Council Minutes

Minutes/Committee of the Whole
Monday, December 11, 2006 – 7:00 p.m.

Page 1 of 6

The City Council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, December 11, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in City Hall with President Gershman presiding. Present at roll call were: Council Members Brooks, McNamara, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kreun. Present - 6; Absent: Bakken -1.

President Gershman announced that when addressing the committee to please complete a speaker card and give it to the staff at the control panel and when called upon to come forward to use the microphone for the record, and advised that the meeting is being televised live and taped for later broadcast.

2.1 Budget Amendments:
a) GF Loan & Stabilization Funds (moving Municipal Court to new jail building.)

Glassheim inquired why the change in the cost for the move to the new location. Schmisek stated that the bond sale included $400,000 for the court move, but the intention was always that some of the cost would be paid with cash and that is what this amendment is accomplishing.

b) Police Department (WMD Homeland Security and Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Grant)

There were no comments.

c) Mayor/Council budget.

Brooks inquired what the original budget was for this item. Schmisek stated that there was no money budgeted in 2006 for base realignment, but always anticipated that there would be some expense and this amendment moves money from carryover to cover the expenses. Glassheim inquired what had previously been spent. The group discussed that in prior year was $750,000.

d) Public Works Department (Sanitation, Wastewater, and Water Enterprise Funds.)

Glassheim inquired as to the increase in Landfill and Water Revenues. Feland reported that the landfill revenues were budgeted with the anticipation that we would have a loss of some of our current customers due to the ongoing landfill issue, but that did not happen and as such we have more revenue than was budgeted. He stated that there will be some build up in cash due to this, but that in the future will see some customers leave, particularly around the Thief River Falls area and will use this cash to defer having the rates increase. Glassheim inquired whether the surplus greenway revenue could be used in the stormwater fund for other costs. Feland stated that the greenway charge revenue goes into the stormwater fund and is available for any expenses. He noted that the main reason for the revenue above budget in this area is that at the time the budget was being created we had not made the determination to change the way the greenway maintenance charge was applied and that went into effect in February and wil be approximately $500,000 in 2007 when have full year. He continued that while our expenses may not be fully at that level yet as the project is not completed and all under our control, but that the cash reserves will be used to defray some future expenses and to hold the rates down. He added that after the project is complete and we have a full handle on the costs, would see the Council then reviewing the costs and revenues and determining if they want to make any adjustments.

Christensen requested that a summary of actual collections, revenues and expenses be prepared for Council to discuss in a work session format in the early part of 2007 for the enterprise funds so that could evaluate where we are at with these funds prior to looking at the 2007 budgeting process. As a part of this study, he stated that he would like to look at what if any of these excess revenues could be available to transfer to the general fund to help hold taxes down or to see if there are areas where rates could be adjusted to help out customers. He continued that he would also like to look at the extra money in the flood protection fund to determine how we will utilize those funds and whether we should keep that or pay it back and that may lead to a philosophical decision on whether we want current citizens to pay for things that will be used by future citizens.

Glassheim inquired whether we anticipate the expenses to be at the $500,000 level in the future. Feland stated that the expenses are anticipated to be near that, as besides physical care of the greenway such as mowing and herbiciding, it also includes expenses related to maintenance of pump stations and storm stations related to the flood way. He commented that the other stormwater user fee will also have corresponding revenue.

Schmisek commented that in regard to funds in the flood project fund, also have talked about the third special assessment for the flood project and can also look to those funds to see if it is necessary to sell a third bond, or if there is cash there that can meet those needs.

Christensen stated that he would like to see information on this as well in early 2007 so could see all the associated revenues and expenditures and that we have a great asset in the greenway and like to see us make the most of it.

e) Central Garage

There were no comments.

2.2 Matter of continuance of 2:00 a.m. closing time for the sale of alcoholic beverages.

Gershman stated that in consultation with the Police Department there have been no problems with the 2:00 a.m. closing and only issue that has come up is how time changes for daylight saving is handled and inquired whether Swanson had any thoughts on whether that should be included in the office.

Swanson stated that a request for opinion needs to be obtained from the Attorney General’s Office on the issue, but that he believes it may be appropriate to delineate in the ordinance how this should be handled. He continued that the sunset issue does need to be acted on prior to January 3, 2007 or closing will revert back to 1:00 a.m. and that can address the daylight saving time later once the opinion is received.

2.3 Matter of 2007 Salary Plan Update.

Hovland stated that the 2007 Salary Plan is complete and includes a number of tables including recommended changes, title changes, as well as showing the number of positions and there relationship to the market. He noted that this year there are only 2 employees in job titles in the general fund that are below 80% of the market and a cost of $19 to bring them to 80%, 5 positions in other funds that are below the 80% at a cost of $726 to bring them to the minimum. He commented that there are 304 employees between the minimum and midpoint of the market and 139 between the midpoint and the maximum. He stated that the annual PFP Annual Report will be coming to Council in February. He added thanks to the HR Staff, Administrative Coordinator, and Department Heads for their input into the process.

2.4 2008-2012 Urban and Regional Program Project request to NDDoT.

Robert Drees, Drees Farming Association and Stacy Evans, Ag Depot, Inc., on behalf of the South Forks Bypass Coalition, gave a powerpoint presentation to the group asking for inclusion of an interchange at the Merrifield Road/I-29 and also a Merrifield Road Bridge over the Red River in their project list.

Drees stated that the proposal is that the Merrifield I-29 Interchange would be the first phase of the project, with a projected cost of $6 million broken out between the State of ND at $3 million, $1.5 million from the County and $1.5 million from the City. He continued that they would like this project in the 2009-2010 timeframe. He listed benefits including lessening of traffic and in particular farm and commercial truck traffic on 32nd Avenue South as well as access to southern developments from the south, whereas currently have to use 32nd Ave S exit to reach them. Drees stated that Randy Brown and other landowners in the proposed interchange area have expressed an interest in donating necessary land to construct the interchange and that can count toward the local funding match.

Drees stated that Phase Two of the project would be in the long range plan for a Red River Bridge on the Merrifield Road and that is anticipated to be about a $14 million project and would look to have more alternative funding sources for that including potentially the State of Minnesota.

Gershman commented that he does support the project, but sees some conflicts with other needs of the City, particularly South 48th Street that we would be looking at developing in the same time frame and which is vitally important to our development in the industrial park.

Kreun commented that a first step toward getting the various entities to look harder at this project would be if the landowners moved forward with the transfer of title to the land as a good faith gesture. He added that the 2009-2010 timeline is an extremely aggressive timeline for a project of this scope, particularly in light that the state is programmed out until 2013 already and if they were to include this would have to knock out another project. Swanson commented that prior to being able to construct the project the City would need to have title to the land. Drees responded that the landowners position is that they want some assurance that the project will be completed within a short time prior to donating the land.

Christensen suggested that the land could be deeded to the JDA with a reverter in the agreement so that if the project is not completed say within five years the land goes back to the owner. He continued that there is a need for the City to continue to build out 32nd Avenue South, based on current traffic loads and more lanes will be needed there and that Staff and Council developed the proposed list based on priorities of the City. He stated that based on prior discussions there is not any possibility for a river crossing bridge until at least 2015 even if all things line up and has not heard any support of need from the Minnesota side for a south bridge. He added that this is on the MPO agenda for Friday for discussion. Christensen noted that we have to prioritize according to what we see as the highest need for our community and need to have evidence to support the projects that we have on the list and one thing that hinders this is that it would require 75% of our total available for one year and that leaves a lot of other needs to meet elsewhere.

Glassheim asked for a briefing on why this isn’t on a list or more information. Grasser stated that we don’t know all the plans of the state in this time frame, but from the City’s standpoint, we look at what our highest needs are and try to meet them as soon as we can, which sometimes can lead to projects changing place on the list as we saw with the 48th Street project that was pushed back, but now due to needs in the industrial park, has seen its priority level increase. He continued that based on his experience seeing this project being put on the state’s list in the timeline that they are requesting is very aggressive, as they plan out much further with their needs than we do and look at money needed for all projects in all areas of the state and if we were to now bring in this project could be very complicating to get them on board. He added that based on the number of unknowns with this project he would not be comfortable including it on a list that he submitted to Council until some of those loose ends could be tied up. He continued that if we made contact with the State and County and they were on board with including this list we could rethink this, but does not feel that will be the case. Grasser questioned whether this project is truly as high a priority for the City based on the other projects that we do have on the list, as it is for those proposing the project.

Grasser commented that in regards to 32nd Avenue South, the State was including a rehab project that was basically a mill and overlay for that street in the near future, but that in looking at traffic load, we may need to look at more than that to resolve some of the issues that we have been experiencing on the street.

Brooks questioned the cost amounts for the Merrifield projects, as in the presentation had listed $14 million for the river bridge, but is $20 million where we have referenced it. Grasser stated that could be due to the increase in construction costs that has occurred in the recent years and before seriously put those numbers out there would want to do some research on currently constructed similar projects to make sure the numbers being discussed are valid.

Kreun commented that he is not trying to be negative to the project, but that the first step to getting it serious consideration would be the land acquisition and then need to look at a reasonable time to fit this project in for all entities involved, state, city and county. Christensen commented that he believed the numbers in the presentation may be from the 2002 study and have seen recent projects up 40% in cost from then.

McNamara inquired how quickly we could check with the other entities and update figures to see whether we wanted to prioritize it. Grasser stated that he could check with both the County and the State to see if they have it listed and then have staff look at it for merit and need.

Galssheim asked if there was any data that would point to the level of need for the project. Grasser stated that there is some older data, but that the MPO is in the process of updating the study and deferred to Earl Haugen for an update. Haugen stated that the new information will be available within the next 6 months, but could comment that the project would provide some relief to 32nd Avenue South traffic congestion. Glassheim inquired whether there is enough there to justify the cost of the project and moving it onto our priority list. Christensen stated that what he has seen puts it just above neutral, but could also effect relief on 32nd Ave S by prohibiting ag related truck traffic and funneling it down 55th Ave S and up S Washington St.

Drees commented that this was there first presentation and still have to meet with the other groups, but wanted to start somewhere. He thanked the group for their time and asked that they keep it in consideration, and that though it is high annually, could have long-term benefit for community.

2.5 Consideration of bids for Project No. 5674, Columbia Road and 24th Ave. S. Intersection Reconstruction.

There were none.


2.6 Three-way Construction Engineering Services Agreement for Project No. 5674, Columbia and 24th Ave. S. Intersection Reconstruction.

There were none.

2.7 Change Order #1 for Project No. 5908, 2006 Sanitary Sewer Repairs.

Kreun noted that the project number was wrong in the staff report and should be corrected for the file copy.

2.8 Change Order #1 for Project No. 5985, 2006 Greenway Trail Connections.

There were none.

2.9 Design, Bidding and Construction Administration Eng. Service Agrement for Project No. 6019, 36th Forcemain Tee Replacement.

There were none.

2.10 Acquisition of property for construction of south end clay stockpile for future flood fighting needs, Project No. 6102, South End Clay Stockpile.

Glassheim inquired how much is left in the betterments fund. Grasser stated that there was a meeting this past Friday in Bismarck and had discussed this project and had support of the State Engineer to add back in funds to our betterments that could be used for this and also were able to secure support of the Water Commission on this matter and now are eligible for state participation on the $4 million, and that without the state participation would be at zero in the betterments, but now due to hard work of the legislators, have $2 million back into betterments. He continued that now we will also be able to look at a road overlay project to repair some damaged roads in the community and currently are working on putting together more information and will have that to Council soon.

2.11 Request from Grand Cities Mall for approval of appeal to sign code as provided for in Section 18-0301.1 Appeals, of the Grand Forks Land Development Code. (Appeal is to allow the alteration of an existing pole sign located on the Mall property at the southwest corner of 17th Ave. S. and S. Wash. St.)

There were none.

2.12 Request from Kevin Ritterman on behalf of JKV Investments for preliminary approval to amend zoning map to rezone and exclude from R-4 (Multiple-Family Residence, High Density) Dist. and to include within the B-3 (General Business) Dist. Lot 1, Block 1, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 22 (loc. at 13th Ave. N. and Darwin Dr.)

There were none.

2.13 Request from Susan Christopherson for preliminary approval of ordinance to amend zoning map to rezone and exclude from B-1 (limited Business) Dist. and to include within R-2 (One and Two Family Residence) Dist. the west 13 ft. of Lot 1 and all of Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 7, Budge & Eshelman’s 3rd Addn. (loc. at 523 N. Washington St.)

There were none.

2.14 Request from Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization to amend Grand Forks Comprehensive Plan to include the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks 2030 Transportation Plan Update (2006 Alternative Transportation Modes Element) together with all maps, information, recommendations and data contained therein.
There were none.


3. Information Items.

There were none.

4. Citizen Requests.

There were none.

5. City Administrator Comments.

There were none.

6. Mayor and Council Member Comments.

Brooks reminded staff that he would still like to see an update on the status of City owned buildings in the downtown area that are vacant and would hope that we are looking at ways to move forward on these including possibly sale of them.

Gershman stated that he had the honor of representing the Mayor at the Kleinwachter funeral on Saturday and was a very touching service to honor this fallen soldier.

Gershman asked that the towing issue be referred to the Service/Safety Standby Committee.

7. Adjournment.

Motion to adjourn by Brooks, second by Christensen. Aye: All. Nay: None. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.


Respectfully Submitted,


John M. Schmisek, CPA
City Auditor

SLL