Print VersionStay Informed
MINUTES/SAFETY-SERVICE STANDBY COMMITTEE
Tuesday, December 10, 2002 – 4:30 p.m.

Members Present: Kreun, Kerrian
Members Absent: Brooks

Others Attending: Gershman, Glassheim, Bev Collings, Wally Helland, Don Shields, Saroj Jerath, Cindy Voigt, Scott Zainhofsky.

Chairman Kreun stated that the committee will be altering the agenda order, to allow for discussion of agenda item #2 first.

2. Ordinance amending Sections 13-0701, 13-0703 and 13-0706 of the Grand Forks City Code relating to junk, abandoned vehicles, building materials, etc.

Chairman Kreun asked Ms. Collings to give a brief overview of the reason that this item was before the committee and the outcome that was needed. Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator, stated that there are two separate ordinances for discussion. This item was generated through citizen complaints and trying to improve the ordinances that are in existence to help clean up some properties in the City. She stated that one item that is missing is the storage of items in cars or vehicles. The reason is that there was no clear way to define it at the present time under the legal rules that must be followed. She stated that they are continuing to work with Howard Swanson, City Attorney, and his staff on looking for ways to define this, but thus far have not been able to find any terminology that will work. They are looking at storage both in a vehicle, as well as in a trailer or pickup/truck box. They have looked at trying to set dimensions – such as not more than two feet above the cab of the truck, etc., but have not found something that will work for most of the situations that they have been dealing with. Also, in looking at limits, you run into the case of having to judge between what is legitimate short term use vs. junk vs. a neighborhood harassment situation. Glassheim stated that normally there is not a complaint if it is a day or even two, and inquired why a limit of say five days or so could not be imposed on certain types of storage. Wally Helland, of the Health Department inquired whether since we have defined junk very well in one ordinance, that we then could apply that in the next and say that no “junk” can be stored in a vehicle/trailer.

Chairman Kreun stated that perhaps we need to work through the junk definition ordinance first. He inquired whether Mr. Swanson had reviewed this definition and if he is in agreement that this is enforceable. Ms. Collings stated that the main change is they have added the highlighted items – damaged or deteriorated campers, boats, snowmobiles, motorcycles, or other personal water craft. Gershman inquired about cast off materials – i.e. black dirt that has been brought in for work to be done in a few weeks. He wondered whether a time limit should be in place to give a guidelines. Ms. Collings stated that her department works with any one that they receive a complaint on and if you can give them a timeline and you really are working to complete a project, there isn’t a problem. Mr. Helland stated that the Health Department will investigate a complaint within 24 hours, and usually they are able to work out a solution with the individual. They also send a written notice that states they have 48 hours to remedy the situation. This would be followed by a certified notification. If there is still no response, they will file in Municipal Court. The Court will then send them a notice to appear. Mr. Helland stated that what also needs to be looked at is that the court can only fine them, but can not force them to clean it up. There are some individuals that will pay the fine and not do anything to clean it up. We need to look at trying to find a way to work on that aspect in the code.

Chairman Kreun stated that in regards to the definition of junk if staff is satisfied that the changes will accomplish what is necessary it should move forward. Ms. Collings and Mr. Helland both reiterated that the terminology used in the ordinance and the language is in line with that used by other municipalities throughout the state. The committee discussion changing personal water craft to personal water craft/Bicycles/ATVs. Glassheim recommended changing to a semicolon after appliances, and ATVs.

Ms. Collings distributed to the Committee a Synopsis of Complaint process for their review. She noted that there was a minor change made in item one – that being changing the word department to City, and adding a sentence that states the complaint may be handled by either the health or inspection department as appropriate.

Kerian moved that the ordinance be approved as discussed. Kreun seconded the motion. Aye:All. Motion Carried.

Chairman Kreun stated that the committee now needed to look at the other ordinance in relation to “junk” which dealt with trying to define how much and what type of storage is appropriate. Ms. Collings stated that this has become a lot harder than anticipated. Due to the difference in lots three may be too many for one property, but not for another. They have looked at using a square footage measurement, but again with some irregular lots, this doesn’t work well either. Chairman Kreun stated that what the committee is trying to address is the case where there are numerous old vehicles, boats, campers, etc in a yard that have not been used for years. He said the committee is not trying to impose a hardship on a family with a couple of teen drivers that may have four vehicles, as well as a boat and camper that they regularly use. Gershman stated that the definition of junk that has been expanded may now help in dealing with this. Ms. Collings stated that they had discussed adding this to ordinance 13-0701, but Howard had some reservations. She stated that Mr. Swanson states that there is a fine line between what can and can not be legislated. Don Shields, Director of Public Health, stated that he would recommend if the committee desires to try and eliminate the ability of individuals to use vehicles as storage that it be done in the prior ordinance and that Mr. Swanson could then look at it and respond as to why it is or is not appropriate. Ms. Collings stated that she would like to add this type of restriction to the code, but has been told in the past that it is too open.

Kreun motioned to make an amendment to ordinance 13-0701 to add an item (2) which prohibits the storage of junk in vehicles. Second by Kerian. Aye: All. Motion Carried.

Ms. Collings stated that Mr. Swanson is in the process of drafting wording that will include percentages and numbers of units to be used as limits for the number of items that can be stored on different size lots. Kerian asked that the wording be clarified to include that storage in a garage or enclosed structure be clarified. Chairman Kreun asked Ms. Collings to briefly review what the committee had worked on at the last meeting in regards to this item. She stated that the committee was seeking to look at regulations storage of items – i.e. boats, motorcycles, personal watercraft, snowmobiles, rvs, stored in the rear yard of properties and the percentage of the rear yard that could be used. The number that would be allowed would be a percent with a not to exceed a certain number of items, with differing amounts depending on the size of the yard. At the prior meeting the committee had looked at 3-5 units with a preference for 5, but again not to exceed a certain percent depending on the size of the lot.

Chairman Kreun stated that this ordinance may need to be tabled until a more detailed draft is available from Mr. Swanson. The Committee discussed a situation with a rental property on North 3rd Street. This is a case where the size of the lot versus the number of parking spaces that is listed in code for the rental would conflict. Ms. Collings stated that
this new ordinance will not help in this case since the property would be grandfathered in.

Ms. Collings stated that that property does have a valid certificate of occupancy and whether or not he has any tenants he has to have the spaces. She stated that in this case they also have a guilty conviction on the owner. The Committee inquired as to what the penalty was. Ms. Collings stated that there was no penalty, it was suspended. Glassheim stated that now there is also a problem with the same property with storage in the side yard. Ms. Collings stated that in R1 & R2 the code already states that you can only have front yard 40% covered with parked vehicles, paved or unpaved. She stated that what they are working on now will be something similar for the side and back yard.

Chairman Kreun stated that they would invite Mr. Glassheim when the draft has been completed by Mr. Swanson. The ordinances should be held and brought back to Council together. He recommended that Mr. Swanson be consulted to determine the timeline for completing the ordinance.

1. Connection Fee Policy.

Cindy Voigt, Assistant City Engineer, stated that this item was brought to committee to determine whether or not it was possible to go back and special assess the old projects that have been done previously without any further Council approval and prior to the new policy being approved. She stated that these costs would be handled differently in the future so that there will not be any new connection fees. She stated that they need direction from Council as to how they would like these handled so that whether a code change or a policy change is needed and whichever is needed can proceed so that the old projects can be brought through and completed as soon as possible. Ms. Voigt stated that these are all old existing projects that we just need to start collecting money on. She has had some cases already this year of property owners not being aware of some of these fees that are due from their property. There is a bulleted list of items that need action and she would like to proceed through each one.

The first item deals with a means to notify property owners that there is an outstanding fee on a property. She stated that the best way would be to record a document at the County so that it would show up in a title search. Kerian stated that this may be addressed in proposed state legislation. Voigt stated that that case was on special assessments, and did not affect tapping fees at all. She stated that what they would like to do is put a notice so that people would see there was a fee of some type due the City and would show up when the PUD was being developed, as well as in a title search. Cindy stated that we would need to follow through with Swanson and make sure that we recorded it so that the fee notice would follow all the way through so that the residential purchaser gets the notice prior to closing. Ms. Collings stated that the problem they encounter frequently is that the developer is aware of the fee, but doesn’t pass the information on to the buyer. We need to work on a way to get the information out so that purchasers know in case the developer doesn’t follow through with notification.

The seller is supposed to disclose as part of the closing process any costs that are owing on the property that they are aware of and if they do not then the buyer can go back to the seller to reclaim those costs. Ms. Collings explained that the City still gets blamed by the buyer when the seller neglects to tell them of a fee and we are looking for a way to make the information more accessible. Voigt stated that the best way still seems to be to develop a document that could be attached at the County level so that at the time the property changes hands it would be brought out.

Kerian moved that the Committee ask the City Attorney and the Engineering Department to draft a document for the County that will be presented to the Committee to review. Second by Kreun. Aye:all. Motion Carried.

Voigt stated that the second bullet deals with the current policy that the City allows someone to pay their connection fee over a 30 year period. If it is the Council’s decision to no longer allow this, then a code change is required. Collings stated that a sewer connection fee can be spread over 15 years. There have been other lagoon fees that were allowed to be financed over longer periods of time. Voigt stated that terminology in regards to these fees has been part of the problem and she is recommending action in a later bullet to clearly define the terms that refer to each fee. Saroj Jerath, Assistant Director of Finance, stated that currently we are financing for people the 15 year sewer connection fee. Collings stated that the financing of these fees poses problems in that the interest is 12%, which for the property owner is not a good rate in today’s market, and the fee has to be over $1,000 to be eligible. Also, the individual pays 1/15th up front with the permit. Then the next years payment has to be collected by the Finance Department, and if there is a problem collecting we have little leverage and have in some cases had to special assess the property. Kreun inquired as to the average fee. Collings stated that for an average residential home, the charge is about $350 and not eligible, but for commercial developments the rate can vary and run into the thousands. Kerian inquired as to how often this is used. Collings stated that it is very seldom used, and usually only for townhouse developments. Kreun stated that if this is the case, then perhaps the code should be changed to no longer allow this. Collings and Voigt both felt that developers would be accepting of this policy being eliminated. Kreun asked whether Voigt and Colings could work on coming up with definitions and appropriate terminology that would help to lessen the confusion on the fees that are existing.

Kerian moved that a code and/or policy changes to remove the 15 year connection fee financing and for staff to find appropriate wording to describe remaining fees. Second by Kreun. Aye: All. Motion carried.

Voigt stated that the next item requiring action relates to the fee payment by developers and when fees are payable. The main concern is when does the City want the developer to pay, all up front at time of first connection to the system, on a lot by lot basis, all up front prior to an excavation permit being given, within so many days of a connection or permit being issued, prior to the three-way agreement, so many days after the three-way agreement, before the project is certified, etc. She stated that staff is trying to allow for easier fee collection from the developers. The current policy allows the developer to pay on a house by house basis and was laid out that way to not force the developer to pay it all up front. She stated that she has talked with a developer and he stated that having it all up front will not work. Jerath stated that there is a policy that the developer pays 50% up front now. Voigt stated that that only pertains to new projects. Zainhofksy went through an example of a project example with the committee to show them how it would be handled under the current project, as well as what would be different if the policy was changed so that the developer paid everything up front. Kerian inquired what is included in the 50% that gets paid up front. Zainhofsky stated that includes all of the local infrastructure to each lot and the rest is special assessed to the property. This is a separate issue from the tapping fee, the tapping fee is for the trunk infrastructure. Glassheim asked if in the example of a development of six lots, if the developer was only going to begin three of them this year, whether he would only pay on the three that he starts or on all six. Zainhofsky stated that under the current policy, he would pay on only the three that he starts. This was seen as a way to encourage development. Kreun stated that this is also prolongs when we collect for those projects that have tapping charges and is why this item is being discussed. This also relates to the next item as to how long we depreciate the projects for and how much of the financing costs are picked up through the tax dollars. He stated that perhaps the way to handle this is to change the way that we depreciate these projects to encourage them to complete the development in a timely manner or their costs would increase. Zainhofsky stated that so the committee was aware of the impact that this change would have on developers. He stated this will force farmers to develop their land, as the trunk infrastructure is what generates the tapping fee. Some of these want to continue to farm this land for 10-15 years down the road, he will have an increased cost due to interest on these fees. There would not be a penalty as long as they continue farming, but at the time they decide to develop it, they will have the additional fees. Kreun cited the case of the land in the southend where the owner did not sell, and now infrastructure is there and will see an increase value to the land at time it is developed because of the specials being paid. He stated that perhaps it is better to leave the policy the way it is, however look at changing the depreciation schedule to encourage the development to occur.

Kerian motioned that there be no change in the method of collecting fees from developers. Kreun seconded. Aye: All. Motion Carried.

Kreun stated that this is the area where we could make modifications to help recoup some of our costs from above. Jerath stated that the term interest should also be changed to carrying cost. Zainhofsky stated that it also needs to be decided how long we want the potential to collect this money, only through the life of the bond, forever, until the land is sold, or some other timeline. He stated that if the desire is to collect the money forever, then we should delete the second sentence which lists the lives of the infrastructure. He said this also relates to how long to accumulate the carrying costs – only until the bond is paid off or until the amount is paid. The committee discussed that the City has paid this money out so should expect to receive it back. Zainhofsky cautioned that the interest costs will compound on some of these could become substantial if the land continues to not be developed for an extended period of time.

Kerian moved that draft a policy to include carrying costs that extend beyond the life of the infrastructure. Second by Kreun. Aye: All. Motion Carried.

Voigt stated that the last action item deals with how to handle existing projects and there recommendation would be to grandfather in those projects that are complete but not yet certified by Council, and the setting of an effective date for the new policies.

Kerian moved to grandfather in all projects that are complete but not yet certified as of January 1, 2003, and that these projects would be handled under the old policies and any projects not completed or certified as of January 1, 2003, would be handled under the new policies. Kreun seconded.

Kreun inquired whether grandfathering in was the fairest way to handle the existing projects. Zainhofsky stated that staff recommends this. He stated that the hope is to no longer use tapping fees on future projects and as such there would be no effect. He stated that the interest date could be set as the certification date and then no grandfathering in was necessary. He stated further that they would work with Mr. Swanson to see if there were any legal or notification concerns on this.

Kerian withdrew the motion on the floor. Kreun Seconded.

Voigt stated that she would check with Mr. Swanson on the interest issue and as to whether we can charge interest on those projects that were completed but not certified and were held, as they were advertised without any interest.

Motion by Kerian to ask staff to define an effective date and proper manner of implementation and report back to committee. Kreun seconded. Aye: All. Motion carried.
Motion by Kreun to extend the carrying costs charged for all projects beyond the life of the infrastructure. Second by Kerian. Aye: All. Motion Carried.

Meeting Adjourned 6:50 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,


Sherie Lundmark
Administrative Specialist, Senior