Council Minutes

Minutes of the Grand Forks City Council/Committee of the Whole
Monday, February 8, 2010 - 5:30 p.m.__________________________

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, February 8, 2010 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, Gershman, Kreun - 4 ; absent: Council Member Bakken - 1.

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:
Next Monday is a holiday with meeting to be held on Tuesday.
8 days until the State of the City Address, February 17.

2.1 Applications for exemption of remodeling improvements to commercial and/or residential buildings at various locations.
There were no comments.

2.2 Projects for 2nd Economic Stimulus Package.
There were no comments.

2.3 Create special assessment district for Project No. 6101, Dist. No. 642, paving S. 48th St. from 16th Ave.S. to 32nd Ave.S.
There were no comments.

2.4 Create special assessment district for Project No. 6101.4, Dist. No. 466, storm sewer and drainage on S. 48th St. from 17th Ave.S. to 32nd Ave.S.
There were no comments.

Council Member Christensen reported present.

2.5 Funding assistance request from Grand Forks Regional Airport Authority to reconstruct Airport Drive at the Grand Forks International Airport. _______
Council Member Bjerke stated he supported the new terminal, but has an issue with current items, that when they came up with the airport plan that they didn't know that they needed a road and have been approached in the Service/Safety Comm. for waterlines with possible city funding for that, and his conclusion is that information was kept from us or they increased plan. The Airport gets property taxes from taxpayers, potential revenue source for roadwork, and asked if they could special assess the properties, that he would vote to loan them money but not to give them money.

Council Member Gershman stated that nothing withheld from the city council, the airport Authority or the citizens. The motivating factor about this road is being driven by passenger ridership which has increased and that we have to make a jog in the road for more parking - not aware of waterline issue.

Al Grasser, city engineer, reported the issue of the waterline did come up in the initial shift of the road, and discussed whether to relocate lines, the solution they came up with was to shift the jog of the road over a little bit to avoid the waterlines, and the waterline will cross underneath in two locations but not an exceptional issue and think they have avoided the issue of replacing the waterline.

Bjerke stated there is an issue with the age of the waterlines. Mr. Feland stated the Airport Authority is the owner of the utilities and do have a main waterline that goes into the airport property and discussion that the City was going to formalize ownership of that line, line is probably approaching 40 years and when the City takes that over, there is a cost in the future that we would undertake with our normal watermain replacement project. He stated that the waterline doesn't have to be moved at this time but at some point in the future will have to be replaced.

Council Member Gershman thanked the County Commissioners for putting up $100,000 for Airport Drive and that if all the funding is not there, the Airport will back off and do what is necessary and the thing that is absolutely necessary is building the jog out so we have additional parking for customers - the City Finance/Development Comm. is recommending that the City match up to $50,000 of the $100,000 that the County is putting in and that this is shared ownership - this belongs to the citizens of Grand Forks and our region .

Council Member Christensen questioned source of money and lending the other $50,000. The city auditor reported that the source of funds is sales tax monies out of Infrastructure Fund #2169.

Mr. Bjerke stated staff report says that the existing roadway is over 50 years old and in poor condition, and jog or no jog, report states that is the reason why.

2.6 Bids for Project No. 6476, Shared Use Path on 42nd St., Federal Proj. No. STM-TEU-6-986(100)104.
Council Member Bjerke stated this is bikepath to nowhere and is an inappropriate funding source.

Council Member McNamara reported present.

2.7 Bids for Project No. 6425, Concrete Panel Replacement, Mill and Overlay and Incidentals on 13th Ave.S. (S. 20th St. to Cherry St.) Federal Proj. No. STM-SU-6-986(097)101.
There were no comments.

2.8 Bids for Project No. 6405, Concrete Panel Replacement, Pavement Marking and Mill and Overlay on Cherry St. (25th Ave.S. to 47th Ave.S.), Federal Proj. No. STM-SU-6-986(089)093.
There were no comments.

2.9 Introduction of revisions of Chapter XV of the Grand Forks City Code relating to Stormwater Management.
Council Member Christensen stated that we have to develop plan for working relationship with the owners of the real property that will be affected by the ordinance and try to develop certain areas where the owners of outlying properties would have a plan as to the water retention area rather than a number of small ponds or holding ponds. This was discussed at their committee meeting and encouraged the engineering department along with Planning and Zoning Department to bring some plans together either to committee or working session so that those who are going to develop the land will have understanding of what is expected of them as the land is being developed - that they were thinking of 40 acre areas or groupings or perhaps 160 but that Mr. Grasser and Mr. Gengler should meet with the outlying property owners to see how they feel before giving us any plans.

Council Member Kreun stated these are federal requirements filtered down through the state requirements and will add some cost to our development areas around the community, to the contractors and possibly the City - that they have had this brought to their committee several times and contractors are well aware of some of things that are going to be taking place under this ordinance and to help with what you are suggesting will be suggestions to the contractors between Planning and Zoning and engineering department, who will have the final say in the development process on which kind of stormwater retention management system they will use, can give them ideas and keep them informed as it is another unfunded mandate.

Mr. Swanson reported there will need to be a numbering change in the ordinance but will have no substantive effect - a revised draft was provided to the city engineer today.

Council Member Bjerke stated that the ordinance under 15-0607(2)d. Removal of Tracked Sediments and Debris, "The owners shall cause to be removed sediments transported or tracked from owner's land onto city streets…", and asked if could add "and sidewalks" because they drag it across the sidewalk before they get to the streets. He stated that our current city ordinance where 8% of the developer's area goes to the Park District, and that there will be a committee formed to look into this ordinance and effects of it and if they should look at doing something different there, keep 5% for the Park and 3% for ponds or 4 and 4, etc., purpose would be to keep from causing the developers to have to give up even more land on top of the 8% - and the commercial/industrial on the project will also have to set aside some land for these ponds, and in addition to that issue also need to look at the ponds whether dry or wet ponds, who will maintain those ponds and if the City maintains the ponds where will money come from. He hoped the committee would address those issues and try to keep cost of impact to the developers at minimum; and will have to work with the Park Board and as this is a city ordinance we can lower that 8% to a lower one if need to - try to keep it neutral for the developers.

Council Member Christensen stated it is time to look at that ordinance, the impact or effect that it was designed to have when enacted back in early 1970's - haven't seen a lot of parks developed as a result of the ordinance, but have seen people paying rather than giving the land to the Park District. He stated if going to have some larger holding areas of water that we would combine that concept and if we can have some larger areas set aside, combination park and wetlands and try to get some type of park development or water development areas in the 40 or 160 acre tract to be developed - maybe cause some extraterritorial difficulty f were to plan along those lines but should think about that within our two-mile jurisdiction as he thinks we have the ability and power to do that - shouldn't leave it up to the developers to tell us how they are going to do it, should set some development plans in those areas and force the development of those areas rather than hodge-podge development - should consider.

Council Member Kreun stated he didn't think we should restrict ourselves to looking at the full 8% to accomplish those goals, stated 3% and 5% but thinks the whole 8% should be looked at to see if we can accomplish goals both at the same time whether for recreation and/or holding ponds because some of the demonstrations that we have had can incorporate both, and when that comes about we should look at the full 8% or maybe can break it down but shouldn't restrict ourselves to 3%.

2.10 Request by police department for approval of specs. and sole source purchase of Lenco BearCat
There were no comments.

2.11 Outdoor firing range improvement project.
There were no comments.

2.12 Specifications for bomb squad quick response vehicle.
There were no comments.

2.13 Redevelopment of Civic Auditorium Parking Lot.
Council Member Bjerke stated City is not into the apartment building business and will be voting no next week.

Mr. Swanson stated the council has been provided with a draft project agreement but that will change substantially based upon his office's review and changes to it - have preliminary draft and will be forwarding to council members prior to Monday's meeting.

Mr. Gershman stated that the City is not building apartments, developers are, we are facilitating it. Mr. Hoover stated current estimate in these two projects will be approx. $10.5 million, and in 3.5 years will have $200,000 of additional property taxes being collected yearly, one-third goes to Schools. Win/win for the city and community and redevelopment of the downtown area.

2 14 Bids for rehabilitation of 430 S. 5th Street.
Council Member Bjerke stated he is not in the home buying and home restoration business and will be voting no. There were no other comments.

2.15 Request from Michael Marcotte for preliminary approval of plat of Shadyridge Estates Ninth Addn. (loc. on Desiree Drive).
There were no comments.

2.16 Request from Michael Marcotte for preliminary approval of ordinance to amend the zoning map to include within Shadyridge Estates PUD, Concept Dev. Plan, Amendment Number 5, all of Shadyridge Estates Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Addns., Greenwood Subdiv., unplatted portions of Section 26 and all those lands to be platted as Shadyridge Estates Ninth Addn. (loc in vicinity of Adams Dr. and Shadyridge Court).
There were no comments.

2.17 Petition from Michael Marcotte for ordinance to annex Shadyridge Estates Ninth Addn. (loc. on Desiree Drive)_
There were no comments.

2.18 Request from Bishop Michael Cole on behalf of Gospel Outreach Church for prelim. approval of ordinance to amend the zoning map to include within the Golden Valley PUD, Concept Dev. Plan, Amendment Number 4, Lot 1, Block 2, Aurora Plaza Addn., all of Amundson's Second Resubdiv., Nodak Resubdiv., Golden Valley First and Second Addns, Lots 3 and 4, Blk. 1, Aurora Plaza Addn. and Lot B, Blk. 1 of Replat of Lots 1 and 2, Blk. 1, Aurora Plaza Addn. (loc. at 2587 S. 42nd St.)_____
There were no comments.

2.19 Request from Bishop Cole on behalf of Gospel Outreach Church to annex parts of Lot B, Blk. 1, Aurora Plaza Addn., not previously annexed to the city (loc. at 2587 S. 42nd St.)____
There were no comments.

2.20 PSAP director update.
Council Member Bjerke stated he is having some problems with accountability issues, that 75 to 80% of the County lives within the city limits, UND is within the city limits and majority of funding is in city limits, employees of 911 Center are city employees but director will not be a city employee. He doesn't think we have an independent PSAP, everything is the City's except for the director who reports to the Board. That we have groups, boards, committees that meet that want to be autonomous until it is time to get money - if the money stops here then the buck stops here - not happy as things are going and seeing too many things come forward where he's out of the loop - can't make all the meetings - and needs to have the minutes and needs to know what is going on, and should have more oversight and more information - that if taxpayers are paying for it, the stewards of the taxpayers money are the 7 people sitting here.

3. INFORMATION ITEMS

3.1 Portfolio Management/Summary as of January 31, 2010.
Information only.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Christensen stated after receiving report in their packets several weeks ago from the Coalition and some discussion re. indoor smoking regulations, time that we address this as a council or a community, and asked for scheduling or process if this were put to a vote of the people and be placed on the June ballot. Mr. Swanson stated generally cannot call special elections and meet the requirements for anything less than 60 days - that June election is a scheduled election with actual deadlines established and would rather have chance to give formal dates. Mr. Christensen asked Mr. Swanson if he would give council a capsulated report on Monday next so council can decide whether have a working session or refer to joint working session of committees to move this along or make a decision as a council - have 3 choices - do nothing, do something or have a vote - but should do something with it because there is a strong interest or a large majority of the community would like something done and should address it. He asked that this matter be added to the agenda next week.

2) Council Member Kreun stated because of the holiday next Monday, that Service/Safety Committee will meet on Tuesday at 3:30 p.m. prior to the city council meeting if not a problem with staff.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Bjerke and seconded by Council Member Gershman that we adjourn. Carried 6 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,


Saroj Jerath
City Auditor