Council Minutes

Minutes of the Grand Forks City Council/Committee of the Whole
Monday, April 10, 2006 – 7:00 p.m.___________________________

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, April 10, 2006 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, 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 thanked the people in the community who put safety first this past week and a thanks to all the flood fighters for a job well done – thanked Mr. Grasser, Mr. Duquette, Mr. Campbell, all the engineers and numerous people for the 24-7 work week they put in this last week.
It was fun to see people walking their dogs, shooting hoops and spending time with their families instead of sandbagging and worrying about the flood. We have to be mindful that Grand Forks is doing well with flood protection and are very appreciative for that but there are areas in our region that are still vulnerable and should continue to work with them for regional approach like the waffle plan We still have high waters in town and when they go will have some cleanup so are continuing to ask people to be patient as we work.
This week is Public Safety Telecommunications Week and time to recognize the work that our PSAP/911 personnel do.
Congratulations to the Fighting Sioux hockey team for a great season and the team represented us well.
The fire department will host an open house April 22, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at Central Fire Station, refreshments will be served.
Congratulations to the organizers last week of the Annual Time Out and Wacapi, that culture, color and pride of the participants were inspirational and look forward to next years events.

2.1 Applications for exemption of remodeling improvements to commercial and residential buildings at various locations.______________________________
There were no comments.

2.2 Funding request - marketing in Canada.
Council Member Gershman stated he understands the reason for the marketing dollars ,
but that recently the City authorized 1% sales tax on car rentals at the airport dedicated to CVB for marketing, specifically in Canada, and that is about $25-28,000/year, that last year the City advanced $50,000 out of Acct. 2163 for additional marketing; that occupancy is up in Grand Forks other than January and only down 3% from January of last year and exchange rate is very favorable. He stated along with the occupancy the average daily rates of hotels are up 75 cents to $1.25 - his point being that the CVB is going to be receiving an additional $28,000 from the car rental and additional tax money based on higher occupancies and higher average daily rates – that he is a supporter of the CVB but somewhat protective of our dollars; and asked what their est. additional revenues will be from sales tax and average daily rates.

Julie Rygg, CVB, stated that occupancy is down slightly from last year but expect it will go up, lodging tax has been holding its own for last year and not seeing a big increase to their budget; . car rental tax annually the projection was approx. $21,000 and collections coming in later than anticipated, that State is going to collect it along with a fee, and then to City and CVB. She stated the exchange rate is favorable, but major issue is competitors are hitting the Canadian market now across the state - that she attended an event in Winnipeg several weeks ago and reps. from Medora, Bismarck, Fargo, Jamestown, Minot and is seeing impact and if we don’t act and be aggressive we tend to lose out.

Council Member Gershman stated he has no problem with the way CVB spends their money and the way they would spend this money if we decide to give it, but did give it last year (or year before), and problem if becomes an entitlement, that if give a grant here and everybody else comes in and asks for grant they want.

Ms. Rygg stated in 2003 there was a large sum, over $200,000, for a number of programs and what they worked with last year was the lodging tax collections for the building expenses – the 1% that pays the bond on their building.

Council Member Brooks asked for some additional data – copy of marketing budgets and what was related to the Canadian project and what was designated there. The city auditor stated there is nothing in the budget for this year.

Council Member Hamerlik asked if gaming is up or down. Ms. Rygg stated with gaming very difficult as revenues up and down but is doing very well for this year and made budget last year.
Mr. Hamerlik stated that the allocation and agreement with Canad and that budget must be approved by CVB and the Alerus Commission and if some of that can be designated. The city auditor stated they had $1.2 million set up in different segments of $300,000 for first year, $300,000 for second year, $250,000 third year and $150,000 and $100,000, and have not expended any of those funds; have $300,000 sitting in 2163 for this year, and in the agreement with Canad they are to bring the marketing plan in for approval with the Alerus.

Council Member Christensen asked if they have been in contact with Canad Inn and Ms. Rygg stated they have and the Alerus Commission re. this issue, and Canad Inn is starting preliminary work on the marketing plan. Mr. Christensen stated that Canad Inn is quite a ways away from completing a hotel and not too sure they would spend much time on marketing as something that won’t be completed until sometime in 2007 and that we have allocated the $300,000 and asked when they are planning on starting marketing campaign; Ms. Rygg stated they doing quite a few things in Canada and immediately they would begin doing more, biggest issue is that they have other markets they are pursuing – athletic events, meetings and conventions, etc. and each year if their budget isn’t increasing it is hard to add new programs; they are hoping Canad Inn moves forward with marketing plan so that they can reallocate some of their dollars in the Canadian market to go to some of the other markets as well and as soon as have more dollars will continue to add.

Council Member Christensen stated if the average daily rate is up by $1.00 and that will increase revenue and the problem is that we had a budget, and is hard to address these issues when they come in piecemeal rather than at budget, that sales tax that was enacted was going to generate between $23 and $25,000 and if we could work with you on what we project your revenue would be and if don’t make the $50,000 from your increased sales tax and from revenues on the rental tax, we will pick up the difference and have the City as a backup and wondering how that would work with your executive committee and board of directors, that is where he is at on this issue, and they don’t meet their projections, he would vote in favor of helping with shortfall.

Council Member Glassheim asked what talking about in 2163, how much is left in there - $1.3 million in Contingency account for 2006. He stated there was talk of trying to woo Canadians to use our airport and if there was any way in which that money would be part of that or aiming at more event and hotel market. Ms. Rygg stated they have been working with the airport and the airport is running some special promotions for Canadian travelers, and they are working with packages and special offers, promotions that will be beneficial to the airport, listing all of their special promotions on the website, making sure visitor center staff is promoting them, putting hot link on the front page of the website, offering discounted and complimentary advertising in their visitor guide and in visitor center. She stated the airport is doing a lot of advertising in Canada now but doesn’t know specific details; and that their advertising is very general for the entire community and calling toll free number or going to website. Mr. Glassheim stated as they ramp up in 07 with $300,000 going into the Canadian market of new money, doesn’t think they will come back and ask for $50,000 for additional money and that would seem to be overkill.

Council Member Kreun stated some of our revenues have been increasing and potentially there could be a shortfall, and if worked with Polk County, Grand Forks County or East Grand Forks on some of this funding, and suggested asking them to participate as well . Ms. Rygg stated not the counties but couple years ago East Grand Forks did increase their overall lodging tax collections to 3% from 2% but only have a couple of lodging properties over there.

Council Member Gershman stated that Julie Rygg and Steve Johnson from the airport hosted a meeting of the hotels in Grand Forks at the CVB to see if they would be interested in running promotions, discounts for Canadians and for those using our airport, 8 hotels have signed up, and the next day Julie called a meeting of her executive committee and came up with their own initiative to help the airport – appreciated the initiative and your executive committee that understood the challenges we have with the airport in helping them get to where we need to be.

2.3 Small Communities Airport Development Grant.
Council Member Gershman stated this a $40,000 expenditure by the City for a grant
made by the Airport Authority for Small Communities Airport Development Grant, the County is putting in $20,000, the Airport is putting in $20,000, Grand Forks Flight Support (private business) $20,000, asked the City for $40,000, that they were under a time crunch and grant had to be in by April 7 and the Economic Development Corporation advanced the money to the Airport Authority to meet the April 7 deadline and Economic Development Corporation is requesting that we replenish that money, and would support that – this is for improved service by an airlines at the airport, could be additional seats, scheduling, etc. – that funds will be expensed only if the Airport Authority is awarded grant funds and has struck a deal for increased service, either from Northwest Airlines or an additional airlines and only if we get that assurance would any money be spent. He stated Mr. Johnson suggested that there be a committee formed of the people who are putting in the money – 1 from the County, 1 from Airport Authority, 1 from Flight Services and 2 from City of Grand Forks, and that we will have our hands on the steering wheel and work closely with other entities on deciding this, speaking in favor of this, and all know how important this is.

Council Member Brooks stated there are some real issues out there that are occurring and that our one carrier is going through some financial situation crises, and that Mr. Johnson applied for this grant and not a solution to all the problems out there, this is management stepping forward and working with the council and everyone who would join in and comments Steve and this is something the City has to participate in but is investment in City needs to make and supports it.

2.4 Appeal for variance for special alcoholic beverage license at University Park for Springfest on May 6, 2006._____________________________________________
Council Member Hamerlik stated there was a quote in the newspaper that Mr. Martz of
Suite 49 had stated that whether it was passed or not, it would go on. Eric Martz, general manager of Suite 49, stated sponsoring the event in two different ways – one was following the guidelines for the special alcoholic beverage permit where a beer garden must be contained for sale and consumption of alcohol must be inside of the beer garden where no minors are allowed, and that they could still apply for that type of special use permit if the council decides not to pass their request. Hamerlik asked how is the control in the other portion taken care of, where there are minors and would there still be carryout, no carryout from that particular garden and would there still be the same number of enforcers (50) and would they still be there monitoring the crowd. Mr. Martz stated they would scale back their whole operation and run a beer garden in a small section of the park which is their point for not going for the normal beer garden is that as a sponsor they would not able to offer any additional help to the City police department or any other authorities involved. Hamerlik stated that if the council didn’t override Mr. Swanson’s recommendation the whole Springfest and Suite 49’s involvement would change. Mr. Martz stated it falls back to the police department which is why the police department is supporting their plan and will significantly help them. Hamerlik stated that if the council felt that was not appropriate then the logical thing would be to turn down the liquor license too because you would only be picking up half of it. Mr. Martz stated would they still be inclined to continue on with it a normal beer garden at Springfest, and is on the fence right now because he didn’t think it would be good thing for the community as a whole, not good for the students and not good for Suite 49’s reputation.

Council Member Brooks stated Suite 49 asking for variance/appeal on a liquor license; that Springfest is going to be there in one form or another, and commends Suite 49 for is stepping up here and saying they will conduct this event, and if this isn’t approved Springfest will still go on and the rest uncontrolled, and will support the request.

Council Member Gershman stated he won’t be voting on this but the concern he has is if Suite 49 back out of this deal, will have Springfest like the old days, and why would they want all of the risk because they have no control over outside area, and commends them for being willing to do it and for the students for coming up with this plan and would hope the council would approve this and if it doesn’t work, then all bets are off after that, that this seems with the security they have.

Council Member Kreun agreed and hopes they take this to heart so that it can continue because if it doesn’t work, probably potential of more restrictions and less opportunity for students.

Council Member Kerian disagreed with one point, that if we don’t do something it will be the same – the Park District has made a big difference in the park in the decision, they have allowed our police department to stop something before it starts because if they don’t have an alcohol permit and come in with keg or 6-pack, you have something to do with it - that the Park District has done in giving you the permit to serve alcohol in that park is that they have said they are giving you the opportunity to have a good time to show that alcohol can be mixed with other enjoyment or entertainment and can be handled well if managed well – and thinks it will be looked at very closely and Park District also saying this is a proving ground.

Council Member Glassheim stated he wants to make sure there are enough police outside the perimeter because of concerns in residential neighborhoods, and wants to assure folks that there will be a strong police presence in the 2, 3 and 4 blocks surrounding the park. Captain Kjelstrom stated they have had their plans in place for a number of years and change modified slightly but there will be a significant police presence and at this point plan of 38 to 40 officers that are going to be present in the area on different assignment, not just focusing on the park but on different assignments around the area that have caused some problems in the past with loud parties and some things a little out of control and police presence to assist whatever venue comes out of this. .

Council Member Christensen stated the license will be granting would be the Class 11 Special or Limited license, and as a condition to the grant of that license with conditions we expect as far as security. Mr. Swanson if the council is inclined to include special conditions would be appropriate to do so if the council acts on this tonight or next Monday.

Mr. Martz stated they are going to do their very best to make sure this is a safe and fun event for everyone involved and would like to point out that this is the first time this has been attempted, can’t guarantee perfection but will do their very best, and any community input would be accepted and anyone that would like to volunteer to help with several positions needed to be filled in that area would gladly be accepted also.

Mr. Swanson stated whether acting on this issue tonight was a decision for the council to make, if inclined to take action tonight you need a unanimous vote authorizing to take action, your Code allows you to do that, and assuming the vote was unanimously passed to take action, it would only require a majority vote on the approval.

Council Member Glassheim moved that we consider this matter for a final vote tonight. Council member Kreun seconded the motion.

Council Member Brooks stated he had some concerns re. citizens in the community, that this is a community issue and would have to vote against this.

Council Member Glassheim stated it has been discussed a great deal on radio and press, have had e-mails for and against it, students have been here and if whole town knows it is going forward and they can make their plans, etc. Rick Duquette, city administrator, stated that he has been the chair of the Springfest committee and in working with the multiple entities that work on this, would ask that they do the vote tonight because he would like to have an organizational meeting next week with the entities involved so can get this plan in front of everybody and get our law enforcement and our public safety positions assembled and asked that they give that consideration. Council Member Brooks stated we need to listen to staff, that he is concerned about the community, but yields to administration.

Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 7 votes affirmative.

Council Member Gershman asked to be recused from voting on this matter, and it was so moved by Council Member Christensen and seconded by Council Member Kreun. Carried 6 votes affirmative.

Council Member Hamerlik moved that we grant them a Class 11 special use license for Springfest event which is scheduled for May 6, 2006, and as a condition to the granting of the license that it be issued in accordance with the application that was submitted and the plan that was submitted with the main gate rules and these conditions; (that Mr. Swanson write the special use license under our ordinance, Class 11, for one day for a certain period). Council Member Glassheim seconded the motion. Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 6 votes affirmative; Council Member Gershman recused..

2.5 Create Special Assessment District for Project No. 5945, District No. 95, paving in Southern Estates 5th Addn._______________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.6 Engineer's Report for Project No. 5703, District No. 608A, paving 47th Avenue South (S. Washington St. to Belmont Road).______________________________
There were no comments.

2.7 Change Order No. 3 for Project No. 5769, Phase V, Landfill Closure.
There were no comments.

2.8 Mosquito Control Facility lease/purchase option bid to JR Investments at
1525 North 73rd Street.__________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.9 Matter of 2005 Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER). (Public hearing to be held on April 17, 2006)_______________________________
There were no comments.
2.10 Request from Douglas Amundson on behalf of OTR Properties for approval of a variance from Section 18-0907 (2)(L)(3) LDC for Lot 1, Block 2, Oscarville Subdivision (loc. at 2611 N. 42nd St.) for purpose of varying the access onto a minor arterial street requirement from 660 ft. to 22 ft._______________________________
There were no comments.

2.10 Request from Bobbi Hepper-Olson on behalf of Jon Larson for approval of variance from Section 18-0907 (2)(L)(3) LDC for Lot 1, Block 1, Adams-Dobmeier Subdiv. (loc. at 5515 University Ave.) for purpose of varying access onto minor arterial street requirement from 660 ft. to 300 ft.__________________
There were no comments.

2.12 Request on behalf of City of Grand Forks and Eickhof Development Group, LLC for final approval (fast track) of Replat of Block 7, Sunny Nodak Farms Addn. (loc. in 6800 blk. of University Ave.)____________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.13 Request on behalf of City of Grand Forks and Dennis Kadlec for final approval (fast track) of Replat of Blk. 1, Eide and Knoff Addn. (loc. in 3800 blk. of US Highway 81)._______________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.14 Request on behalf of City of Grand Forks for final approval (fast track) of Replat of Lot 1, Blk. 2, Brown's Addn. (loc. in 2801 block of Olson Dr.) ___________________
There were no comments.

2.15 Request on behalf of City of Grand Forks and Northern States Power Co. for final approval (fast track) of Replat of Lot 1, Blk. 1 of Replat of N.S.P. and Pillsbury Industrial Park Second Addn. (loc. in 2900 blk. of Mill Road.) ________________
There were no comments.

2.16 Request from Steve Adams on behalf of Arthur Greenberg, Jr. for approval of ordinance to annex that portion of SW Quarter of NW Quarter of Section 20, T151N, R50W of 5th P.M. (known as Columbia Park 32nd Addn.) containing 21.56 acres more or less._______________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.17 Request on behalf of City of Grand Forks, Ardell L. and Ina Jane Korynta, Tim Crary, and G.F. County Water Resource Dist. for approval to vacate all streets and R/W shown on replat of Campbell Addn. (loc. north of US Highway 2 and west of N. 55th St.)________________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.18 Request from Steve Adams on behalf of Arthur Greenberg, Jr. for preliminary approval of plat of Columbia Park 32nd Addn. (loc. between I-29 and S. 38th Ave., north of the Drainway and south of Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse)._____
There were no comments.

2.19 Request from Steve Adams on behalf of Art Greenberg, Jr. for preliminary approval of ordinance to rezone from Greenberg PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, and to include within the Greenberg PUD, Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 1 to include Columbia Park 27th Add. and Columbia Park 32nd Add. (loc. north of the Drainway and south of Lowe's Home Imp. Warehouse and G.F. Market Plan).___________________________________
There were no comments.

2.20 Request on behalf of City of Grand Forks and Vernon and Judy Gornowicz, Violet Korynta Theis, Shirley Korynta Mumm, Audrey Korynta Bowers, and Violet Korynta, for preliminary approval of Replat of Lot A, Blk. 4 of the Replat of Block 4 and a Replat of Blks. 2 and 3 of the plat of Korynta-Lemm Subdiv. (loc. north of 17th Ave.N. and east of N. 55th St.)_________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.21 Request on behalf of City of Grand Forks, Ardell L. and Ina Jane Korynta, Tim Crary, and the GF County Water Resource Dist. for preliminary approval of Replat of Lot 4, Blk. 2; Lot 1, Blk. 3; Blk. 4; Lots 1 and 2, Blk. 5; Lots 1 and 2, Blk. 6; Lot 1, Blk. 9; and Lots 1 and 2, Blk. 10, Campbell Addn. (loc. north of US Hwy. 2 and west of N. 55th St.)_______________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.22 Request from Tarek Howard on behalf of William Olson for preliminary approval of plat of Trent Olson Second Subdiv., being part of NE Quarter of Section 21, T151N, R50W of 5th P.M., GF County.____________________________________
Mr. Gengler reported that on March 20 re. the extraterritorial, moratorium and other
related issues, it was decided preliminarily that we would have a March 20 retroactive date for anything in the pipeline, any plat that had received time effort resource somewhere in the pipeline which wasn’t really defined but that was accepted, however, on March 21 the Planning Department received a full application fee and plat for a standard subdivision located within the newly acquired extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction, and know the night before said the 20th, however, knowing that the ordinance itself won’t be given final approval action until April 17, the March 20 date standing could be subject to scrutiny, subject ultimately to a challenge considering final adoption won’t occur until April 17. He stated that the Planning Department did recommend denying it to the Planning & Zoning Commission based on the March 20 date as well as where this proposed plat is relating to our Land Use Plan which will be given final adoption on April 17, indicates that this is in Tier 3. The Planning and Zoning Commission took several things into account knowing that the individual had already worked on the plat and had been submitted, and in the report there is a position paper from the applicant as well as some other supporting documents to reiterate the fact that they have been in the pipeline. He stated that represents a summary of how we got to where we are today and the moratorium will be presented to you on April 17 for final action with or without a retroactive date, that you have option on the 17th to adopt the ordinance and what has been submitted is in the pipeline; however, we should keep in mind that this line in the sand will have to be drawn at some point because there are others out there now, one specifically that has contact with the Planning Department, and they have had a civil engineer hired to do the drawing but never picked it back up and finished it so conceivably they will get a plat to the Planning Department prior to April 17 and that would be the other example of something that might be able to stay in the system but need to understand that there might be some out there that may think they are on their way but have to draw the line somewhere otherwise going in that six months of giving special provisions to individual plats and the Land Use Plan Tier 3 would be a moot point.

Council Member Kerian asked if this should be tabled until we complete that ordinance and then look at some of these, and if should hold this until we complete the next step.

Mr. Gengler stated that in this case tabling would not be an effective tool knowing that the Land Use Plan is going to be adopted, knowing that it is Tier 3 and speaks strongly against this given type of subdivision and would be faced with a situation where 6 months from now when the moratorium is lifted would be dealing with the same question that we are today, and tabling not be of any benefit to the process. He stated one effect of the tabling would be recognizing the fact that at some point between now and the final revamping of the Code you would be accepting this as a special provision or condition versus whatever everybody would be subject to that hasn’t submitted anything yet. The plat is in good standing but subject to basic technical requirements of changing things around. Council Member Kerian stated the intention is not to have another raft of them come through.

Council Member Hamerlik stated one of the things he was concerned about was that when the motion was made, we had a motion that was retroactive because it was on the 20th and made it retroactive for that day as the office was closed and that if we leave it open-ended for the next 12 to 15 days just creates more difficulty and act on what we have and go from there.

Council Member Christensen stated that the first reading of the ordinance that was passed established the moratorium on the 20th and the way it would proceed is on the second reading if it isn’t tabled then one could move to amend the ordinance and move the moratorium up to April 17, the day it is passed but the problem is how and when is the public going to know when the sign in the land was drawn. What troubles him is that that we went through all this conversation and debate and it was clear that we wanted to stop the 2.5 acre lots anywhere within 4 miles of the city of Grand Forks, the council has made a decision but to move this forward when you have already drawn the line in the sand, not sure is appropriate because it sends the wrong message to the community and to this body, lot of discussion and debate and then a decision and voted up or down as to the moratorium being effective the 20th of March, but this group made a decision and set a date and that it is his understanding that the applicant tried to submit their plat or suggesting submitting their plat and Mr. Magnuson, County Planner, said they didn’t want to take their plat and that he has problems with this from a relationship standpoint as he knows the applicants and their attorney but it is the position of a council in finding an exception, everybody is in limbo, and what is going to happen come December when have land use, and is troubled by deviating from the line in the sand that was drawn in the first reading; and if we were to change that, when is the new line in the sand and what becomes “in the pipeline”, and has to go with the moratorium being effective as of the 20th , that is clear for everybody and this council 4 to 3 wanted to extend the extraterritorial jurisdiction precisely to put an end to 2.5 acre subdivisions and as an afterthought this is 53 or 54 lots in an area that also has some significant housing going on, and that later on as this city grows and if grows that far , would prevent that settlement from incorporating and becoming a municipality – that happened in Fargo and in Bismarck, and that this is long range planning and hopes that we stay with the decision that was made and that this is a plan putting in place for future councils.

Mr. Swanson stated so that the council is aware the language in the ordinance that was drafted following that meeting is that the moratorium does not apply to any fully completed application for new subdivision, plat, replat or change in zoning filed with the city of Grand Forks or Grand Forks County on or before March 20, 2006, has to be a completed application and had to have been filed before that date, and that is the language he gleaned from the “discussion in the pipeline” and that would be the matter of what would be before you on the 17th of April, and whether to amend it or not is within your ability.

Tarek Howard stated one matter that concerns him is the date, March 20, that was first discussed the evening of the council meeting, doesn’t appear in the ordinance that he has seen, and didn’t appear in the notice, that he could have filed the application that evening with the County and seems like ridiculous requirement considering that they all knew that the council was going to take jurisdiction later that evening, and that to be required to file something frivolously so it could get through this council doesn’t make sense to him and becomes an issue of fairness as there were other subdivision plats that are in the pipeline that are going through. He stated this is something that has been thought about long and hard and money has been expended and is confusing; that it is clear that March 20 not part of the ordinance but part of a motion that Mr. Gershman made, wasn’t presented in the paper and no way for the Olsons to know that March 20 was to become a date and as of right now don’t have a moratorium in effect. its pending and received initial approval and likely to go through but right now there is not a moratorium in place and his understanding of Mr. Gengler’s recommendation against this was based on March 20, because he made recommendations approving other similarly situated subdivisions that were filed prior to March 20 and to rely on denying this plat would have to be applied to other plats that have received approval and looked to be unattractive to receive final approval, and would ask that the council consider using a date other than March 20.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that laws and ordinances take effect, and asked Mr. Swanson when does our motion take effect. Mr. Swanson stated the motion in effect upon the declare of the vote, no signature required on a motion, and an ordinance is not effective until it has received final approval and based upon text of the ordinance; that you can adopt an ordinance that has a retroactive effect but have to clearly identify what that retroactive date is, and in this case as he understand the motion that was made as part of the introduction of the ordinance was to establish a March 20, 2006 deadline, and whether you include that in the final adopted ordinance remains to be seen.

Council Member Glassheim asked if on April 17 could select another date as the date beyond which you have to have it in the pipeline and have the authority to do that. Mr. Swanson stated his level varies depending upon which date you pick, utilizing the date of introduction is a logical date and is related to the matter at hand, as is the date of final approval or a future date, the further back you go the more difficult it is for you to establish a relationship between the substance of your act and the need for retroactive date.

Council Member Glassheim stated that their intention was that they wanted a moratorium and picked a date so that going forward from that day there would be no opportunity for people to come in and take plans off the shelf or do things that were obvious that this plan was intending them not to do, and sensible thing to do is not have people slipping in and doing things to avoid the intention and the plan and intent of things talked about for a year.

Council Member Gershman asked if there have been any other plans submitted on the 21st of March. Mr. Gengler stated they haven’t had any other than the subject plat, have been verbally told that another subsequent plat would be turned in and do have Ridgeview Estates, south of the Country Club, that council has seen on a preliminary basis and see it again on April 17 for final.
He stated that Ridgeview and one they are expecting in the office Wednesday or Thursday of this week, have not filed an application but were contacted by them on the 21st and he explained everything that had transpired, not sure whether they would pursue it or not, but the property owner showed up at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on Wednesday indicating his intent and that he feels he should be subject to the potential or same logic talking about with the Olsons if we are to change the April 17 date. Council Member Gershman stated there is difference and could not have designed plat from March 20 and the pipeline was that it would be filed and in the process through permitting to get it done, and the issue were somebody is thinking about it and that appears to be the second one that is going to come in, and doesn’t know if this is close to the threshold of the pipeline but the issue he has are 2.5 acre lots in Tier 3.

Trent Olson, 1649 16th Street NE, and is the owner of the land, that he and his father purchased the land in 2003 for development, that they developed four lots, and didn’t want to jump in with 54 lots, went in with four and built a house and sold the house and installed water in 2004, that they didn’t think they were in the 4-mile jurisdictional area, that they were not trying to push this through,

Council Member Kerian stated this goes back to planning issue, and that there a couple hundred 2.5 acre lots in this area and that this is 54 more, and while having these discussions they don’t know what action other people did or didn’t take during this time, that the City is trying to deal with in the master plan, and this is significant number of lots to be platted at one time and that is her concern.

Council Member Christensen stated the issue is that you can still build houses in this area but they won’t be on 2.5 acre lots but city size lots or something close to city-size lots so in the future when annexation, if ever, it will be orderly and easy; that the County had proposed one (1) acre lots and not sure where that will sit in the final land use plan but if that became the final land use plan or something equivalent the money they spent to extend the water won’t be wasted, still have the ability to develop out that but not on 2.5 acre lots. Mr. Gengler stated this is in Tier 3 and intent in Tier 3 is agricultural reserve based on a 1 for 40 density, and if the County, had the City not taken over, the subject area would be subject to the County’s moratorium and the ultimate goal – that the County is going through the same thing as the City – and now going back to amend rules so their moratorium would have set either a 1 for 40 or the 1 for 10 cluster, which was concept that could develop 10 lots with the residual remaining and preserved, and that is comparison of their plan with our plan but if to remain distinctly in Tier 3 opposed to Tier 2, some of the pilot areas they talked about in Tier 2 were the smaller urban sized lots although in a rural setting would anticipate once city infrastructure reached the area could be converted easily rather than rural.

3. INFORMATION ITEMS

3.1 2005 North Dakota Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPDES) Annual Report. - Information only. __________________________________________

3.2 Portfolio Management/Summary as of March 31, 2006.


4. CITIZEN REQUEST
Michael Nowacki, UND Student Senator, 618 Schroeder Drive, stated on behalf of Student Government and students at UND thanked for vote earlier this evening re. Springfest. He also stated that Grand Forks is an all too rare story about local government, FEMA and Army Corps working together and benefiting the citizens, and this speaks greatly to your credit and to that of your staff and commended elected officials and staff of both past and present people at the city, state and federal levels, and this past year being such a huge success story is amazing and as a student representative mentioned that the students of UND were here for the City in 1997 and the students of UND would be here for the city of Grand Forks tomorrow if need be.

CITY ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS

Mr. Duquette, city administrator, stated that the council is aware of their looking for a new city planner, have gone through process and came down to two exceptional candidates for the position, and that the Mayor authorized him to offer a position to our new city planner, and our new city planner is Brad Gengler.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Brooks stated that in the midst of a flood that approached 47.85 ft. and
that this past weekend had Wacipi and a Great Prime Steel Car Show in town and brought huge number of people to town and weekend before in the midst of flood fight the Jr. Grand AM Tournament brought large number of people to our city, huge difference from what we remember not long ago and is a sign of success.

2) Council Member Hamerlik stated that earlier talked about the possibility of allocating
some money to CVB and there were some notions that possibly from 2163 or some money from a fund of $300,000 that could be used in Canada by Canad and other groups but before we move next Monday night that need to make sure there is some communication with the people up north before we start allocating it and should have them aware of that.

3) Council Member Hamerlik stated that as we start talking about committees and
attendance and extra work it would seem that we need to have on that agenda whether or not telephone attendance is working out, not only the cost but if one cannot be here several times,
and should be part of the discussion whether or not attendance at meetings by phone should be continued.

4) Council Member Glassheim reported he had a call complaining about parking at the Ryan
this week, some problem with disabled people unable to get to the building. Council Member Kreun noted there was construction of Brownstone project, the contractor brought out some information that there wasn’t going to be parking on certain streets and avenues and did create some problem; engineering was going to look to see if they had received a request because traffic engineer gives the recommendation of where parking can or cannot be. Mr. Duquette stated they had a meeting today and it was related to that construction project, have clarified that and will get information out.
5) Council Member Glassheim stated he received complaint from individual at fraternity