Council Minutes

Minutes of Grand Forks City Council/Committee of the
Whole - Monday, January 8, 2007 ­­­­­_______________

The city council of the city of Grand Forks sitting as the Committee of the Whole met in the council chambers in City Hall on Monday, January 8, 2007 at the hour of 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, McNamara, Gershman, Christensen, Kreun - 5; absent: Council Members Glassheim, Bakken - 2.

Mayor Brown commented on various events during the past week and upcoming events:
He reminded council members to turn off their microphones when not speaking and will help the sound to the viewers at home and show respect for those here.
This Wednesday there is an important meeting at 4:00 p.m. with regional landfill partners, letters were sent inviting officials and staff from communities around the region to talk about where we are today and what plans are for the future and is looking for a good presentation with Mr. Feland and discussion.
He thanked crew at the street department for the excellent work they have been doing this season and great group of employees and have our appreciation.

1.3 Howard Swanson, city attorney, asked the council to add item to the agenda, the matter of
authorizing to enter into settlement agreement that came about as part of a mediation settlement
held last Friday and under procedural rules does take a unanimous vote to add that, and that he
has given previous correspondence on the matter.

It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Gershman to add
this item to the committee agenda. Carried 5 votes affirmative. This item will be added as last
item of the agenda.

2.1 Application for Class 4 (Food and Beverage Establishment) license by Texas Roadhouse Holdings, LLC dba Texas Roadhouse, 3200 32nd Avenue South.
There were no comments.

2.2 Application for abatement for 2005 taxes by Raymond and Dorothy Spicer, 1708 2nd Avenue North.____________________________________________ taking advantage of this program and updating their homes, tax base will go up.

2.3 Applications for exemption of remodeling improvements to commercial and residential buildings._______________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.4 Budget amendment, Fire Department.
2.5 Request to accept bids for police vehicles.
2.6 Gateway Drive entry feature. and their committee for the work they have done on this. He stated he had some questions and concerns about what was being proposed, that the original design came from engineers and by an architectural class at NDSU but thinks the City of Grand Forks could have done it differently, He stated he didn't feel this had a Grand Forks perspective and in attending meeting of committee found that some of the committee members were concerned about it and felt that the engineering firm came with one designed and worked on variations off of that and didn't have opportunity to see more than that, and wanted to bring this before council for additional discussion. The choices are to accept this, which he would vote against, and the other is that we could go out for additional requests for proposals, but thinks perspective could be improved upon and need more alternatives for committee to look at.

Greg Hoover, Urban Development, stated the City initially came forward with this as concept and eventually was put on the DOT list through the MPO , that the DOT had indicated that they would do this as a part of a project and this is now a DOT project, not a City of Grand Forks project, and are under the DOT's processes. He stated they have been told by the District Engineer that we are not in any jeopardy of losing the funds but have to understand that DOT has always used NDSU to do these designs for the entry features, etc.; that the DOT secured an architect who put together some of this information based on the original concept that we had, and were following their own procedures. He stated the council would have some options: can decide to go forward as proposed but some people were concerned that the concept didn't have a lot of different variations; can let it slide; or go to next year if we solicit input from local architects, and if do that we are going to have to pay additional costs (cannot give estimate of what that would be). DOT has put $120,000 into this and have also paid for the design and engineering, and if have somebody come in and do new concept, they will have to provide that concept without any sense of ownership or remuneration and in the future they would have to work with DOT on the details of their concept.

Council Member Gershman stated in memo he received from Mr. Hoover and Meridith Richards that if we moved quickly for request for proposals we could possibly have something by February and get done this year; but if do it and possibly costs the City some money to get it right, and could get it done this year if the council decided next week to move quickly on a new request for proposals. He stated it was commendable for the DOT to allow the funds to remain and allow us to go through this.

Mr. Hoover stated that is a possibility, but if the council believes that this is not the right concept to pursue, would suggest that they take their time, but if majority of council believes it is would ask that they direct the committee to go back and finalize details with the engineering firm.

Council Member Brooks stated this committee was formed two and one half years ago, people serving on the committee are business owners along Gateway Drive, that they have been meeting and great deal of discussion re. this entry feature, and along with this is another issue, the salvage yards, and are continuing to work on that. He stated that they have finally made some progress to clean up Gateway Drive, entryway to the city, and may wear out before they get the whole thing cleaned up and get an entryway that everyone will be content with. He stated the committee would like to hear from council is if don't like what is here, understand and give them some guidelines about what they want to do, that the committee will go back and step up meetings so get this moving because it has been a long process and they are anxious to get something done, and are looking for input and direction to do this as cost effectively as possible.

Steve Johnson, chairman of the Gateway Committee, stated that it is the consensus of the committee that they pose no objection to going back and possibly bringing in additional designs, that their biggest concerns were that it be done in a timely manner and if have to backtrack with the engineering firm and go back to public comment and through design review, etc. that the money not come out of the original grant that they received from DOT, that council pick up the additional costs of taking reverse steps if they go back and get additional designs to consider, and the consensus of the committee was that rather do it right given those considerations. He also stated that they are not the same committee they were 2 1/2 years ago when started but only half the same members that when this original design came through and may not have 100% unanimity in this design when first started.

Meridith Richardson, Urban Development, stated that the original concept was included in the packet and was presented to the committee in October, 2004, from the Park District horticulturalist, concept for this is a prairie rock garden and basis is when not have fertile soil do with mounding, boulders, hearty native plants and trees and in this location it is important to have a large feature, break up the open prairie, created gateway feel and entry feature that will make an impact to traffic that is still going at a very high rate of speed. The background behind this as a concept was early maintenance, high impact, large scale and easily duplicated in terms of prairie garden rock concept, and if wanted to have a series of these from 55th or where the entry feature is all the way to the airport, was the idea behind it, and while there was never a formal proposal to develop this concept, the committee was very responsive to this and what it brought. That when the consultant came on board, they were not attempting to come up with a new concept but trying to help the committee make decisions on key part of this concept, such as materials, etc. The committee is open to continuing with this as a concept, or to go out for additional concepts but would really like to see something get in the ground.

Council Member Christensen stated that we should find out by Monday how much money has been used of the $120,000 for design, because that is something we will have to pick up.

Ms. Richardson stated the budget as established is $150,000 for construction and the $120,000 share by the DOT is still there for construction, the design work that has been contracted is out of a different budget, any additional costs that are incurred due to new concepts or redesign would be the City's responsibility and would be up to the council to allocate a funding source and approve expending the funds, but the construction cost has not been touched and will not be touched.

Council Member Christensen stated he was not inclined to throw this out, not concerned if lose this construction season on this if haven't lost the money but is more concerned that we put something up that will give rise to some degree of community pride and try to get some community involvement; is inclined to see what we can get done and this group could contact all our architectural firms asking for a design with costs not to exceed and their best estimate; and if postpone for several weeks at the next meeting, and if doesn't work, then go with what have.

2.7 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Grand Forks Park District and City of Grand Forks for preliminary approval of plat of Riverside Park Resubdiv. (loc. at Park Ave. between N. 3rd St. and Lewis Blvd.)___________________
2.8 Request from CPS, Ltd on behalf of Grand Forks Park District and City of Grand Forks for preliminary approval of plat of Central Park Resubdiv. (loc. at S. 3rd Street and Elm Avenue)._______________________________ 2.9 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Grand Forks Park District and City of Grand Forks for preliminary approval of plat of Lincoln Park Golf Course Resubdiv. (loc. between 1300 and 2300 Belmont Rd.)____________________ 2.10 Request from Planning Dept. on behalf of the City of Grand Forks, ND for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the text of the Land Development Code, Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, amending Section 18-0206 A-1 (Limited Development) Dist. and Section 18-0207 A-2 (Agricultural Reserve) Dist.________________________ 2.11 Request from Planning Department on behalf of City of Grand Forks for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the text of the Land Development Code, Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, amending Article 9, Subdivision Regulations__________________
There were no comments.

2.12 Request from Planning Department on behalf of City of Grand Forks for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the zoning map as it relates to the extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction._____________________________
2.13 Proposed settlement agreement in BDT/LPH vs. City of Grand Forks and PKG Contracting. (The Grand Forks City Council may adjourn into executive session pursuant to N.D.C.C. 44-04-19.2 for attorney consultation and or to discuss negotiating strategy or provide negotiating instructions to its attorney or other negotiator.)_____________________________________
There were no comments by either the city attorney or city council.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Christensen asked that the following items be scheduled for a finance/development standby committee:
a) Review of memo received from Urban Development re. the development of the remaining infill lots the City owns, discussion of process re. development of lots between Belmont Road and Walnut, from 14th or 15th to 17th Aves.S.
b) Review of Brownstone I, discussion and review of status of University Avenue project north of Knights of Columbus and start discussion on Phase II of Brownstones.
c) Review with Urban/Finance combined with Service/Safety of repair of streets damaged because of dike construction, received information 6 or 7 months ago and that some of this work has been done and staff gave us map showing location, and asked Mr. Grasser to get joint meeting and begin scheduling and put out bids this summer so finish up dike, so know what we have left in our construction funds for the dike and determine funding if need additional money.
d) Review by Finance/Development Comm. of the employee pay for performance process that was put into place 3 years ago, and would like to be updated as to how that works, how it has been working and how passing out the funds for the performance, and how department heads are putting together their review process so that those that those that are doing A work are getting compensated and have curve of some sort so that the A players are getting more than C players. He stated as part of that he would like to begin the review of everybody's benefits and that we can do more for our staff if we try to develop some type of employee savings account for health care, or use part of premium back into their pocket or match for 401K.
e) Begin working on CIP for the next 3 to 5 years and start on that this month, with weekly meetings before budget and give staff direction and give the city council opportunity for input for projects the council feels would be important.

2) Council Member Kreun reported that the council will get information re. server training ordinance that was discussed by Service/Safety Standby Comm. and came to resolution and will be in packets for the next committee of the whole. Service/Safety Comm. will meet on January 17 re. noise ordinance and will try to schedule Tuesdays after council meetings as their meeting date, another meeting scheduled for February 21,
but will keep council informed.

3) Council Member Gershman requested report on recycling to see if increasing and
need to keep that in front of the public.

ADJOURN

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

Respectfully submitted,



John M. Schmisek
City Auditor