Council Minutes

Minutes of Grand Forks City Council/Committee of the Whole
Monday, October 22 2007 - 5:30 p.m.___________________

The City Council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, October 22, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in City Hall with President Gershman presiding. Present Council Members Brooks, McNamara, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Bakken, Kreun - 7.

President Gershman commented on events during the past week and upcoming events:
That drive through flu shot clinic was success, 509 people were vaccinated at the public works building, and that those that didn't get a chance to participate can either see their personal physician or at public health department which is located on third floor of the Grand Forks County Office Building.
The vacuum leaf collection project continues, city crews plan to make at least two complete passes of the community, weather permitting, and leaves should be placed in loose piles on the berm or can be dropped off at sites listed in the city calendar.
Congratulations to Sgt. Harlan Jensen who is retiring from the Grand Forks Police Department after nearly 30 years of service, he will be honored at a retirement party on Friday, October 26, at 11:30 a.m.
A promotional ceremony will be held on Monday, October 29, at 3:00 p.m. to congratulate the newest sergeant, Brett Johnson, a formal swearing in and reception will take place in the Grand Forks Police Department conference room on main level.
Next Monday is fifth Monday and no city council meeting, next meeting of the city council is November 4, 2007.

2.1 Budget Amendment - Adjust budget to no longer transfer funds from Loan & Stabilization to General Fund for DB pension payment as originally budgeted.
There were no comments.

2.2 Adoption of Findings regarding protests against special assessments for Projects #6012 (sanitary sewer) and #6013 (water).________________________________
There were no comments.

2.3 Plans and specifications for Project No. 6241, Dist. No. 459, sanitary sewer for McEnroe 1st Addn. (Garden View Drive)._______________________________
2.4 Plans and specifications for Project No. 6242, Dist. No. 299, watermain for McEnroe 1st Addn. (Garden View Drive).____________________________________________
2.5 Plans and specifications for Project No. 6243, Dist. No. 460, storm sewer for McEnroe 1st Addn. (Garden View Drive). _____________________________
There were no comments. re. these items.

2.6 Matter of request from Planning and Engineering Department for approval of modifications for submittal to the MPO to amend the 2008 MPO Work Program.
There were no comments.

2.7 Engineer's Report for Project No. 6179, Safe Kids Coalition, ND Dept. of Transportation/Safe Routes to School Grant Application. ______________
Council Member Glassheim reported that at neighborhood meetings there was concern
expressed about the difficulty of crossing Washington from east side going to Winship School, and asked if there were some education funds or person guard or blinking light that could be included in this application. He noted there is a curve on Washington Street at 8th or 9th Avenues, and some concern about kids going to school from the east side crossing Washington, that there is a traffic light at 5th but is longer distance to go to 5th and asked if this could be looked at to see whether how many kids cross or what could enhance safety of kids crossing there. It was also noted that the curve bordered by RR tracks and no sidewalks on the east side, but are on the west side of Washington.

2.8 2009 Transportation Enhancement Project Application.
There were no comments.

2.9 2009-2013 Urban and Regional Program Project request to NDDOT.
John Thompson reported this item had been brought to Service/Safety Comm. and
was approved for council's review; that he has made several changes which are shown on the sheet that he passed out to council members this evening and should replace the sheet that is included in the staff report. He noted there were changes in the construction cost and modified all costs as they progressed through the spreadsheet; that they received some bids recently on similar work and had to increase project from approx. $1.56 million to $2.7 million; that Lift Station 87 rehab. costs went from $260,000 to $540,000, regional part of that project is $1.3 million and increased to $2.2 million. Kreun stated that the 2009 monies are stable but if get into 2011 and 2012 they will change over period of time as the State's agenda changes; that this is a guide, except for the 2009, and wanted to make sure council had the changes.

Mr. Thompson stated one impact this may have is to move the Cherry Street project or another project to a later year as State's cash balance is impacted by this million dollars, they are indicating they will shift the funds to the regional side so majority of increase will be covered by State funds. He stated their plan is to leave the priorities as shown on the spreadsheet in order and State will make changes depending on their cash flow.

2.10 Bids for Projects No. 6174.1 and No. 6174.2, Dist. No. 458, Rehabilitate Storm Pump Stations No. 182 and No. 188 (structure modifications bid package)._____________
Mark Walker, asst. city engineer, reported that the bids received on the first bid package
of this storm sewer lift station rehabilitation project were higher than the engineer's estimate by about 26% higher, and believe that the increase is due to inflations they have seen in the construction industry, as well as it is very difficult to estimate rehabilitation project; that they are concerned about the cost increases, because letters were sent out to property owners indicating what their expected assessments might be, and with these bids coming in were going to exceed the highest amount that was given in the cost range. He noted that they have been working with the low bidders on this project and that they along with WFW, design engineer, have discussed potential ways of amending construction features or eliminating features of the project that could reduce the project costs within the range of the assessments that were given to the property owners. He stated he doesn't have detail as to what features they can eliminate but intention would be that before the next council meeting before this project is awarded, would give a short report of what features might eliminate and what cost savings could gain by doing that. He stated their recommendation will be to proceed with this project and that any cost measures they are able to identify under this bid package would be handled by deduct change order. He stated the next bid package for this project, which is the underground portion, is coming to council next month for consideration of award of bids, have looked at that project and reduced some of those project expenditures, and that can reduce the project costs within the range given to the property owners.

Council Member Bakken stated that in doing this his concern would be the integrity of the project, need to look at the cost in the future on things that forego today, and maybe more expensive in the future than today, and look at both sides of it.

Council Member Christensen stated that if the City were to award these bids for the full bid amount, concern that those that weren't awarded the bid didn’t know that there might be some change orders or eliminating certain things out of the project, and that before doing that to get an opinion from the city attorney that we are not going to be accused of engaging in negotiations with the successful bidders after the project as there is a Supreme Court case that says "thou shalt not do that", and suggested awarding the bids and move on.

Mr. Walker stated they will review their intentions with the city attorney's office, and the biggest dollar amount that they are proposing is going to be in the upcoming bid package that hasn't been bid yet and that the things they are looking at amending are not things that have a significant decrease in the funtionability of the pump station, one of things suggested was different techniques in installing some of the features of the pump stations, can still accomplish the same thing but a different way of doing it than what was originally intended by the construction bids.

There was some discussion re. difference in the amount of assessment of an average property (70'x140'); engineer's estimate was between $2 and $2.2 million and combination of lowest bids for General, Mechanical and Electrical came in a little above $2.5 million, which was about 26% increase. Estimated costs sent to property owners were based on the engineer's estimate ands ran from $650 to $950 over 20 year period.

Council Member Kreun suggested that Mr. Walker come back with some of his recommendations to see what effect it would have on the project, and agreed that we don't want to take the integrity away from this project and not make a decision until taking that into consideration. It was also noted that this project is time sensitive and has to be completed by spring thaw next year when run-off starts.

There was also some discussions as to variance that approaches 25% in engineer's estimate and the bid price; and it was noted that staff speculated that numbers were originally too low to begin with and in looking at projects of this nature and utilizing numbers of previous projects, that it is easier to estimate a new project, one that has established unit prices per lineal foot than a rehab. project.

2.11 Engineering Services agreement with CPS, Ltd. for Project No. 6240, Phase VIII Landfill Closure______________________________________________________.
There were no comments.

2.12 City Council Structure.
Council Member Brooks stated that after last week's discussion would look at this, hear
any input and bring it to the council meeting which is next week, and that with everything that we have now, no reason for all those meetings; that there soon will be another election coming on and people will look to see if they can commit that much time. He stated in the past 10 years gone from the council committees to the committee of the whole, and also with work sessions, etc., thinks had good system going with the standing committees, and things going to them before they come forward and might have to tweak that a little because then had 4 committees and larger council but that doesn't mean we can't look at that.

President Gershman stated it is appropriate for us to be talking about this as every 5 years we need to meet as a council under the NDCC to revisit our structure. He stated there is assumption that we have too many meetings but we start the month on a Monday with a committee of the whole meeting, that the following week have a city council meeting, and after the city council meetings the Service/Safety Comm. will meet on Tuesday every other week, and the Finance/Dev. Comm. will meet on Wednesday at noon and if no significant issues to discuss, they will not meet, and there is a known time, and we are moving to formalize that, and that is our formal meeting structure, and that doesn't seem like a lot and does take time but knew that when we ran, also council members have different portfolios (i.e., library, airport, public health, Growth Fund, etc.) that meet once a month. Today had a discussion about selection process of items that come before those committees, usually controversial or complicated issues, where staff has a chance to discuss in a more informal setting to flush out and try out what they want to bring to committee of the whole, and more comfortable for public. He stated he would recommend that this go to a work session and suggested that the work sessions, if needed, take place on the week that we have committee of the whole meetings. He asked for further discussion.

There were suggestions by council members:
Council Member Glassheim suggested have more clarity on what will go to what, and what trying to accomplish, one kind of meeting broad policy discussion without details, that council meeting is final vote and we don't have too much discussion or explanation for the public, doesn't know if want to take more time for the public and explain each item as it is going through for final vote, would add about an hour to the meeting but question is whether want to have staff explain each item, and that is question has for discussion, staff explains each item, doesn't need discussion if no controversy.

Council Member Christensen stated he is interested in hearing from the council who are raising the issues and asking questions, he read report that there was one meeting per month for the finance/development committee and 1.5 for standby safety committee and asked what is wrong with the existing system, when dealing with budget have work sessions, which were set at 4:00 p.m., doesn't know what is a better time, and before codifying that would like to know why changing that which exists and how will it become better. He suggested that the finance committee should meet at least quarterly to review where we are at, that he will participate in anything and will go by what the majority wants to do but not sure we need to change anything at this point and has been working rather well and the meeting structure has evolved based upon the people who are here, what their schedules are and suggested we get into a work session and try to figure it out and if something has to change, we will change it.

Council Member Brooks stated they talked about how bring items forward from staff and formulate them into proposal, get reviewed and finally to council for a vote, but what trying to address here is to set policy, and how many committees and how many meetings and times do we discuss before we finally vote on the, set policy and not supposed to be micromanaging.

Council Member McNamara stated he would agree with quarterly meetings, and experience when we begin the work sessions, and would help us to identify problems as we progress the course of the year, and identify things that they need the finance committee to take a look at, and give them more of a common view of the city financially and would benefit them all as they get near budget time. That most of his experience here is relative to committees is the service/safety comm. and meet on a fairly regular basis, is comfortable with the knowledge he has of the complex project the City undertakes, and when they bring those items to the committee of the whole they know that there are certain things to bring out, certain things want the public to know, and thinks those are good things because those are complex issues and are able to build fuller picture for constituents and for the citizens, and would recommend that to the finance committee is that they would begin to work like the safety/service committee on a regular basis to make sure that those things that are going to come to the council, financial in nature, have been looked at, beat up and come here the same way that Mr. Kreun's committee brings stuff for safety/service, and thinks we owe the public more specialized knowledge and greater scrutiny in financial part of it and certainly the safety/service aspects with the large ticket items and complexity of those things certainly merit that, and would hope that the finance committee would meet on a regular basis and also do the quarterly meetings.

Council Member Bakken stated that nobody wants to say to do away with the cow, and not saying we should do away with it 100% but not sure we need it 100% either, and if watched the last committee of the whole meetings we have gone through, the information that the public has got out of it has been minimal, and we have 16 staff members here tonight. He stated he is not a big fan of work sessions and thinks we could combine work sessions and the committee of the whole, if need work session make it a COW and have it at night when everybody is here. That he thinks the two committees, finance and safety, do a very good job, and sometimes items that are dual to bring it to the committee of the whole and discuss it at one time in front of the public; still have our committees and if cut back on one per month and have 16 staff members not being committed here every night and has talked to some of the public and they are not getting much information out of this, except when we discuss a controversial item, and if controversial items bring to the committee of the whole for discussion as needed.

Council Member Christensen stated that the last 3 council meetings a majority of the materials has been Planning and Zoning approvals, and that we have to rethink our Planning and Zoning process so once the Planning and Zoning group says that it is okay, doesn't have to come to us for approval, only appeals, that P & Z staff is very good and we get good information; that P & Z has 13 people looking at items, and don't need another 7, but don't get too many appeals, so we can discuss these things but we should get this in a work session and have a lot of good ideas that we could put together and try to take it for the next 12 months to see how that works.

Council Member Glassheim stated that they need the city attorney to check Planning and Zoning items, thinks council has to have the final say, and even if we don't discuss it, mostly take P & Z's recommendation but has to be a place where people can come as we are setting forth terms of how they can use their property and that is significant. Mr. Christensen stated that planning staff can give us a recommendation, with city attorney's concurrence, as to what we would or wouldn't address..

Council Member Kreun stated that one of the things that the COW does is that we do read every agenda item at their meeting, so the information is given to the public and if people watching should trigger their interest; at city council we have a consent agenda and only the items that are pulled get the full discussion, but we do bring forth every single item to the public through the news media and our websites of what is on our agenda, and that perhaps staff has some ideas. He stated if we can reduce the meeting but still want the public to stay informed and our standby committees is that the public feels more comfortable coming to those scenarios than they do at a COW meeting , and that is why the standby committees work very well.


President Gershman stated he is committed to this but will keep an open mind, and that he and Mr. Duquette will meet and pick a time for a work session and bring it back here.

ADJOURN

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

Respectfully submitted,



John M. Schmisek
City Auditor