Print VersionStay Informed
Minutes/Committee of the Whole
Monday, November 8, 2004 - 7:00 p.m.

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, November 8, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were: Council Members Hamerlik, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 5; absent: Council Members Brooks, Glassheim - 2.

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:

God' speed and good luck to our local National Guard members who will be leaving for Iraq, that we are proud of you and will pray for you and look after families best we can.
Last week he along with Council Members Gershman, Hamerlik, Brooks and staff went to Hillsboro to meet with city officials and staff, they learned more about each other so can help each other down the road.
He welcomed the Awano home-stay students to Grand Forks and thanked the Grand Forks hosts.
Congratulations to our local football teams from Central and East Grand Forks and good luck this week.
Congratulations to everyone who has been working on the 32nd and Columbia project, it is in the substantially complete stage, and good luck to all the crews.
Congratulations to everyone who won but also to everyone who ran for public office in the recent election, demanding positions but very rewarding.
Congratulations to Grand Forks for setting a record for new home construction with tally of 210 home construction permits issued this year, encouraging to see this growth and appreciation to building inspections crew for managing this record building growth.

1.3 Presentation by Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa.
Rick Duquette, administrative coordinator, reported that several months ago he, Mayor Brown and Council Member Kreun traveled to Belcourt to speak with members of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa at their invitation to learn more about their idea of an off-reservation casino located in the area of Grand Forks, he stated the importance of our two communities having a discussion on this idea and tonight will be learning more about the concept and idea and some of the details, and welcomed chairman-elect Ken Davis and members of the Turtle Mountain Tribal Council and introduced Chairman Davis.

Chairman Davis stated they were here to discuss the possibility of a partnership between their tribe and the city and community and introduced members of the tribe: including tribal councilmen Terry Baker, Les Lafountain; tribal member and consultant Bill Johnson. He stated it was less than 100 years ago that their tribe ceded the Red River Valley to the United States and was not ratified by their people until April, 1905; for years before that many members of their tribe worked in partnership with settlers and traders; and have had very active partnership and association with the people in the Red River Valley. He stated the tribal population in the city of Grand Forks is important to them; that today 658 permanent tribal members live in Grand Forks community and probably another 100 to 150 that are attending the university. He stated this venture is new and unique in ND and gaming development and enterprises have been going on all over the country. He introduced Bill Johnson, who will make formal presentation.
Bill Johnson stated they were here to talk about the idea they have for the city of Grand Forks and for their tribal community and want to get 4 points across to show what they want to do, what has to be done and know that this is a hard tedious process but know that if they work together can make it happen: show why a casino will benefit the tribe, the city of Grand Forks and the Red River Valley; show why this casino can be located in Grand Forks; show why support and understanding of this project is important to them; nd show ideas of planning programs.

He stated they would like to develop a partnership with the City of Grand Forks that will create jobs, increase city government revenues, develop first class hospitality environment, promote tourism, stimulate economics, reduce tribal poverty and rekindle tribal self esteem and pride. He also noted tribal population statistics and land statistics and tribal gaming markets. He stated that Turtle Mountain is most densely populated reservation and more unemployed at Turtle Mountain.
He gave a brief history of the Turtle Mountain tribe.

He stated there is legal precedent for gaming on newly acquired tribal lands and that the federal law allows gaming on newly acquired tribal lands (through the Old Crossing Treaty which allows for land claim settlement opportunities in the traditional and aboriginal lands of their Band) and through Indian Gaming Regulator Act (IGRA), which allows exceptions for tribes to game on newly acquired tribal lands under the two-part determination of Section 2719 if it is in the best interest of the tribe and its members, and it is not detrimental to the surrounding community; this is the process they will follow in their endeavor to establish a casino in Grand Forks; and stated that this is a Section 2719 issue, and that continued positive support will help make this project a realty for the City of Grand Forks and for their tribe. He stated they need strong support from the leaders and residents of the Grand Forks community to help move this project to a successful conclusion - resolution of support from the City of Grand Forks, backing of business and civic leaders, endorsements from local legislators, support from law enforcement officials, positive input at an open community meeting(s) and approval from officials representing Greater Grand Forks organizations, associations and institutions.

He outlined timelines as follows: within next 90 days hold open community meeting(s), attend charitable organizations board meeting, determine location for casino, arrange information meeting with State officials and select management partner; within 18 to 24 months for final approval: BIA Gaming Management Division approval, Secretary of the Interior approval, National Indian Gaming Commission approval, Governor Hoeven's concurrence, may have to have State Legislative approval.

He thanked the council for their time and would go into questions and answers.

Council Member Kerian asked what has been response in talking with State and what efforts have they been making in that area. Mr. Johnson stated rumor has it some for and some against and as stated in editorial the attorney general indicated that we have one in one hundred chances but would take that gamble, better than the lottery, and thinks positive things out there. He stated they will give a presentation to the Governor and State officials.

Council Member Kerian asked if they would be helping with any assessment of public opinion. Mr. Johnson stated they have to do a feasibility study, get responses for community meetings and answers for them. Mr. Davis stated the process requires number of federal laws and National Environmental Policy Act and that act will require them to have hearings in the community and hear support, objections or concerns and mitigate those concerns.

Council Member Gershman asked if there is opposition from other tribes in the area. Mr. Johnson stated the tribes think they have a market and think that they are going to take away from that market, that there are self-made regional markets out there and didn't think their brothers and sisters in White Earth and Red Lake would fight this project, they have a process where they can voice their concerns but they also see in MN they have to take advantage and to tell their story and would believe that many of the tribes would stand behind them and when facts are there will become supportive.

Council Member Kreun stated there is a lot of mis-information in the community and key is that when you bring forward this presentation or information and when visit with the community or with non-profit groups because some concern that it may be detrimental to their business or organization and more information can get will help your position.

Council Member Hamerlik stated in outline presented, that some things need to be done in 90 days and assume that the mayor will be responding with and to council so they can be assured that we will move in a direction quickly as requested, and asked Mayor Brown if he had any other comments. Mayor Brown stated he would agree and that we move this discussion forward, exciting presentation and looks forward to extending the dialogue and getting community involved and reaction and support.

Council Member Christensen stated that when they said this was a Section 2719 issue, asked why this is unique to their tribe and no other tribe. Mr. Johnson stated not unique to their tribe, any tribe could do this, that Section 2719 is a process that Congress put into the bill to help those tribes that may have some significant disadvantages so they can go through a process to tell their story and that is process they want to show that this section 2719 will show the State of North Dakota that what they have gone through will not set a precedent for ND, and not get Las Vegas interests in here where it will open the State to gaming, process that is hard and that is what they want to go through.

Council Member Christensen stated when you said it is not a gaming compact issue nor an off-reservation issue and referring to the gaming compacts statute, 54-08.03, that the tribe cannot have casino out of Rollette County. Mr. Johnson stated he was not sure how that goes about and if that is something the legislature does or after unique facts are pointed out that circumstances are different at that time, whether it's an amendment to the current compact and a lot of unanswered things that go about there and that they can't answer that.

Council Member Christensen stated what he is concerned about as a community is, why the resolution from the Grand Forks city council would come first in support of something when there are so many unknowns and many things to take place, concerned about the unanswered questions and if endorse it, should discuss some deal points before a resolution is passed. Mr. Davis stated at this point what they are asking for is a non-binding letter of intent type resolution that interested in pursuing this type of partnership with us with the full realization that there are many fatal steps along the way, and at this stage some very preliminary steps that they need to agree upon as partners in good faith in the direction they would like to pursue on this.

Mr. Johnson stated there are a lot of hoops have to jump through and have to sit down and talk about memorandums of understanding and other binding agreements and those are discussions that are going to take a long time but can't get to those discussions unless we know that you are interested in the project, and asking for is that this is great idea and believe it will work and go to the next step.

Mr. Ken Davis thanked council and they just went through an election, and is the chairman elect and not officially seated yet and appreciated being here. Mayor Brown thanked them for their presentation and important to consider the possibilities or they will never become reality.

SUSPEND AGENDA

Council Member Kreun stated because of timing, asked if they could move item 2.13 relating to request from MPO for preliminary approval of an ordinance to include 2030 Transportation Plan Update so that people who need to utilize bus transportation and also that item 2.16 relating to matter of administrative action, be moved down just prior to adjournment because going into executive session and let staff go home. Council Member Gershman seconded the motion. Carried 5 votes affirmative.

2.13 Request from the Grand Forks/East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the Grand Forks Comprehensive Plan to include the Grand Forks/East Grand Forks 2030 Transportation Plan Update, (2004 Alternative Transportation Modes Element) together with all maps, information, recommendations and data contained therein_________________________________________________________________
Earl Haugen, Grand Forks/East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization, asked that next Monday night they consider preliminary approval to do these three things: to amend your comprehensive plan because they have updated sections to present to you, particularly on the Transit Bicycle and Pedestrian section, and recommending that those sections be consolidated into an alternative modes plan, and make an amendment to the Street Plan to bring all three of these into a 2030 horizon; that with federal funds need a 20-year planning horizon to be maintained and this would insure that we have that.

Mr. Haugen made a slide presentation of the transit section, challenges they have, that their system has experienced declining ridership in all services provided, and those riding it are very regular riders of the system and they do not want to see lot of major changes and changes they want to see are expanding the services whether it be more coverage or more temporal changes and as city grows those needs grow. The challenge they have is no additional dollars to meet all these challenges and with that tried to come up with a plan. The financial picture of the service is deficit spending under its current operation, and expenses outpacing their revenues and if con-tinue that, wouldn't be able to provide service. They have tried to focus on areas where there are duplicative services, either City offering something someone else is doing, or City is offering two services that are similar types of services and if implemented over annualized basis can come up with savings of $125,000.

The City offers a senior rider program through city employment city vehicles, etc. and the other side is a dial a ride service that City contracts with two taxi companies, Dial a Ride has 800 people assigned to it which are over the age of 55. Dial-A Ride is $3.00 fare and senior rider $1.00 fare and City subsidy is more for senior rider program $10.50 than for DAR ($5.40), the DAR program has same hours as fixed route program, and senior rider program has less hours and less days of service. He stated that they are fairly similar services, similar clientele and that we roll these into one demand/response service; this is something that City had prior to ADA back in the 1980's and 1990's and was senior and handicapped program. After ADA came in focused on paratransit rider and the DAR program to the disabled eligible people and now get back to way originally set up and have process recommended to get us there in stages, get fares to equitable playing field, those who use it pay same fares so senior riders fees would be increased and decisions need to be made as to best way to consolidate services - issue an RFP and figure out how whether bid on hour basis, or per ride basis. That sometime between July and January of next year have that established and in place. Their DAR program is based on taxi-metered fare and feel City should divorce itself of that as a negotiated cost basis, and negotiate a different cost basis and if can accomplish this again, the annual savings would be $70,000. He stated they pushed over to the private companies, there still is one tripped out there, H tripper and provides service to specific clientele and recommending that be privatized and budget savings of est. $20,000 savings.

He presented two concepts of fixed route, simplify how to identify our service, 11 routes offered by 6 buses, and suggesting ways that could be simplified and advising that they engage marketing experts to assist us and hope to have this in place by school of next fall. There are some specific route coverage issues they would like to see happen, first is Columbia Road focused route they have now and would like to see Medical Complex served twice an hour and that same route would like to see quicker return trip from the Marketplace area back towards Columbia Road Retail area. They believe there are routes that could be extended and segments of routes that could be shifted to better producing segments. Hr stated that eventually will have to see system grow as community grows and would like to expand the fixed route service as most efficient one from financial side There is a bike on a bus and they do offer that in Grand Forks and East Grand Forks and would like people to cross over into their bike/ped system, that they have expanding path system on their periphery - He stated on pedestrian side Grand Forks has had sidewalk policy in place for many years and only place have some issue is the ADA curb ramps, and ADA required curb ramps at all curbs that cross into streets., City updated and now indicated that truncated domes be required, and will have to retrofit many of the curb ramps they installed in the 1990's and 2000 to meet ADA standard compliance. Truncated domes - gives visually impaired a better clue as to when they are leaving a protected sidewalk onto a street. They have taken into consideration where we live and that this particular standard was suspended and debated whether it should be implemented or not and this is national.

Todd Feland, director of public works, stated they were trying to plan and handed out a draft analysis of their financial plan in 2005 and if look at Fund 5500 and budgeting a $30,000 deficit but city council did pass the school tripper initiative which balances us out in the year 2005. He stated with the H Tripper and additional potential of $20,000 savings in that same fund and are about even. He stated on Senior Bus they budgeted deficit of $13,305 and have about 13,000 rides on an annual basis through senior rider system and if assume $1.00 increase/ride on that on January 1, 2005 and that would remove that deficit if not elasticity in ridership, and balance that fund with $1.00 to $2.00 increase. He stated Dial-a-Ride have $2,700 budgeted deficit in 2005 and stated that total cash in all public transit funds is $108,000, assuming budget deficit of $13,000 and additional $2700 and will be short about $25,000 to $30,000 this year in Dial-a-Ride and that is our paratransit where we pay two cab companies, Nodak and Grand Forks Taxi and could drive down cash position from $108,000 down to $62,000 if didn't do anything at all; but if do something, first step would be to move senior riders from $1.00 to $2.00 and have talked to Senior Citizens Board and letter from them saying they agree with that and would like a phased increase on that. He stated if look at DAR and people concerned with any change we may have, that they studied this and to provide the same amount of service to the users, and to do an RFP to see if get better proposal and then review senior rider system to see if there is a savings. He stated because of federal funds have to do through open process of what studying and for public input, and when get information back, will provide council with a recommendation.

Council Member Kerian asked if they are comfortable with deficit spending of that cash or if they want that $1.00 increase for seniors to cover deficit and when happen. Mr. Feland stated they should go for increase of $1.00 to $2.00 starting January 1, 2005 and they are asking for a phased in plan and eliminate our deficit for 2005, and as move into 2005 and looking at what do in the new budget process for 2006, one of the concerns they have with senior rider system is that they get refusals on rides and would be nice if had more hours and maybe one more day but won't know that unless get numbers back and how much cost and how much added service they can do and want to study it. He stated first thing is to eliminate $13,000 deficit, which is $1.00, and second dollar to $3.00 is part of plan when do the RFP and see what numbers come in and if should combine services or if keep them apart, have to move from the $2.00 to the $3.00 and creates equity between the DAR and senior ridership program but need plan to reduce deficit.

Rod Ringbloom, 602 High Plains Court, asked if there was any town of our size that has a bus transit operation that makes money; Mr. Feland stated not of our size. Mr. Ringbloom asked if any members of the planning committee have ever ridden a bus; Mr. Haugen stated he has but not on a daily basis. Mr. Ringbloom stated there are some that depend on the bus system and have established route which has been in effect for two years, and asked if this is going to be a bi-yearly process and have heard of change in routes. Mr. Feland stated they do not want to get into specific routes as part of this plan but come up with concepts they want to look at. Mr. Ringbloom asked when they would come up with changes in specific routes; Mr. Feland stated if there was a demand and a need to change route for specific reasons, would bring that forward after public comment and that this is not venue in which you want to do it and not proposing any specific fixed route changes as part of this plan. He stated they are trying to do some managed change in their system so don't have any reductions in services.

Mr. Ringbloom stated he finds it interesting that the senior bus is up for a double or triple increase in cost and finds that devastating to find that and to realize that the MPO committee would throw that up to city council when there are many senior citizens that come to Senior Center that can't pay for their lunch which costs $3.00 and now want senior citizens to pay $3.00 per trip to go to grocery store and $3.00 back for a bag of groceries and finds incomprehensible.
Mr. Feland stated our expenses go up every year and that Mr. Haugen has worked with Senior Center Board and important to note that when the City took this service over a few years ago and it was run by the Senior Center and to the council's credit, they kept service going by using existing money that we have had of federal and state money and have been able to do that and added a third service (senior rider system) with same amount of funds and now asking for an increase so break even, understand that people are on fixed incomes and have a DAR where riders are asked to pay $3.00 per ride and trying to balance these services but need to make fiscally responsible and able to pay for them as they only have 5 mills dedicated to public transit and only so much federal money and in the future may not receive more that what receiving now. Mr. Ringbloom stated he appreciated their consideration and interest and hopes for general riding public that things continue to be as what they are now.

Mike Lukes, 2083 Westminster Ct., stated he is a member of the Grand Forks Friends of the Public Library, and are volunteer group trying to increase the community involvement around the library and use that resource better. He stated access to the Library is about one block, and would like to advocate better access to the Library through public transportation and understands there is a process in place for the routes to be deviated on non-peak hours on a request basis and would like to propose that on non-peak hours to make that loop around the Library and might increase ridership and services to the Library, and if not done during the week, perhaps on Saturday.

2.1 Establish terms and direct the issuance of $2,365,000 Refunding Improvement Bonds, Series 2004A._________________________________________________
There were no comments.
2.2 Issuance and award of sale of Water Reserve Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2004B.______________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.3 Matter of 2004 sidewalk warrants.
There were no comments.

2.4 Application for Class 4 (Food & Beverage Establishment) liquor license by Capital Ice, LLP dba Suite 49, 2950 10th Avenue North.______________________________
Council Member Hamerlik asked whether they would need anything additional since
this is on UND property, whether need their approval and to let them know on Monday if anything additional. Mr. Warcup stated that Mr. Swanson has reviewed/approved the application.

2.5 Applications for exemption of remodeling improvements to residential buildings at 1610 Lewis Blvd., 1604 Lewis Blvd., 1504 Oak Street and 123 Chestnut Street._____
Mel Carsen, city assessor, stated if properties sold, exemption would transfer to the new
owner and be in effect for the full 3 years. Council Member Christensen stated we did this deal with Easter Seals and that they got a break on the ground, that some of these buildings aren't done yet and exemption has to be made before improvements and asked why we would do this and if available for anybody. Mr. Carsen stated this is available for anybody if the property is 25 years old or older.

2.6 Final certification of infrastructure connection fees (tapping) for Project . 5145, paving N. 69th Street from U.S. Hwy 2 to 27th Ave.N.______________________
There were no comments.

2.7 This item pulled from agenda.

2.8 Bid specifications for heavy-duty tow vehicle.
Council Member Hamerlik questioned 2-week delivery of vehicles. The city auditor
stated the bidder shall guarantee the bid price for 180 days from the date of the bid opening and Chief O'Neill stated the intention is that delivery will be on a specific date and expect that within two weeks of that day. He stated the WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) monies that have come to the City and to other regional areas of response, and have purchased many trailers and lot of heavy equipment goes into those trailers and don't have the vehicles to pull those trailers outside of the city into the regional areas; that they have storage concerns that they will be addressing in the future.

2.9 Bid specifications for self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) fill station.
There were no comments.

2.10 Grand Forks Greenway naming policy and procedure.
There were no comments.

2.11 Request from Michael Benson on behalf of Richard Novak and Raymond Gordon for final approval of ordinance to amend zoning map to rezone and exclude from the B-3 (General Business) District and to include within the R-4 (Multiple Family High Density) District, the west 5 ft. of Lot 12 and all of Lots 14, 16 and 18, Block C, Budge & Eshelman's 2nd Addn. (loc. at 1215 and 1217 6th Ave.N.) (public hearing and second reading of ordinance scheduled for November 15, 2004)______________
There were no comments.
2.12 Request from the Planning Department for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the text of the Land Development Code, Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, amending Article 2, Zoning, Section 18-0204, Rules and Definitions, subsection (2), Definitions; and Appendix F, all relating to ground monument signs.________________________________________________________
Council Member Gershman stated the city looks better without portable signs and wants
to make sure that in this ordinance that it becomes a permanent fixture so don't have people putting up a sign that meets the sq. footage and asked that be checked.

2.14 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Crary Development, Inc. for preliminary approval of the Replat of Lot 2, Block 1, Curran's Third Addition (loc. in 4600 block of S. Washington St.)____________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.15 Amendment to 2004 Affordable In-fill Housing Program.
There were no comments.

INFORMATION ITEMS

3.1 Portfolio Management/Portfolio Summary for period ending October 31, 2004.__________________________________________________________
No comments.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Hamerlik congratulated UND football team who has made the playoffs and are going to St. Cloud for the first round and wished them well. He stated that back in June City voted whether all the proceedings of the city council needed to be published including all checks, etc. and that today's Fargo Forum has printing of the June checks, a whole page, for their school system; that people in Grand Forks did well in not requiring that.

2) Council Member Gershman stated he enjoys lights that silhouette the buildings downtown and is attractive portion of downtown, that 70% of lights are out and would like Urban Development to see if funding source (special events) to include some money for bulbs and check lines, and would like to see that lit up again.

CONSIDER MATTER OF ADMINISTRATAIVE ACTION AND ADJOURN INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION

2.16 Matter of administrative action. (Information mailed out under separate cover) (council may adjourn into executive session pursuant to NDCC 44-04-19.2)
Mr. Warcup reported the motion would be to adjourn into executive session pursuant to the NDCC Chapter 44.04 for purpose of discussing proposed settlement of administrative action to discuss proposed terms of settlement. It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Kerian to adjourn into executive session. Carried 5 votes affirmative. Mayor Brown announced that we adjourn into executive session; and in addition to the mayor, city council and city attorney those remaining were Mr. Duquette, administrative coordinator, Mr. Shields, health department, the city auditor and the city clerk.

COUNCIL RECONVENES FOLLOWING EXECUTIVE
SESSION

The city council reconvened after the executive session with all members present.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Christensen that we adjourn. Carried 5 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,



John M. Schmisek
City Auditor