Print VersionStay Informed
Minutes/Committee of the Whole
Monday, September 22, 2008 – 5:30 p.m.
The City Council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, September 22, 2008 at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers in City Hall with President Gershman presiding. Present: Council Members Bjerke, McNamara, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kreun - 5; Absent: Bakken - 1.

President Gershman announced that due to next Monday being the fifth Monday of the month there is not a meeting scheduled for the City Council. The next meeting will be City Council on Monday, October 6 at 5:30 p.m.

2.1 Application for abatement of 2006 and 2007 taxes by Robert and Pauline Hewitt, 2519 19th Ave N.

There were no comments.

2.2 Application for property tax exemption for expanding business by Concrete, Inc., 5500 DeMers Ave.

There were no comments.

2.3 Budget Amendment – Highway User Share of 2008 Projects.

There were no comments.

2.4 Applications for Alcoholic Beverage Licenses:
a) Vallery Liquors, Inc. dba Hugo’s Liquor, 1315 Columbia Road for Class 2 Off-Sale Alcoholic Beverages.

Council member Bjerke stated that at present time the City of Grand Forks does not limit the number of liquor licenses that are available in the City, but that on October 6 will be making a motion to see if there is support for having staff research whether that should be changed and wanted to bring this up tonight so that Council Members could think about it before that meeting.

b) Request to transfer Class 1 (General On/Off Sale Alcoholic Beverages) license from KDJMBD, LLC dba Overtime Bar, 425 N. 42nd Street, to LPO, Inc., 2015 Library Circle.

There were no comments.

c) Application for Class 1 (General On/Off Sale Alcoholic Beverage license by Mooddyz Bar and Casino, Inc., at 3450 Gateway Drive.

This item was pulled from the agenda at the request of the applicant.

2.5 Create Special Assessment District for Project No. 6273, District No. 637, paving N. 51st Street from Gateway Drive to 10th Ave. N.

There were no comments.

2.6 Cost participation, Construction and Maintenance Agreement for Project No. 6338, Rehabilitate DeMers Avenue Skyway Bridge.

There were no comments.


2.7 Proposed revision to Grand Forks City Ordinance prohibiting domestic fowl.

Council member Kreun stated that would like to propose a change in the ordinance under section 11-0216 (3) to eliminate the wording “homing pigeons and ceremonial doves” and replace it with “fowl”. This change would allow the Health Department the ability to also review and permit the limited use of other types of wild birds. Christensen cited the case of a family that has 2 pet wood ducks and do have proper enclosure and are family pets and this modification would allow that type of situation to continue if done properly. Kreun noted that this was brought forward due to a couple of issues that have occurred in the City that were nuisance and will now have ability to respond to those.

Don Shields, Executive Director of the Health Department, stated that the Health Department would be alright with either the current wording or the change to allow limited situations with Health Department approval, whichever the Council felt was more appropriate and realize that citizens would still have the ability to appeal any decision to the Council, who has the final say. Christensen stated that perhaps should look at a permitting process in the future for those wishing to keep or use fowl and then be more clear for the Health Department to enforce.

2.8 Request to amend Bikeway Committee by amending the name and membership of the committee.

Christensen questioned why there was a need for this committee when have been making improvements and developments, including the full greenway and trail system without it and users seem to be satisfied and perhaps this could be done through staff and use of public meetings.

Earl Haugen, Executive Director of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, stated that the ordinance establishing the committee is already in existence on the books and was one that was not repealed when Council was reorganized. This item just seeks to amend the name and to add two additional community members to the committee. He continued that the committee last met in 2001 and in looking at reactivating them have need to get new members as some have moved, etc. and so seemed a good time to look at other changes that would be appropriate to the committee. Haugen stated that a couple of years ago the City was looking at applying for Bicycle Friendly City status and did not get it, but got honorable mention and one of the comments was that no formal organization or committee to assist with issues that come up on bicycle type activities. Haugen explained that there are some new federal programs that are coming out that other entities can apply for grants if the City has the designation, for example Safe Routes to School and that in addition, having this committee could provide assistance and a method of streamlining and coordinating those grant opportunities so that they remain consistent with the goals of the total community activities.

Haugen stated that the intent is to also include more than just bicycles, as there are also other users of the trails for other human powered activities such as walkers, rollerblades, etc. Christensen asked what grants we have not gotten in the last seven years when the committee was not active and could you not like in Minnesota have public meetings for input. Haugen stated that since there has not been a committee is not sure what opportunities have been missed, but City does submit annual list and committee would be part of that process, with current submissions being Enhancement and safe routes for school.

Gershman commented that he rides the bikeway often and that has seen some kiosks on the northend that mention the system is the Andy Hampsten Bikeway and would like to see more signage so people become aware of the name and why it was designated and recognition for Andy.

McNamara asked if there is any requirement for any of these grants that this be a standing committee. Haugen stated that there is not a requirement, but is a best practices measure that is out there.

2.9 Budget Amendment – Street Department (salt/sand).

There were no comments.

2.10 2009 CDBG and HOME Programs.

McNamara inquired whether there were any other potential funding sources available for the Primrose Apartment project that could be used and would then free up some funds for other applicants. Terry Hanson, Executive Director of the GF Housing Authority, replied that there were not, that the application shows the amount that has been applied for through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit and that is a fixed amount based on the development cost and the bank loan that is also fixed based on the debt coverage ratio that are projecting and creates a $500,000 gap and this application is to secure finding to cover 20% of that gap.

Christensen stated that there are two types of money which the City reallocates from the Federal Government known as Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and also have HOME Program funds. Meredith Richards, Community Development Manager, stated that HOME funds can be used only for low income housing projects, whereas the CDBG funds have a broader application. Christensen inquired whether HOME funds can be used to provide funding to the Community Violence Intervention Center (CVIC). Richards stated that no, that program is only eligible for CDBG funding. Christensen clarified that the only funding allocated to the Primrose Project is from HOME EDHA funds and Home City of Grand Forks funds only, and not from CDBG. Richards stated that was correct, and while could have been gotten from either at this time only HOME program funds, as the intent is to spread the dollars as far as possible and so try to put those eligible for HOME into that program so frees up CDBG dollars for other agencies that do not qualify for HOME funds.

Christensen asked whether there were any way to allocate some of CDBG funds to assist CVIC and reallocate some of the additional HOME funds to the Primrose Project and if so would we need to take money away from one of the projects recommended by the committee for funding. Richards responded that in order to fund CVIC at any level there would need to be a reduction of funds to another recommended agency that ranked higher than CVIC ranked. Richards reviewed the recommendations and stated that Primrose Project could use either funding, Antenna Club CDBG only, YMCA CDBG only, Habitat for Humanity either program, Shelter for Homeless CDBG only, Prairie Harvest either program, and LISTEN Center CDBG only; of the unranked Bricks & Mortar applications the Housing Authority could use either, CVIC only CDBG, and Growing Together Inc. could use either program. Christensen inquired how much money is available for CDBG Bricks and Mortar this year. Richards referred to the third page, (p.75 of the packet) which shows the sources and uses of funds for both CDBG and HOME program funds and shows that the programs are fully distributed at this time and noted that the Unprogrammed Funds under the HOME program uses would satisfy the $105,000 for the top ranked Primrose Project. Richards reiterated that to fund CVIC to any point there would need to be a reduction to one or several of the uses listed under CDBG uses.

Bjerke noted that all we are doing at this time is setting the date for the public hearing and that on October 27 meeting will be bringing forward some other ideas for uses of CDBG dollars and is working on reviewing the federal regulations that govern now and should be ready at that time with proposals that will benefit taxpayers. He explained that the CDBG funds are taxpayer dollars and as such he feels that they should be used to benefit the most taxpayers possible to keep their taxes down and realizes that some people may have shared in some of these funds in the past, but that is not an entitlement that should get them every year even though some argue that there is an unfunded mandate to provide a service by the state or federal government and agree that may be the case but that is not concern here and our concern should be making the best use of the federal money to take away burden on our taxpayers by use of the federal funds available.

Glassheim stated that he would like to encourage support of the recommendations of the committee, as they listened at hours of hearings and presentations and reviewed information, that committee is comprised of members working in the human services area and community and in position to evaluate the various needs presented and work hard to come up with the rankings and never an easy job as there are always more requests than there are available funds. He continued that the Council does have the power to make changes to the recommendations, but encouraged them to support the recommendations of the committee which has looked at all the applications in depth.

Greg Hoover, Director of Urban Development, stated that his office is available to work with Bjerke if he would like, prior to the October 27 meeting to assist him in determining if his ideas fit within the regulations for use of CDBG as they are sometimes very confusing and have very short time for approval of these after the 27th so would like to get him all the information before that if possible. Hoover added that in regards to the $105,000 unprogrammed funds if Council wants to proceed with the Primrose project will need a motion from Council either October 6 or 27th to designate that for the project as currently still unprogrammed.

Christensen clarified that early it was stated that there are two sources of HOME funds for the Primrose Project, HOME EDA and Home City and wanted to explain those for the audience and also inquired when the decision is made on the EDA allocation. Hanson stated that the State and City each receive an allocation of HOME funds annually and state divides theirs between two agencies – one in western part of the state and Eastern Dakota Housing Alliance in the east part of the state and same funds, that they are going through the application process for those simultaneously with the City process and are not on same deadlines as the City so not sure when will hear on that application.

2.11 Redevelopment of Walnut Place and 1500 Block of Chestnut St.

There were no comments.

3.1 Statement of Changes in Cash Balances of August 31, 2008.

There were no comments.

4. Citizen Requests

There were none.

5. City Administrator Comments.

There were none.

6. Mayor and Council Member Comments

Bjerke stated that on October 13 the Airport will be coming forward with their request for the bonds for the new terminal facility and have a couple of things related that he would like Council to consider and perhaps get more information on – 1) at one time CDBG funds could be used to fund the ADA accessibility improvements in public facilities and would like to know if that is still permissible and if so, could use some of the CDBG funds to offset those costs in the project and 2) would like to see consideration of JDA loaning money to the Airport interest free for the project and then the interest saving would be enough to fund security services for the Airport.

Bjerke stated that while there are no meetings set when there is a fifth Monday in a month, would like to see a change and use that day as a strategic planning time for the Council to have some indepth discussion on topics. He stated that he would like to see the City Administrator poll the Council Members on their opinion on this and report at the October 6 meeting.

Bjerke stated that he would like some information on the Legislative Committee – who is on it, how they get on it, that Council should get weekly reports, and make sure that all are aware of what is being said and lobbied for on behalf of the City and that all agree that is what the position should be for the City and would like this report put on as a staff report from the City Administrator at the first meeting in December.

Christensen stated that after the upcoming Monday the next fifth Monday would be the end of December and sees that as family time so not good time to begin meeting and if Council wanted to consider perhaps start with September 29. He added that Haga could brief on the legislative committee, but it meets each Friday and have some Council Members, some department heads and administration and are open meetings and anyone can attend and provide input. He continued that in the past not only Council Members have represented the City, but also staff and administration and have all done a great job on behalf of the City.

Christensen reminded the Council Members that any questions that they have for the bond counsel need to get into John Schmisek this week so that they can be included in discussion at the upcoming meeting.
Gershman commented that in regards to scheduling meetings on the fifth Monday weeks, there are a number of Council Members, himself included that do use those weeks to plan time away so that they do not miss meetings and is against taking away those three off weeks a year.

McNamara, Glassheim, and Kreun had no comments.

7. Adjournment.

Motion by Kreun, Second by Glassheim to adjourn meeting at 6:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,


John M. Schmisek
City Auditor

SLL