kreun stated one of the things that we want to do is that everybody that comes to Grand Forks to give them an equal opportunity to bring forth their project, business and keep an open mind and an open ear. He stated that this is not an economic development as far as our economic development corporation goes, its economic development to the Tribe and the way they are able to handle it, but one of the things he find interesting is that we don't want gambling in Grand Forks or around us, $268 million are exchanged hands every year in the State of North Dakota through gambling. He stated they want to take a look at it to see if it can benefit the Tribe and if it can benefit Grand Forks, but want to look at all the options that are brought forth to us.
Upon call for the question on the adoption of the resolution and upon roll call vote, the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Gershman, Christensen, Kreun - 5; voting "nay": Council Members Glassheim, Kerian - 2. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.
Chairman Davis of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa stated that they know there are concerns and fears and the process under the National Indian Gaming Act and are going to leave a copy of that process with the City and a checklist, and there is a tremendous amount of consultation and information sharing that has to happen before this becomes a reality; that they plan to continue to provide the council information.
Chairman Davis noted that in 1863 and 1864 his people ceded 10 million acres (Red River Valley) and received $273,000 in the settlement, he showed his check for his share of it, $43.80 that he received in 1984, the land was given at 2.27 cents an acre and with his check should be able to buy 2100 acres, that they can't change history but can make the future; and that is why they are proposing this so that an area that they have had ancestral ties to and have ties to a lot of ways, University and City of Grand Forks, and would like to do good business with you, and will answer questions as best they can as they go forward. Council Member Hamerlik asked Chairman Davis why he hadn't cashed that check. Chairman Davis stated that he doesn't ever want to say he ever sold his little share of the Red River Valley.
CONSIDER NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND RFER TO WORKING SESSION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL
The staff report relating to the Neighborhood Concerns Committee recommendations, with recommendation to review and adopt City Code ordinances and amendments relating to residential rental properties.
Council Member Hamerlik stated that a month ago they tabled an item that had to do with concerns of people in and around north Grand Forks until tonight and asked staff to come in with some recommendations and that is why it is on the agenda, that on Friday a portion of the staff briefed 2 or 3 city council members as to what was going to be coming forward, that there has been quite a bit of work done in the past month but a long way to go, and is of the opinion that we aren't ready to move this forward and complete our task tonight; staff is willing to work on it and perhaps a week or two weeks is necessary but have to finalize it and but doesn't think we are ready to go with what received in our packets.