Print VersionStay Informed

7
March 3, 2008
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
March 3, 2008

The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in the council chambers in City Hall on Monday, March 3, 2008 at the hour of 5:30 o’clock p.m. with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Hutchison, McNamara, Glassheim, Christensen, Bakken, Kreun - 6; absent: Council Member Gershman - 1.

Mayor Brown announced that anyone wishing to speak to any item may do so by being recognized prior to a vote being taken on the matter, and that the meeting is being televised.

The 5th Grade of Ben Franklin School led the council in the pledge of allegiance to the flag, Alice Smith, teacher.

Mayor Brown commented on various items during the past week and upcoming events:
That he was pleased to represent the City of Grand Forks in St. Louis last week to tell our story to the Levee Summit Group and shared some of our success stories and lessons learned, the community has to look back on our past, we could have made many choices when decisions came about, that Grand Forks made tough decisions by the leaders at that time and that is why we have the success story we have today. They said we should be very proud of our community and that we have every reason to be.
The Grand Forks Fire Department would like to remind you that daylight savings time starts at 2:00 a.m. on Sunday, March 9, and when you change your clocks they recommend that you also change the batteries in your smoke and carbon monoxide detectors.

APPROVE APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBER
HUTCHISON TO VARIOUS COMMITTEES

The staff report from Mayor Brown relating to appointment of Bill Hutchison to the Finance/ Development Standby Committee, Growth Fund Committee, Gateway Drive Committee and the 911 Authority Board to fill the unexpired term of Bob Brooks, with recommendation to approve appointment.

It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Kreun that this recommendation be approved. Carried 6 votes affirmative.

APPROVE APPLICATIONS FOR EXEMPTION OF
REMODELING IMPROVEMENTS TO RESIDENTIAL/
COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS

The staff report from the city assessor relating to applications for exemption of remodeling improvements to residential/commercial buildings as follows: 1120 University Avenue, 1910 Dyke Avenue, 618 23rd Avenue South, 2227 Chestnut Street, 1122 Walnut Street, 1205 Cottonwood Street, 1301 Walnut Street, 903 North 26th street, 3410 Belmont Road, 810 South 22nd Street, 2515 9th Avenue South, with recommendation to grant exemptions of increased value for 3 years.

It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Kreun that this recommendation be approved. Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 6 votes affirmative.
APPROVE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT
2501 27TH AVENUE NORTH FOR FLOOD PROTECTION
PROJECT

The staff report from John A. Warcup, assistant city attorney, relating to Grand Forks Flood Protection Project - purchase of property from Jackie Grass, with recommendation to approve purchase of the property at 2501 27th Avenue North from Ms. Grass in the amount of $29,850.00.

It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Kreun that this recommendation be approved. Carried 6 votes affirmative.

APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR POLICE
DEPARTMENT AND APPROVAL OF SOLE SOURCE
FOR SOFTWARE

The staff report from the police department relating to approval of budget amendment in the amount of $299,833.74 to bring grant funds into the 2008 budget and sole source request (continuation of ongoing project) and approval; of sole source. (The police department was able to secure 100% funding for infrastructure hardening through the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction Funding and as Stones Security System gave a two year guarantee pricing on future additions and has extended this indefinitely provided pricing does not increase at their end, with cost of additional controlled access doors to the Public Safety Center $15,904.00.)

It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Kreun that this recommendation be approved. Carried 6 votes affirmative.

AUTHORIZE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO RESUBMIT
APPLICATION FOR FUNDS TO ENHANCE FIXED ROUTE
AND DIAL-A-RIDE/SENIOR RIDER SERVICES

The staff report from the director of public works and from the transportation superintendent requesting authorization of Public Transportation Department to resubmit applications to NDDOT for New Freedom Funds to enhance fixed route and dial-a-ride/senior rider services, with recommendation to approve enhancement as follows: extend Saturday services to begin at 8:00 a.m. instead of the current beginning time of 10:00 a.m. and night bus service to start at 4:00 p.m. instead of 6:00 p.m.; and purchase dial-a-ride/senior rider van to assist in meeting customer service demands.

It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Kreun that this recommendation be approved. Carried 6 votes affirmative.

AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR PROJECT NO.
6240, PHASE VIII LANDFILL CLOSURE AND ASSOCIATED
BUDGET AMENDMENT

The staff report from the director of public works relating to bids for Project No. 6240, Phase VIII Landfill Closure and associated budget amendment, with recommendation to waive bid bond irregularity and award construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder, T. S. Holte Construction, in the amount of $1,194,453.41, base bid plus alternates No. 1 and No. 2. The bid bond submitted by T. S. Holte Construction was a facsimile instead of an original copy from the bonding company but the document did contain original contractor signatures. The fully executed original bid bond has subsequently provided to the City. Based on the City Attorney's Office opinion, the bid bond circumstance can be considered a minor irregularity and no apparent competitive advantage was received regarding the circumstance thus City staff is recommendation accepting the bid.

At the request of Council Member Glassheim Todd Feland, director of public works, explained what it is we do, cost of the project and what we are doing to meet the environmental concerns for the closure of the landfill.

Mr. Feland reviewed areas of the landfill on diagram that was shown on the screen showing area of the landfill that has been closed, that currently Phase VIII will close 27 acres, and there is an alternative being recommended re. 4 acres where asbestos is being stored and proposing to close that particular area and that equals the 31 acres they would propose to close under this closure plan. He noted remaining portion of the landfill is 21 acres. He noted area where we have asked the FAA, Grand Forks International Airport and ND Department of Health that we extend our closure period, and that the city council is on record to close the landfill in October, 2008. That date was picked because there is going to be a new E/W runway that will primarily serve UND aircraft and the runway will go over the top of our current landfill, there is an issue that they may not get enough funding in 2008 to complete that project and we have asked, with council's concurrence, that we tie the opening and the operation of the E/W runway with the closure of this landfill, that the final completion may slip to 2009, and with current volumes we may have enough landfill space to get us to October, 2009, which would then make us a seamless transition where we would move to a new landfill, which will be under construction next summer, and close current landfill and then E/W runway would be open and move to new site in Rye Twp. 13. He stated he expects to be back within a month to see if that can happen and what prognosis is on the E/W runway - that is a big financial deal if the City can extend for one more year and not have to haul our garbage to Gwinner or Fargo.

Mr. Feland reported that the City is requiring Holte Construction to bring in fill material (dirt and clay) to close this landfill; City places first layer - 6" of cover that we have placed over the garbage, and contractor comes in and puts 18" well compacted clay and another 12" of clay on top of that for root growth, finally topsoil and grass seed. He noted this is a dry tomb and shouldn't get water from underneath the landfill nor on top of the landfill and that is the reason for the slope permeability soil and don't get water that percolates back into the garbage once it is closed off. In 2009 and 2010 when the landfill is closed the City is required to monitor the landfill for 30 years under post-closure care requirements, that is a minimum, and the Department of Health could extend that period but ultimately the City is always going to be responsible for the site.

He stated we have 180 acres that are within the landfill and we are required to have approx. $1.4 million in post-closure funds for the next 30 years and that will pay for any erosion control issues, on-going ground water monitoring, landfill gas monitoring and any other miscellaneous items that come up, and those funds will be set aside in 2009 or 2010 and draw that down over the next 30 years or so in doing those kinds of monitoring and rehabilitation if need to. The money he is proposing is that in 2009 or 2010 have approx. $4 million in closure account and if deduct the $1.4 million that will be set aside as part of post closure care requirements, we probably have another 21 acres that we will need to close and that dollar amount, $1.4 million. In 2009 or 2010 will come back with plan to close the remaining 21 acres and set aside the post-closure monies and have a net balance that we would presume to do something with as part of a future project related to a landfill.
Council Member Kreun moved that we take the actions recommended in the staff report and to award the bid to T.S. Holte Construction; Council Member Glassheim seconded the motion.

Mr. Feland also reported that the gas is passively vented into the atmosphere and that with our Green3 and our ozone depletion one of the issues is that it is an ozone depleting gas and will probably bring back to Service/Safety Committee a feasibility study that they are working on with the EERC on potential cost benefits of using that gas either at the wastewater treatment plant, at baling facility and/or the Grand Forks Airport, and will have to determine whether it is cost effective to do that.

Upon call for the question and upon roll call vote, the following voted "aye": Council Members Hutchison, McNamara, Glassheim, Christensen, Bakken, Kreun - 6; voting "nay": none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried and the contract awarded.

APPROVE REAL PROPERTY AS SURPLUS AND OFFER
FOR SALE

The staff report from the director of Urban Development relating to surplus real property, with recommendation to declare properties listed as remaining City-owned residential lots acquired after the 1997 flood as surplus property..

Council Member Christensen stated he has spoken with several developers who have shared with him the inventory of unsold lots in various subdivisions and has reviewed the price range of those lots, and that based on range of prices that we are setting, $27,500.00, for these 8 lots will be within the same range as lots the developers have available for sale, that this will take approx. 6 to 8 weeks to know if it will work, and that he is good to go with the project as it is proposed. He stated that if we didn't get satisfactory bids and if doesn't work would follow up and ask staff to give proposals for using this as an infill area for individuals that would qualify for assistance in the area.

Council Member Christensen moved approval of the recommendation, Council Member Kreun seconded the motion.

Council Member Kreun stated that there are some income levels with these homes that may already be able to apply for some of the programs we have, and want to make sure that the people that put in proposals make sure that they may or may not qualify, and that we have been able to utilize them in the past and continue to do that.

Council Member Bakken stated there might be an inventory of lots in the city but definitely not an inventory of lots comparable to these in older established neighborhoods and thinks it will be nice neighborhood.

Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 6 votes affirmative.

APPROVE REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY AT 1510
BELMONT ROAD

The staff report from the director of Urban Development relating to redevelopment of 1510 Belmont Road, with recommended to approve the redevelopment proposal for 1510 Belmont road and convey the lot per review committee recommendation.
It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Kreun that this recommendation be approved. Carried 6 votes affirmative.

DENY REQUEST FOR ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING
MORATORIUM ON INSTALLATION, ERECTION,
CONSTRUCTION, REPLACEMENT, MODIFICATION OR
IMPROVEMENT OF ELECTRONIC SIGNS WITHIN THE
CITY AND ITS EXTRATERRITORIAL ZONING JURISDICTION

The staff report from the Planning Department relating to their request for preliminary approval of an ordinance establishing a moratorium on the installation, erection, construction, replacement, modification or improvement of static or changing electronic, digital, video, display signs or billboards and flashing, motion, animated, changeable copy and illuminated signs proposed to be located with the city of Grand Forks and its extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction, with recommendation to give preliminary approval to the ordinance and set a public hearing for March 17, 2008.

Council Member Christensen stated he looked at the various signs in the community, that the City owns a large sign that advertises the Alerus, signs in the Engelstad area, and that LED type signs are here to stay and are not going to prohibit the use of LED signs nor restrict the number of LED signs in an area,; that they can still regulate the intensity of light that comes from these signs; and doesn't see what can be gained by having a moratorium on LED signs. He stated they can still study this in the future and regulate the intensity of lights being emitted from the signs. He moved that we not adopt a moratorium on signs as requested by staff; Council Member Bakken seconded the motion.

Council Member McNamara stated he hasn't heard any reason to cease certain aspect of business in our community for a given period of time, that this has been considered in other communities and that it would be fairly easy for us in conjunction with Mr. Swanson to assemble that information, review it and copy somebody who is doing it pretty smart; and that we are looking at enacting something that will be applied to them and based on those points doesn't see the need for the moratorium.

Mr. Gengler reported they talked about the length of the moratorium and some of the benefits of the moratorium, and that either way staff is going to work on an ordinance whether we have a moratorium or not. He noted that a moratorium can be in place to protect all parties; that staff will develop ordinance and moratorium does create a time out effect where everyone is held equal. After last week's meeting they took an inventory and there are 32 electronic/LED signs throughout the community and that some on South Washington have no regulations whatsoever, in 2007 had 6 requests and permits that were approved and today received 5, whether that has to do with talk of moratorium or not, and if give staff direction to go on with the ordinance amendment and will go through the sign subcommittee, need to identify the duration of the message, intensity of lighting and some tangible criteria that needs to be established, and need to get a more even playing field between some of the corridors, 32nd Ave. S. is held to a certain standard with signs vs. S. Washington, Gateway and one of the goals is to try to come to a conclusion that covers everybody, not just one part of town.

Council Member Hutchison stated he looked at signs and visited with some business and sign people, and the biggest problem is light intensity and flash rate that can supposedly bother motorists, and doesn't see that as a problem yet but staff would be right to go ahead and pursue this and put it in an ordinance so that there is some control over it, and not going to stop that technology but thinks a moratorium is too strong a thing to do and asked if it makes sense if we do pass something because thinks it would take a year to look at all these things and if pass an ordinance that even current signs would have to follow. He stated the two things they are most concerned about, light intensity and flash rate are programmable items that can be controlled even on the existing signs and can still meet criteria when ordinance is passed.

Council Member Glassheim spoke in favor of the moratorium, and if make some regulations which are going to be the same regulations for everyone, why not have moratorium for 6 months, not outlawing them but stopping them until get rules in place, and seems that a moratorium makes sense.

Council Member Kreun stated this is a small component of our signs, we have regulations for all signs, and that if people would follow promises they made at sign committee meetings and regulate them, but people don't do that and we have to have criteria established so everybody is on a level playing field, that we have to regulate the intensity and duration and have to revisit the size of the sign we have in place - and his question is if we pass an ordinance can we make it retroactive. Mayor Brown asked that they place a phone call to Mr. Swanson.

Council Member McNamara stated if the intensity and duration can be controlled by the CPU that is inside the sign, and whatever we would decide they would be able to comply with, and what would be the purpose of the moratorium. Sign people in the audience stated that they could control intensity, etc. Mr. Kreun stated that the technology is that they can control them but they aren't voluntarily doing that and creating problems with neighbors - and we want to get ahead of the game so we don't have to react back to those problems, and that this isn't only a problem in Grand Forks, but throughout the United States, and if can go retroactive and make people utilize their controllers, that is the best solution, otherwise a moratorium.

Council Member Glassheim asked if there was any information relative to safety, and if number of these signs in a block regulated under existing ordinances or not. Mr. Gengler stated their research has shown that there have been studies conducted at various levels throughout the nation, most of which conclude there is not an identifiable cause or relationship, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't have some regulatory measures for the signs, flash rates and intensities. He also noted number of signs depends on what part of town you are looking at, some of the older corridors, S. Washington, Gateway and those districts really have no regulations and there is no prohibition or regulation on the number opposed to each individual lot. He stated proximity to the roadway should be looked at - if close to intersection and should be flushed out through the study process.

Howard Swanson, city attorney was on the telephone. Council Member Kreun reviewed discussion relating to moratorium, and asked that if they don't adopt the moratorium, can they make criteria retroactive throughout the city or just regulate new signs. Mr. Swanson stated it was very difficult to do a retroactive application of a rule of that nature; and that until you have adopted an ordinance establishing your regulation you would have no regulation, and once you have adopted an ordinance establishing your regulation whether it is to color, intensity, etc. you may or may not be able to impose that against a previously constructed sign, depending upon whether or not it is capable of meeting those new standards. He also stated he is not suggesting that they do not have the authority to regulate that but is suggesting that depending on what type of sign is physically installed during a period of time that you either have no moratorium and no regulation, if a property owner has invested that money and that sign cannot meet those subsequent requirements there is an argument that they have to be grandfathered in. In answer to a question that if they are accepting the permit to the sign subject to future regulation based upon ordinances the City is thinking about enacting, and that the person with a permit for a sign would agree to be bound by future ordinance; he stated he couldn't tell them that would be an entirely enforceable provision on any permit that would be issued under those conditions - that if a property owner wants to agree to it and does agree to it, that is fine, but if the property owner were to agree to it and later changes his mind, not sure you can enforce it; and also stated they have no authority to issue a conditional sign or permit in your Code.

Mr. Gengler stated that if they do not proceed with the moratorium, if staff should go ahead and work on an ordinance regarding new signs. Council Member Kreun stated that would be a direction to work on ordinance.

Mr. Swanson questioned what the motion was that was introduced. The city auditor stated that the motion moved by Council Member Christensen and seconded by Council Member Bakken is to not adopt the moratorium. Mr. Swanson stated that he has no concerns and that it is entirely a discretionary act and judgment call as to whether you wish to adopt a moratorium, without a moratorium there are no regulations that specifically apply to that type of sign and would not be any until you have adopted an ordinance.

Nicholas Cox, 3105 Belmont Road, stated he is with Cook Sign Company and that there hasn't been a study that has conclusively linked traffic accidents to the intensity or the duration of what is put on a sign, and they do see that there should be some guidelines put in place to control this sort of activity and signs; the software that comes with these does allow them to go retroactive and that would be beneficial and wouldn't create a time out but elevates those that already have and puts those that don't have it and want it at a disadvantage.

Jeff Yunker, Lifetime Vision Center, stated that there was reconstruction on Columbia Road about a year after they built their building and signs and that now are no longer able to see their sign from Columbia Road due to the nature of the ditch now covered and erected to the level of the road and sidewalk, that with snow piled up cannot see their sign, and have been in the process for the last six weeks of getting bids to have a small message board across the bottom and staying within the same architectural design, don't feel that there should be a moratorium at this time. He contacted Council Member Gershman along with several council members and read for the record Mr. Gershman's e-mail sent back to them: "I know that this is an issue in many parts of the country but as a compromise, I propose that we begin looking at the ordinance and taking the time we need but allow the businesses that wish to install new LED signs to go ahead and do it. By not having a moratorium the City will feel pressured to refine the ordinance in a more timely manner."

Upon call for the question and upon roll call vote, the following voted "aye": Council Members Hutchison, McNamara, Christensen, Bakken, Kreun - 5; voting "nay": Council Member Glassheim - 1. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

Mr. Swanson stated that to the extent that the Planning Department or Inspections Department receives applications for new signs for the period of time before any ordinance is adopted, it would be his recommendation to those departments that they obtain information from each applicant as to the type of sign and the capabilities of programming for various things, such as intensity, duration of light and the City has that information as it moves forward.

Council Member Christensen stated that part of the recommendation is to require that you have a sign that is programmable so that if change an ordinance we don't get push back that they didn't buy that, and add that to the list.
APPROVE BILL LISTING AND ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Vendor Payment Listing No. 08-05, dated February 29, 2008, totaling $970,652.77 and Estimate Summary dated February 29, 2008 totaling $1,371,099.82, were presented and read.

It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Kreun that these bills be allowed and that the city auditor be authorized to issue warrants in payment of the same. Upon roll call the following voted "aye": Council Members Hutchison, McNamara, Glassheim, Christensen, Bakken, Kreun - 6; voting "nay": none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried and the bills ordered paid.

APPROVE MINUTES FEBRUARY 19, 2008

Typewritten copies of the minutes of the city council held on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 were presented and read. It was moved by Council Member Bakken and seconded by Council Member Glassheim that these minutes be approved as read. Carried 6 votes affirmative.

COMMENTS BY MAYOR AND COUNCIL

1) Council Member Christensen asked the city auditor to contact members of the finance/development committee and schedule a 4:00 p.m. meeting re. Riverside pool so citizens can be present.

ADJOURN

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

Respectfully submitted,



John M. Schmisek
City Auditor

Approved:
________________________________
Michael R. Brown, Mayor