Council Minutes

Minutes of the Grand Forks City Council/Committee of the Whole
Monday, May 8, 2006 - 7:00 p.m.__________________________

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, April 8, 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 held during the past week and upcoming events:
He thanked everyone involved with organizing and running Springfest, saw some success this year which was result of good planning, number of citations significantly decreased but goal is zero.
He announced that Grand Forks once again was ranked in the top 30 best small places for business by Forbes Magazine and featured in this year's review for the come-back from the flood of 1997. Last year Grand Forks was ranked 30 and this year 28; Fargo and Bismarck ranked 3 and 4 and congratulations to them, and that 3 ND cities placing in the Forbes top 30 is a good sign for our state.
This Saturday, May 13, is the 14th Annual Letter Carriers Food Drive and encouraged everyone to participate as it benefits our local food shelves; and that our Transit System has been partnering with the food drive, and anytime before May 13 you can donate 3 canned good items at the Metro Transit Center and receive a voucher for a free bus ride.
That Tuesday, May 9, is the Salvation Army Donut Day, proceeds go to summer day camp.

RECEIVE PETITIONS OPPOSING CASINO

Mayor Brown stated that he had a request from Jerry Hjelden to present petitions to the city council, and that there were four people who wished to speak to the council.

Scott Reinhart, business owner in Grand Forks, read the letter presented with their petitions that totaled over 4200 signatures from the citizens of Grand Forks opposing a casino in our community and encouraged that the mayor and city council withdraw its support (preliminary or otherwise) for a casino in Grand Forks. He presented the petitions to the Mayor.

Other individuals who spoke in opposition to the casino were:
Mike Faqua, Salvation Army
Tom Dunham, resides 2 miles southwest of Grand Forks
Mike Custer, rural East Grand Forks

AMEND AGENDA

Mayor Brown noted there is a change to the agenda and need to add an additional item (2.30 Initial resolution authorizing issuance of GO Bonds payable from the public building fund for public building and grounds contraction and acquisition). Council Members Gershman and Brooks moved to amend the agenda. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

It was moved by Council Members Christensen and Kreun to add item 2.30 to the agenda. Carried 7 votes affirmative.
1 Applications for exemption of remodeling improvements to commercial and residential buildings at various locations.______________________________
There were no comments.

2.2 Transient merchant license exemption for Grand Cities Art Fest Event.
There were no comments.

2.3 Alerus Center service pen.
Charlie Jeske, executive director at the Alerus Center, stated that the request is to modify their service pen area at the north end of their building, the size is adequate now but turning radius that they do with semis and buses is to the north of that and they back into the service pen so they can stack them but with Canad being constructed on the northend that makes turning radius for access on the gate not useable and have to relocate that and by relocating that and making service pen area secured for semis, buses need to expand it to the west. He stated during discussion one of the things that Homeland Security has asked down the road, not required right now, but they suggest that down the road that they do an automated gate system and that is why additional money, $35,000, is estimate from Community Contractors to put the system in. That their service is $66,000 and balance they are asking for is $101,000 approx. and are asking for $101,000 which includes automated gate system. He stated that the entire enclosed area and fence moved to the west and double size; sliding gate system and have access with code or card, or punch system and those have to be registered with them and system that allows you entrance in and out of their enclosed area.

Jeremy Linstad, director of operations, stated one of the enhancements of the gate system are for deliveries to the service pen and labor saving with no staff out there 24 hrs. per day, have automated system where have buzzer system to allow access. On day to day process gates are open and when having events staff is out there - are looking at security all the time.

Council Member Christensen stated sees where beginning to think about building buildings for housing equipment we have received from Homeland Security and asked how this became a need rather a want and why is this needed today. Mr. Linstad stated they looked at different issues with camera system and prioritized best they could and now with Canad Inns doing construction in back of service pen and a lot of things being torn up more cost effective to put it in now than as future capital expense. The source of funding for the $105,000 is Alerus Center debt service fund.

Mr. Duquette stated they have approx. $460,000 in residuals in the Alerus Debt Fund, and what has happened with the service pen area as a result of construction of Canad Inns, is an opportunity to enlarge the service pen area to provide more parking for semis, tour buses, and equipment, there is a rearrangement of the electrical setups to plug all the equipment in, and a lot of this came about in the design phase as result of Alerus' hope to improve what they do back there, and also an opportunity for some wash space to wash equipment before it comes into the Alerus, these are design features that benefit the Alerus to the amount of $60,000. He stated in addition to that they want to install automatic gates, doesn't know the details, but is opportunity to do it cheaper now rather than later.; would be funded through the Alerus bond debt fund and there is about $460,000 available in that fund.

Council Member Brooks stated we are increasing our expenditures and asked if there would be a budget amendment. Mr. Duquette stated there would be.

Council Member Hamerlik asked how this came about, if it is partially from Canad or from the City, or Alerus staff because not before the Commission.

Mr. Duquette stated that during the design phase of the hotel, the Alerus Center staff presented this option to the design architects as opportunity to expand that service pen area, enlarging the parking, changing electrics, etc. and we are at the point where in construction and we need to decide if want to do this and ask for council approval.

Council Member Hamerlik stated one of the answers about Homeland Security is that over the past years the money that the County has received and Alerus staff have consistently put in to try to get money from Homeland Security and have been unsuccessful and has been going other places.

Council Member Kreun stated they saw request for the service pen change a long time ago, the only addition that is coming in is the gate and nothing to do with Homeland Security, is a labor saving device so that you can control that unit from inside rather than having a staff person out there, and if can do that for $30-35,000 doesn't take long to utilize those amounts in staff time and overtime.

Council Member Gershman asked what experience fences have in snow; Mr. Linstad stated can go to vertical, pivot or sliding and looked at pivot fence but with high winds frame could bend, so snow a factor, but in scenario have it set up in it would be if drift did go in there, trip the relay and have to go out and remove snow and reset it.

Council Member Brooks stated they have had a lot of discussion about the organizational structure related to the Alerus and the council, that we don't have anything here from the Commission, that he will vote for this but take that as establishing a precedent here that the council has more control over things because acting on something that the Commission has not sent to us.

2.4 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5968, Dist. 291, watermain for 40th Ave.S. from S. Washington St. to the west line of Highland Point 1st Addn.____________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.5 Plans and specifications for Project No. 6003, Dist. 446, sanitary sewer for Meadow Ridge 1st Addn.)_________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.6 Plans and specifications for Project No. 6004, Dist. 292, watermain for Meadow Ridge 1st Addn._______________________________________
There were no comments.

2.7 Plans and specifications for Project No. 6005, Dist. 447, storm sewer for Meadow Ridge 1st Addn._______________________________________
There were no comments.

2.8 Plans and specifications for Project No. 6006, Dist. 622, paving Meadow Ridge 1st Addn.________________________________________________
There were no comments.
2.9 Consideration of bids for Project No. 5956, Re-roof water treatment plant.
Cindy Voigt, asst. city engineer, informed council that they had looked into
documentation that was in the bid envelope and are expecting to get a clarification on the
name of the business from the Secretary of State of ND, and if don't receive that prior to
next Monday, may come back with a different recommendation.

2.10 Consideration of bids for Project No. 5902, 2006 Sidewalk Repairs.
There were no comments.

2.11 Bids for construction of Project No. 5849, T.E. Bikepath (N. 55th St. and
University Ave.) ____________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.12 Amendment No. 1 to Engineering Services Agreement for Project No. 5849, TE Shared Use Path along 55th St. and University Ave._________________
Council Member Kreun stated that the fee raises the engineering portion over 50% of the
project and asked for explanation. Ms. Voigt reported that she asked WSN to prepare their
estimate for construction services, that TE projects are federal aid which means we follow the
same guidelines as on urban projects, that have stringent federal requirements that have to be met,
daily inspection reports where an inspector is on the job the entire time that a contractor is out
there; and when come to a smaller project, very labor intensive because we don't have that labor
on staff because we have all the special assessment projects that we have committed to do and
staff will cover most of those, and we need to have an outside firm do this. The other reason that
this is high is that they have found on some of the bike projects that it is very time consuming if
they hand pour and some of those contracts to get a good bid have to give them a window of time,
maybe 10 to 12 weeks, of construction season to get a decent bid, and when do that they can work
every day for 12 weeks, and in this case have allowed 11 weeks of construction based on what the
contractor has told us and have allocated that so that at the end of the project didn't come up short
and come back and ask for third budget amendment to the contract to pay for the engineering
because engineering went over because not accounting for all the extra inspections, that even
though high thinks proactive on the cost and recommends doing this.

Council Member Kreun stated that sometimes smaller projects with TE grants with federal
requirements would be better not to do them, and be able to take the money and put in
8 or 10 ft. sidewalk ourselves. Ms. Voigt stated that was correct and what happens regardless of
size there are certain forms, processes and testing that needs to be done, if doing large project this
engineering might be slightly more than our $37,000+ and have more work, either have to apply
for TE projects with higher ceiling of application, $300,000 to $500,000, or take our engineering
dollars and put it towards construction and then budget for that in the bikeway fund. Kreun
stated at some point in time when looking at these grants and projects before going into them,
take that into consideration because this gets to be out of proportion.

2.13 Consideration of bids for Project No. 5904, 2006 Asphalt Street Repairs,
Project No. 5919, 2006 Bikepath Maintenance and Construction, and Project No. 5985, Greenway Trail Connections._______________________________
There were no comments.

2.14 Bids for Project No. 5990, 2006 English Coulee Diversion seeding.
There were no comments.
2.15 Bids for Project No. 5869, Lincoln Drive sledding hill parking lot and lighting. ___________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.16 Request from Forx Home Builders Assn. to dismiss the building permit fees for a home being constructed in partnership with the Red River Valley Habitat for Humanity._____________________________________________
Howard Swanson, city attorney, stated that rather than dismiss fee would be a waiver,
and the other comment is that notwithstanding the quality of work etc. that the non-profit does,
should be aware that this opens the door for issues regarding requests from other non-profits for
waiver of building permits, and to make them aware of the consequences or potential
consequences; that only time have waived building permits, other than period after the flood and
recovery, were for school projects being constructed as an educational program.

2.17 Petition from Concrete, Inc. to vacate a portion of S. 50th St. and adjacent utility easement and roadway easement (for intended cul-de-sac) as shown on Concrete Inc. Addn. (loc. in 5000 blk. of DeMers Ave.)___________________
There were no comments.

2.18 Request from Wells Concrete Products, inc. for final approval (fast track) of Concrete Inc. First Resubdiv., being a replat of Lot 1, Block 1, Concrete Inc. Addn. and unplatted parts of the NW Quarter of NW Quarter of Section 7, T151N, R50W (loc. south of DeMers Ave. between S. 48th St. and BN Amtrak Subdiv.)__________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.19 Request from Keith Danks, Jr. on behalf of Plainsman Investments for final approval (fast track0 of the Replat of Lot 1, Block 1, Adams-Dobmeier Subdiv. (loc. at N. 55th St. and University Ave.)_________________________
Council Member Gershman asked what control the City has over any landscaping and
look of the building because close to residences. Brad Gengler, city planner, stated they will
apply their standard landscape buffer requirement and sizeable buffering on the property as it screens itself from the residences; and that the Land Development Code, other than downtown, is very silent on aesthetic control over building types. Mr. Gershman asked if he could talk to Mr. Danks to see what his plans are so it would look nice. Mr. Gengler stated that Lot A will be the existing developed portion (presently there is a distribution warehouse) and has a site plan for the property, and to the south showing 3 structures referred to as storage, function cold storage opposed to any other types of manufacturing, etc. and that the easterly 20 ft. of this lot will be buffer yard and since R-1 located across the street, that for every 100 ft. they will be required to put in 3 shade trees, 5 ornamental trees, 2 evergreens and 26 deciduous shrubs, reasonably dense.

2.20 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Eastern Dakota Alliance for final approval (fast track) of Replat of Lot T, Blk. 6, Congressional First Addn. (loc. at 1098 Selkirk Circle________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.21 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Karen Scott for final approval (fast track) of Replat of Lots 2 and 8, Blk. 1, Brown's Addn. (loc. at 2813 Belmont Road)____________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.22 Petition from Karen Scott and Pat Fisher to vacate utility easement adjacent to Lots 2, 8 and A, Blk. 1, Brown's Addn. (loc. in 2800 blk. of Belmont Road).
There were no comments.

2.23 Petition from City of Grand Forks to vacate 47th Ave.S. right of way from 125 feet east of Loamy Hills Drive to the Red River of the North (loc. between Sunbeam Addn. and River Oaks Addn.)_______________________________
There were no comments.

2.24 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Bob Elman and Elman Rentals for final approval (fast track) of Replat of Lot 2, Blk. 3, and Lot 1, Blk. 4 and vacated service road, Washington Estates Addn. (loc. in 3900 blk. of S. Washington St.)_________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.25 Petition from Crary Development, Inc. for approval of an ordinance to annex that part of the NW Quarter of Section 27 and SW Quarter of Section 22, T151N, R50W of Fifth Principal Meridian, annexation area includes all of lands to be platted as Homestead Grove Second Addn. and unplatted lands north and south thereof.____________________________________________
Council Member Christensen stated that when they read subject to the 8% park
dedication and hasn't seen any parks being dedicated for quite some time on subdivisions coming in, that the 8% ordinance is a means of extracting revenue to fund parks and to make sure that we had green areas and parks within residential subdivisions, and appears we have deviated somewhat, and asked when we would get back to that, it seems like they have people bringing in quarters, 80 acres, etc. and should have an overall plan as to where we're going to have some green areas in the south end of Grand Forks, and perhaps put that on our agenda to revisit dedication of green areas as bring areas into this community.

Mr. Gengler stated that the 8% park dedication is in the Land Development Code and one of those where we partner with the Park District based on their overall master plan, and in this case will have this plat on board and subject to the 8% park and open space dedication which is satisfied in two different ways, either cash payment in lieu of representing 8% of the total value of the land of gross acreage or a 8% dedication of raw land. In this case the Park District, where it is their choice to the extent of whether or not they have a park in this area, looked at this in proximity to existing parks to the subject property (Optimist Park and Ulland Park) and that is some of the logic they use that at no point under current radar screen would they construct a park in that area, it is very critical because now looking at Year 2035 Land Use Plan and trying to marry up the park dedication with the potential dedication of land for storm water retention, and put a different twist on it in that maybe not looking at a fully developed park but if can apply a park dedication on top of that and actual land dedication so we can incorporate the storm ponds as a park amenity by satisfying an actual dedication of land in this case and maybe in this area, and is something the consultants are helping us with the revamp of code.
Council Member Gershman stated if talking about a number of ponds in various areas of the southend as the city begins to grow, perhaps give some consideration to creating a large pond that can also be used for recreation, and before start going out and saying have to build a 5-acre pond or 3 acre pond, perhaps get together and find some quadrants out there where could do something major and make it an attraction for public area where have water recreation.

Council Member Kreun stated that on our Land Use Plan the consultant showed some of those types of amenities within the 2-mile jurisdiction, Tier 1, and to start building that, but the question of payment in lieu of the land that could be for park dedication, we partner up with the Park but who has the final control of deciding whether it’s a park or payment in lieu of.

Mr. Gengler stated there is a 3-person park dedication committee, that he is on the committee along with a member from Planning & Zoning and a member of the city council, and park district is only there as a representative; however, that committee could either approve or reject it, and the plat requires the park district to sign off and acknowledge dedication. Mr. Kreun stated in looking at the 2035 Land Use Plan and if put some of that in, which is a good idea, there might be some conflicts coming up on deciding how to utilize that park space or payment in lieu of and we should know what our responsibilities and authority are before going ahead. Mr. Gengler stated it would be in our best interest as well as the Park District's is maybe develop a little closer working relationship with them; that their master plan needs to reflect our comprehensive plan.

Council Member Glassheim stated that when the Park Distinct takes money in lieu, do they have a capital long range fund or put it into operating expenses. Mr. Gengler stated that when they receive a cash payment that money is set aside and targeted a defined geographic area where when funds are needed, they take from that fund.

Council Member Christensen stated he didn't recall seeing a fund balance dedicated and asked for a copy of financial statement for 12/31/05 to see if there is a dedicated fund balance, that the Park District accepts 8% because there's a couple parks in the area, that he is concerned that as the city grows farther to the south, that there be some areas for the smaller children to recreate in, but have the opportunity when you have major land owners that own most of the property in the quarter that is coming in and seems that if start conversation we should begin it sooner because we've given up any types of parks from here to 62nd and don't see any parks that are being dedicated until you get to Optimist, and if want to maintain this quality of life then maybe should become more user friendly so people can walk or bike to the park. That in the 70's and 80's you had a number of pocket parks that caused the Park Dist. to give up that idea because too numerous to maintain and should be pursuing this as a council rather than agreeing to a 8% payment in lieu of a park.

2.26 Request from William Knipe for final approval of plat of Knipe's First Addn. (loc. in 3000 block of S. 69th St.)______________________________________
Council Member Hamerlik asked if this was the piece of property they talked bout
a couple 3 or 4 weeks ago when discussing what the moratorium date was, and this was deferred. Mr. Gengler stated this plat was given preliminary approval in 2004 and then tabled.

2.27 Request from Crary Development, inc. for preliminary approval of plat of Homestead Grove Second Addn. (loc. in 1000 blk. of 47th Ave.S.________
There were no comments.

2.28 2006 Beautification Program.
Council Member Gershman stated he thought committee did a very good job in
picking projects. Council Member Brooks referenced an e-mail he sent to Mr. Duquette or Mr. Gengler re. some of the issues they are going to have coming up re. salvage yards and there are some things they need to do on their end there and look for some funding for but will leave that with staff.

Council Member Glassheim stated there was some interest in local businesses along 3rd Street in making some small improvements with City participation and if that would be possible out of either Contingencies or Downtown Street Scape and Tree Replacement funds. Mr. Hoover stated it would.

Council Member Christensen stated this is one mil from the City's general fund and had some comments previously when funding some projects with sales tax, 2163, and one of our council persons found it ironic that we were funding requests made by other governmental entities, and here again we find that we are funding two requests made by other governmental entities, one case the Historical Commission, where doing $40,000, $37,000 to County and $3,000 to the Park District, that we are trying to find ways to save mils at city level but yet using some of our mils to pay for expenses that would be expenditures that other elected officials should find ways to fund. Council Member Gershman stated he got wrapped up in the quality of the projects because he likes the landscaping on Gateway Drive, but is something for discussion and appreciates Mr. Christensen's bringing up inconsistencies.

2.29 Request from Habitat for Humanity.
Council Member Kerian stated that she supports this item and to be able to provide home for someone in need, but doesn't make sense to support item 2.16, building permit, and doesn't think we want to go down that path, hard for non-profits to come up with cash but still need to inspect them.

2.30 Initial Resolution authorizing the issue of GO Bonds payable from the public building fund for public building and grounds construction and acquisition.
Council Member Christensen stated that when they approved the budget the line item was that they may need to fund $1,751,500 worth of projects on page 135 of your packet, and this request is an amount not to exceed $2,250,000 which is about $750,000 or $800,000 increase, and his question is why do they have to approve this to have this on deck until such time as they know what they are actually going to need, what of these projects that are listed on page 135 are we actually doing this year, that we have bids or contracts about to be let.

Mr. Duquette stated he will need to assemble that information as what they have bids on and get that to them tomorrow, doesn't know details as we speak; and in regards to this particular item what they are seeking is a resolution for the city council of your intent to bond for this project, that this is not about whether you approve this public safety/ mosquito control storage facility but about your intent to bond because there is a 60-day protest period attached to this so if we do want to do it, want to get this in the queue so that can hit this construction season, and that is the intent behind Mr. Schmisek's memo to you. Mr. Christensen asked how are the citizens going to know what they are going to protest until they have an idea of what we are going to build. Mr. Duquette stated in the document of the resolution it includes the facility, that this is a general obligation bond of $2,550,000. Mr. Christensen stated it was presented to them as a council when they approved the CIP in the last budgeting process and was $1.751,000 of which $500,000 was to remodel the fire station on the Bronson Property. Mr. Duquette stated their intent was to begin the process of the resolution of the intent of the city council to bond this, that they need more information about the project and more details provided to the council, and need to make a decision whether or not they want to have this facility and more information for protest purposes but to get this in the queue for timing purposes that is all this is about today.

Council Member Christensen stated if they approve it, wants to make sure we have the controls before selling the bonds, and if they need more than $2.55 million. Mr. Duquette stated that will require city council approval, the project will also require city council approval, that they would be back before council asking for more funds, and that this is just a resolution re. intent to bond.

CITY ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS

Mr. Duquette, city administrator, stated he would like to return item 2.3, that he caught
Mr. Jeske as he was leaving and that he indicated he had visited with his chair and exec committee related to this, but if there has been a communication issue where this is not clear with the Commission, that he will recommend that this be tabled and go back to the Alerus Commission for their consideration. Council Member Christensen stated that he reviewed Fund 5700 with the Alerus and the proposed expenditure, that he didn't find it in our budget, and would like to know the line item where it is coming from.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Brooks stated he had given all members a copy of items he put together as start of our budget process, some ideas and some of the discussions that went on at the last meeting where can try to start putting a resolution together, need to give some direction or idea of what we would like to see to the staff and the mayor as they proceed forward.

2) Council Member Glassheim stated they received at their desks tonight some concerns about a building on the edge of the University Campus, and is concerned if there are rats, electrical wiring, etc. and if will check into that. Mayor Brown stated Ms. Collings will check into that.

He stated that earlier tonight after people presented petitions from 4200 people there was no response from council, were silent on the matter, and people when leaving were not sure it was over or if there would be any response. He stated that he has heard nothing, been silence since they first received the casino business, and asked where does it stand, are they researching its possible harms if there are any, putting it on the ballot, and no sense of how it will come before council again if it will or how answer the petitioners.

3) Council Member Christensen stated as to the work session they have scheduled for Wednesday, asked Mr. Duquette to add an additional item to the agenda, the beginning of the discussion of the council's budget resolution as to mils, that they have Mr. Brooks' letter and some have spoken publicly on this issue, and is time that the council address the issue and create a resolution that the administration can then work towards in the budgeting process.

4) Council Member Kerian stated kudos in University Park this last weekend, police department, park district, students, etc. but was disheartened to hear and see the kinds of advertising that some of our local liquor establishments were putting out that day - "come at 8:00 o'clock in the morning, drink before, drink after, have breakfast at their bar", that this behavior is not helpful or productive for the kind of day they want to have - that those businesses in advertising for that day not showing themselves in the best light, and hope they will consider that in the future.
5) Council Member Kreun stated that the agenda under comments stated to please refer to the Flood Protection Comm. meeting - that the flood protection committee met last week and the matter of the dog park was presented by Melanie Parvey-Biby, that this matter had been moved back several times because of the flood - that if they would go ahead with the program, there has to be an ordinance change which takes two meetings.

Melanie Parvey-Biby stated a large number of people in the community are exercising their dogs off-leash, have chosen to break the law because there are no legal alternatives to them; that there are a number of off-leash dog exercise areas and one of these areas is the greenway, and that concerns her and others in the community; that they've met with the Park District and worked with them over several years and feel they have a solution, and their recommendation for consideration is opening an off-leash unfenced recreation area in the downtown portion of the greenway, and recommending that they try area on the wet side of the dike behind Chamber building for a trial period of one year; that after that time frame look at it as a community to see whether it is something they want to consider on a permanent basis. She stated they looked at couple communities where this has worked really well - Brookline, MA and Roseville, MN

She stated there were number of sites they considered -that they were encouraged by the Flood Protection Comm. to consider options on the wet side because of the impact it would have on neighborhoods. She stated they looked at downtown which is riverward of the Chamber of Commerce building, that there is parking on the riverward side, parking at 7th Avenue North and North 3rd Street, and area is along the riverbank, bikepath will be on higher ground so separation between the recreational users and the bikepath, people could also use sidewalk if not wanting to be near where dogs are off leash. She stated that this is something they could do this year, minimal cost, community helps pick boundaries and sign it appropriately. Maintenance would be done by users - Park District would put up doggy clean up stations with garbage cans, funding for signage could be through their existing budget for greenway or through betterment funds. She stated there would be rules posted at the site, and for low cost could implement this program this year.

Council Member Christensen asked if for a trial period, why not go only with the resolution, designate the area she is suggesting, rules for the area and if cleaned up - try it. Mr. Swanson stated that the ordinance has nothing to do with the dog park per se, the ordinance is an amendment to the leash law, to allow the waiver of the leash law in an area designated by the city council as a leash free dog park, and would be designating that by resolution. He stated what the request is to make timetable with the ordinance for the leash law, the ordinance is being drafted and is simply adding an exception to the leash law that effectively says that the provisions of this section do not apply in an officially designated leash free dog park - that designating an area, creating rules would be done by resolution.

Council Member Kreun stated one of the reasons they were bringing this forward was to move it along as quickly as possible and bring ordinance in next week. He stated this is one of the better locations where can actually try it and were going to ask if possibility to move this along so could change the leash law, even if this wasn't the location, would still want to change it for any area.

Council Member Glassheim stated this is in his area and reluctant to have a place where dogs run free and can get back in the neighborhood without leashes and not to have fencing, that it may impact his neighborhood, not sure want to rush this through before people who are going to be impacted by it have a chance to discuss it and be convinced that it is a good idea, maybe that the people will want it but on other hand it might not be and hopes we don't rush this through before there is discussion of it in the place where it would be impacted.

Council Member Kerian stated that people who work with the greenway have been very good at holding meetings and would hope that we can go ahead and do the ordinance change and that a meeting in the neighborhood could be held and people could voice concerns, wouldn't want to start off with a bad flavor. - would want people to be in support of that and hopes to make sure that people are informed and have an opportunity to understand what we are doing. She stated she supports it but thinks it goes against the grain, but set some parameters so understand what the conditions are, how and when evaluate it and want to get people's support.

Council Member Hamerlik stated he would hope that ordinance would be 4 weeks, has to be on the committee of the whole in two week and then council, and would be time to have meeting in neighborhood.

Council Member Kreun stated that the only reason that this is coming fast is because it has been put on hold because of the flood, and no intent to bypass any individuals or to give comment.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Brooks that we adjourn. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,



Candi Stjern
Acting City Auditor