Council Minutes

Minutes of Grand Forks City Council/Committee of the Whole
Monday, August 10, 2009 - 5:30 p.m._________________ __

The City Council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, August 10, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Bjerke, Glassheim (teleconference), Gershman, Christensen, Kreun - 5; absent: Council Members McNamara, Bakken - 2.

Mayor Brown commented on various items during the past week and upcoming events:
Congratulations to Terri Keehr who was nominated as the North Dakota March of Dimes Nurse of the Year.
Congratulations to the organizers of last week's National Night Out, was perfect evening for a very well organized city block party to focus on how we worked together with law enforcement for safe community and thanks to all volunteers and sponsors for making this an informative and fun event.
Thanks for Bishop Cole for inviting him to attend a ground-breaking for the new Gospel Outreach Ministry Church on 42nd Street.
Congratulations and thanks to everyone who organized and participated and attended the Central Zone Swimming Championships in town, participants from 6 states.

2.1 Noise variance and special license to sell alcoholic beverages at designated premises for Rhombus Ruckus 2009 - Rhombus Guys._
Howard Swanson, city attorney, reported that his office had recommended to the Info Center that this would require a separate beer garden, they are asking that the council authorize the elimination of separate beer garden and allow them to have minors and adults co-mingling within the area and using wrist bands for the purchase of alcohol.

2.2 Insurance services for the City of Grand Forks, ND
There was discussion relative to the matter of the bid of Bremer Insurance being lost. Bid opening was on the 7th of July, and Bremer Insurance called the office on the 13th asking what had happened, and the city auditor reported that they hadn't received their bid; they then hand delivered a bid to the city auditor's office on July 13 (bid is unopened).

Council Member Gershman stated he talked to Scott Phelps of Bremer Insurance; that council needs to think about that if we accept their word, which he doesn't have a problem with, but do set precedent, and is something council has to ponder. Council Member Christensen asked for copy of advertisement for next meeting.

Howard Swanson, city attorney, stated they were given information that would show the normal progression of a rotation out that far, it is a 3-year service, and who is going to have insurance services for the City for the next 3 years, no changes in insurance providers that if followed normal rotation. There is no competitive bid as to pricing - request was for qualifications. He stated they are requiring them to stay with the ND Insurance Reserve Fund, they are a scheduled carrier, there is no rebate nor refund under ND law, but they get a commission; only change that might occur within the coverage is number of vehicles; property coverage is through the State Fire & Tornado Fund, but write liability coverage through the Reserve Fund. Out of town bidders could bid but might not be able to provide level of service we are looking for, but couldn't exclude them from that possibility.

The city auditor stated that we cannot deal directly with the Insurance Reserve Fund, and if do have licensed agent on board, we don't have to go outside. Mr. Swanson stated that the coverage has to be sold by a licensed agent; any agent can write for the Reserve Fund. The council established rotation of carriers a few years ago, prior to that point it had been given to one carrier for a number of years; wasn't done by resolution, but set in motion and now have gone through the rotation. Mr. Swanson stated that Bremer is the one currently holding the portfolio and if followed rotation, coming off of that portfolio.

Council Member Christensen stated he would be looking for recommendation from city attorney and finance office as to how to proceed.

2.3 Assessment District Project No. 4704.5, Permanent Flood Protection Project, Dist. No. 14.5 for newly annexed property from June, 2008 to June, 2009, and other properties with lot-line changes due to changes in the dike line.________________
There were no comments.

2.4 Assessment District Project No. 5048.7, paving S. 42nd St., 17th Ave.S. and 11th Ave.S., District No. 563.3 for newly annexed property in the future assessment district (Lot D, Blk. 1 of Aurora Plaza Addn.)______________________________
There were no comments.

2.5 Create special assessment district for Project No. 6272, Dist. No. 99, Cherry Street reconstruction from 17th Ave.S. to 25th Ave.S.______________________________
There were no comments.

2.6 Cost Participation, Construction and Maintenance Agreement for Project No. 6272, Dist. No. 99, Cherry Street reconstruction from 17th Ave.S. to 25th Ave.S.________
There were no comments.

2.7 Change Order No. 1 for Project No. 6350, 2009 Concrete Street Repairs.
Al Grasser, city engineer, reported the State Legislature during their last session allocated money to be used for weather related damages throughout the state, money was distributed in accordance with the way they would distribute Highway Users' money, and we have received a check for approx. $1.5 million. Staff set some priorities for the expenditures, the City did incur a number of additional expenses for snow removal, fuel, overtime, etc. that were impacts to the General Fund; and did receive direct damages to the streets, esp. asphalt street, and priorities reconstitute the expenditures they have already spent for 2009 to help make the General Fund whole, and address the capital expenditures for repairs, but won't get repairs done in 2009 because of lateness of the year, but do in 2010. He reviewed estimated detailed expenditures ranked by priorities: 2008-09 sand/salt expended, $85,000; $25,000 in snow removal overtime; crews spent lot of time doing patching, and putting $50,000 towards patching machine and in 2010 money for physical patching; 5) concrete street repairs by adding $100,000 work to that project and have expended those monies to date because of so many repairs; in 2010 could increase the concrete and asphalt budgets to pick up some of the problems created by 2009; and Items 8), 9), 10) and 11) are streets that were highly impacted by frost heaving this past year (S. 18th Street, 30th Ave.S., 31st Ave.S. and S. 23rd St.). He stated total amount is above $1.5 million, that we have more needs than have money, not sure if each of these projects will go through, that they are proposing to help cover the City's 80% share, City's policy for reconstruction is to pay 80% of the reconstruction cost - as a special assessment when we assess the 20% that is protestable and there is no guarantee that we will do all these projects and deal with potential shortfalls as they may occur. The City does budget about $250,000 or $225,000 each year for city-match for these types of streets and if don't have money in 2010 may be a 2011 project. The item council is dealing with tonight would be physically approving the change orders so can get this work done in 2009. It was noted that these funds have to be spent during this biennium.

2.8 Change Order No. 1 for Project No. 6348, LMI Sidewalk Replacement.
Dean Rau, asst. city engineer, reported that this project was bid this spring with very good prices and that the total cost of the project was less than the available money and are looking at increasing the quantities to use up the available funds for this, $204,000 is original amount and no change in the funding source.

2.9 Change Orders No. 1 and No. 2 for Project No. 6427, CDBG Sidewalk and Alley Return Replacement._
There were no comments.

2.10 Appeal of denial of taxi driver license by Chad Carivau.
There were no comments.

2.11 2010 CDBG and HOME Programs.
Greg Hoover, urban development, reported that Congress is tentatively adding money to the CDBG budget, one House is going with 10% and the other with 14% and we are budgeting 8% because if don't get the money then have a shortfall and that would come from General Fund.
Our entitlement from the Department of Housing Urban Development, and is up but overall amount of funding is down because we are coming closer to the end of the repayment of our business and rental rehab. loans and our property sales, last year had budget of $1.275 million and are projecting this year's budget for CDBG to be $1.120 million and suggesting that we take the 20% allowable for Admin. at $224,000, Public Service at $150,000 (keeping with trend taking that down each year by $25,000); American Dream Program, down payment, closing costs assistance at $200,000 the same as last year and federal benefit of getting $8,000 for first time home buyers has kicked that program back into gear; MUNI Projects at $150,000; and issue with respect to the condition of the Central Parking Ramp, suggesting $246,000 from CDBG to be used next year to repair decking, expansion joints and fill cracks and that money would be used with what we have left over from excess sales tax that was budgeted this year and using part of that to repair the elevator; and that would leave $150,000 for Other Bricks & Mortar and that would be traditional projects where agencies come in and request funds - the suggestion that the Citizens Advisory Comm. be reconstituted and they would review and rank applications for the $150,000 in public services and $150,000 in Other Brick & Mortar.

With regard to revenue on the Home Program we do not get direct allocation from the federal government, but through the State Dept. of Commerce and are projecting receiving $381,000 which is down from last year, part of that because a ADDI , federal program, has been discontinued, $12,000 and would recommend taking allowable amount for Admin., continue at $250,000 for American Dream Program, ands $115,000 to Affordable Infill Program as have lots to provide housing for people at or below 80% of median income.

Mr. Hoover reported the American Dream money and requirements under the CDBG Program are less stringent re. down payment and closing and down payment comes out of the HOME money. Infill money is if builder comes in and buys lot from us, builds a house and get buyer who is low income and can subsidize that purchase price down so individual can afford to buy the property. MUNI area by the University and in area near K-Mart. Bjerke stated he didn't understand why we don't use more of this for infrastructure, there are more ways to fix roads, etc. but choose not to do it.

Council Member Glassheim asked if we didn't use $250,000 CDBG for rehabbing the parking ramp, where else might that money come from, if assessed to property owners. Mr. Hoover stated his recommendation would be to do that through the Operations & Maintenance budget and that would be a special assessment on business owners in the downtown parking district. He stated they are projecting that assessment, this year's budget at $114,000, were projecting for that to increase to $141,000 so the $246,000 would be on top of that $141,000.

Council Member Christensen stated that Mr. Hoover is recommending that money come from CDBG for the parking ramp because it is in an LMI area, otherwise it wouldn't qualify. Mr. Glassheim stated his concern is that it is a very large sum that would be underwriting what possibly should be business costs and that $246,000 would not be available to some other non-profits for their Bricks & Mortar, seemed like a very large amount to be diverted away and yet understands that the pressure on some of the businesses is great but is large amount out of Bricks & Mortar Program.

Mr. Christensen stated he recognizes that as an issue and questioned that it wasn't referred to Finance Committee, and when have that finance meeting and/or budget meeting that they discuss how we deal with the downtown area re. spreading out an assessment of about $240,000 for the balance of the bonds owed on the parking ramp, and also trying to figure out how we are going to collect from people who use the parking ramp when most of the people that are being assessed for it are on the other side of DeMers, seems have a little cleanup work to do based upon decisions made by prior councils and some members of this council, there are other sources of money to pay for the Central Parking Ramp deck repair and would be prudent to have a list of various sources of money. Next week hopes that this gets referred to finance for further study.

Mr. Hoover asked that it not be deferred to committee next week at that time because they have a schedule they need to keep in order to meet the federally established deadlines, and if concern about allocating the $246,000 directly to the parking ramp, his suggestion would be that the $246,000 be deleted and rolled into Other Bricks & Mortar so that program would go from $150,000 to $396,000 and then through the application process go to the Finance Development Comm. and give information as to options available for the parking ramp. He stated that reason he personally put this in there so can get this started and get going on it because we do have safety problems with concern to the ramp. Council Member Christensen stated if solves your current problem, should do that.

2.12 Redevelopment of lots at 617, 623 and 701 N. 24th St.
Dorette Kerian, president of Red River Valley Habitat for Humanity, reported that the properties they are looking at are ones that were in low areas at the time of the flood and could not be built upon until the dikes were in place, that they had an opportunity to work with Meredith Richards, urban development, and with Council Member Mike McNamara to see how these properties could be developed in a way that meets the interest of the community. This area is one in which they are very concerned that it not be overdeveloped and that it be owner-occupied, and those are the efforts of their organization have been to come up with properties that would meet those requirements and did have one meeting with the neighborhood and Council Member McNamara.

She stated that Red River Valley Habitat for Humanity has been building partner family since 1989, have built 20 new homes and 2 rehabbed, one in East Grand Forks and rest in Grand Forks, and are working on 21 and 22, twin home being built on 53rd Street, have over $2 million in assessed valuation from properties they have built with their many volunteers and partner families and the ones they are currently building and possibility here would bring them up to about $3 million, and that this is a good redevelopment plan, meet the neighborhood's expectations.

These properties have drainage issues and by working with engineering, planning and inspections to make sure that properties would drain properly and not affect other properties in the area. This site could provide homes for 4 families, there are good schools in that area, wonderful neighborhood for infill. They anticipate having properties done next December if awarded these properties and weather cooperated, otherwise backup date would be the following summer.

Council Member Kreun asked if these were part of the parcels that were put up for bids with no bidding response. Meredith Richards, urban development, stated these lots have not been publicly advertised, that this is a high density rental neighborhood but the neighborhood feels very strongly that they would like to see more owner occupancy in the neighborhood, and with Habitat's mission that provides good insurance those will be on 4 owner-occupied units in an area that has 4-plexes immediately to the south, duplexes all round. She stated with neighbors concern about owner occupancy Habitat is a very good fit.

Lots are either R-1 (previously R-2) or R-4, and parcel is a mix and that Red River Valley's Habitat proposal will be going to Planning & Zoning next month for replatting and rezoning. . Ryan Brooks, Planning, stated properties will be owner occupied and will have to work around some R-4 where you can have single family and two-family, will do something with the zoning but at the same time protect the neighborhood.

2.13 Petition from Turning Point, LLC to vacate part of a 10-ft. wide utility easement along the east line of Lot 5, Blk. 1, McEnroe First Addn._____________________
There were no comments.

2.14 Request from Pribula Engineering on behalf of B & B Partnership for final (fast track) approval of plat of Bergstrom's First Resubdiv. (loc. at N. 32nd St. and 26th Ave.N.)________________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.15 Petition from B & B Partnership to vacate utility easement lying within Lot 1, Blk. 1, Service 5th Subdiv. and Lot 1, Blk. 1, McConnell Subdiv., Grand Forks County, for relocating a property line and constructing a building addition._____________
There were no comments.

2.16 Review of RMI (Residual Materials Inc.) conditional use permit for recyclable processing center, Lot 1, Blk. 1. Lockwood Addn. (loc. at 2550 27th Ave.N. (Mitch Gibbs property) in the city of Grand Forks._________________________________
Council Member Christensen reported at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting they didn't have the conditional use permit, and that Mr. Malm suggested that he didn't see where a 10-year permit would be appropriate and why not go with a 5-year permit; and that Mr. Durrenberger explained that there would be certain things that would be reviewed. They were to plant some vegetation, alkali soil and problems growing, and sees to be a condition that isn't appropriate and probably can't meet it. Staff report says that review of the condition of the required fence, required fencing is metal, and has gaps that don't preclude seeing what is beyond the fence; report regarding general site conditions concerning the building and storage to recycle materials, only real issue is if satisfied with the fence as it is, because nothing that a review will accomplish unless store stuff on the outside of the fence, that this might be for 10 years, wondering if wouldn't want to add some conditions - that RMI might change ownership some day, the only issue is if going to change the fence or spacing between the metal portions of the fence to preclude seeing from the outside what is behind the fence. He stated if trying to work within the community and buffer certain areas of the community before you grant the permit for another 10 years, might want to think if there are any improvements that could be made to the fence acting as a buffer before you approve it - want you to consider it before you grant it for 10 years because no conditions that it could be revoked.

Council Member Kreun started there might be an evaluation on some of the issues that they may want to add to it, but that they have made progress since the last time that we issued the permit, did finish the fencing area and have some shrubbery and have cleaned up some of the areas around there, and if do ask them for stopgaps to continue in that mode, because making progress and want to see that continue.

Bill Schoen, Schoen & Associates, stated that the fence in place and if questioning it, should drive by and take a look at it, it is very expensive and in his opinion quite attractive, it is heavy duty and recycled material, and that they have tried to plant and will do more.

2.17 Request from Grand Forks Planning Department on behalf of City of Grand Forks for preliminary approval of ordinance relating to Comprehensive Plan, amending Chapter XVIII, Article 8, Comprehensive Plan; Section 18-0802, Elements, of Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, pertaining to the year 2035 Land Use Plan._________
Council Member Christensen reported that he and members of the Planning & Zoning spent lot of time on 2035 Land Use Plan and they are being asked to consider removing certain part of area in packet designated as future Office Park, and area designated as 3.2 and 3.3. Mr. Brooks reported area designated as 3.3 is property known as Amazon.com and is on the west side of 32nd Avenue South, and are proposing to change that from Office Park to Industrial; that area designated as 3.2 which is directly to the north and suggesting that go to Commercial and the Industrial Park expansion go into 3.1; and some of the main reasons for that was Office Park was going to be Clean Industrial but proposal that consultant coming forward with was expansion would be by conditional use permit and some of those things weren't really our intent , didn't want to have the industrial expansion be through conditional use permits, so some of the things they proposed to do as they get to that point with the zoning, leave it as industrial and put our restrictions on there that we talked about through the PUD process to keep it clean industrial and that leaves us flexibility to do that.

Mr. Christensen stated that we should take the areas called 3.3 Amazon plat, doesn't think it is appropriate to call it Industrial and when someone comes and goes to our website and tries to find where to site something in this community, would have these things zoned as Light Industrial Office Park or Commercial because wants it to be as open as possible when people are looking at this, and may have to create another classification of land use, don't want any restrictions on proposed developers, wants to entertain their ideas. Brooks stated if we go out 3.3-3 we have handcuffed them because Office Park is really a narrow definition. Christensen stated lets be creative and have a different definition as proposed uses, uses which would be such as Light Industrial, Office Park, Mixed Use, Commercial, open up and not be so restrictive so when someone drives along there - so that they can work with these people and come with some ideas.

Christensen stated mindful of another Industrial park developed about 78 miles to the south of us, and how they laid that park out - quite a nice park, warehousing and some offices, and if haven't seen it, should go to Fargo and look at it - that he wants to make sure that you can have as much flexibility when someone shows up. Brooks stated that is one of the reasons they are trying to be pro-active to the New Office Park since doesn’t seem to be going anywhere and trying to be pro-active, knew they were going to make the change for the Industrial park expansion and included this as well and are willing to have lots of discussion with people if we see it getting to that point. Christensen stated he wanted to make sure this is as flexible as possible.

3.1 Portfolio Management/Summary as of July 31, 2009.
Information only.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Bjerke asked for map of the LMI area in his packet.; and that because they are the destination city, would be happy tomorrow night from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. at Grand Forks County Courthouse at the first ever Grand Forks Tea Party to greet former Governor Schafer and also Secretary of Agriculture on your behalf. Map will be made available for all council members.

2) Council Member Gershman reported that weeds growing all over the entryway at the old Y-Family Center across from Central High, and would hope that the City would go in and get rid of them and assess the property owner, give them the opportunity to do it, looks horrible.
He also noted that he had heard a report this morning re. some cities where people are planting vegetable gardens in their front yards rather than backyards and look at our ordinances so that if somebody wants to plant a garden, it should be in their backyards. Mr. Kreun stated he would like to review what we have first - what constitutes mowing, etc. because we do have requirements - and take a look to see what we have on the books.

3) Council Member Christensen asked if we have ordinance relating to tax breaks for first time home owners, first $75,000, and to increase that to $150,000 as Legislature change the law eff. August 1. Mr. Swanson reported that was adopted by resolution and was aware there were changes and will review them with the Assessor's Office; however, Council Member Gershman stated that he has a report that he is ready to bring forward, that he met with Mr. Carsen about taking the City's exemptions and incentives to the State level, that we are very restrictive compared to what the State allows and would be an incentive program to put those in and would get that to the finance committee.

Council Member Christensen stated they have had issues at Planning & Zoning regarding residents showing up saying that they didn't want apartments being built in their neighborhood, etc. - would like to have an ordinance drafted that deals with platting and zoning and notice that in proposed subdivisions that area has to be signed as to what the subdivision is going to be, housing, apartments, etc.; that the owners has to make information available to the realtor that sells property and be provided to the buyer of the property - have process in place. Council Member Gershman stated that people need to get things in writing.

Council Member Kreun stated it would be good if we could require the selling property owner, realtor or owner, to divulge all that information but that information is out there and available, just depends on how realtor or attorney goes into that portion of it. He also noted that many times letter that are sent out and people still say they didn't know; and instances where it is the responsibility of people other than the City to give that information - that would be happy to work with them on that.

Council Member Christensen stated he agrees and only few people in town that actually have sufficient land to do any developing, but have had people come here that didn't know, easiest is to put a sign up in addition so people know what is going to come up around them - trying to make the public more aware and trying to preclude the problems from arising.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Bjerke that we adjourn. Carried 5 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,



Saroj Jerath
City Auditor