Print VersionStay Informed
Minutes of the Grand Forks City Council/Committee of the Whole
Monday, August 28, 2006- 7:00 p.m.__________________________

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, August 28, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, McNamara (teleconference), Glassheim, Gershman, Bakken (teleconference), Kreun - 6; absent: Council Member Christensen - 1.

Mayor Brown announced that when addressing the committee to please come forward to use the microphone for the record, and asked 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:
He reminded everyone that school is back in session and drivers need to slow down esp. when traveling near school buildings and to be extra careful and watch out for them.
He wished UND football team good luck when they travel west to play Central Washington in their first game of the season; their first home game at the Alerus Center will be on Saturday, September 16, when they take on Winona State at the Potato Bowl.
Next Monday is Labor Day and City Hall will be closed and our regular council meeting will take place on Tuesday, September 5, at 7:00 p.m.

2.1 Matter of Pledged Collateral Report and Designate Depositories of Public Funds.
There were no comments.

2.2 Matter of ballot date for initiated measure to amend Article III(j) of the City of Grand Forks Home Rule Charter._______________________________________
      Howard Swanson, city attorney, stated that it is somewhat of unusual situation that the
City finds itself in - the City Code and State law provides the opportunity for the Home Rule Charter to be amended by an initiated measure, the City has found itself presented with what it amounts to be two distinct forms of petitions; both generally have the same subject, however, one addresses authority by the city council, and that particular set of petitions does not have sufficient signatures on them to require the call for a special election or to place the matter on the general election, those petitions could be supplemented with a sufficient number of signatures but as of this point there is no action to be taken on that set of petitions.

The second set of petitions which are virtually identical except that they call for the city commission to take action is quite frankly the heart of the concern; normally the city council's only role in reviewing a petition for an initiated change to the Home Rule Charter is to set the date of the election and to approve ballot language; however, in this case they are not prepared to ask you to do that at this point, that his office needs additional time to determine whether or not what he considers to be a defect in those petitions is a serious and fatal defect for the petitions or whether or not they can move forward with the error. There are a number of issues or problems that he sees with the drafting that are not fatal but would like council to be aware of them; there is some inconsistency of the numbering of the proposals from what the existing Home Rule Charter has; the proposed language does not grammatically follow the heading of the Home Rule Charter
or the language immediately in advance of the Home Rule Charter that is proposed to be amended. There is if you look in your documents on pages 16 and 17, thinks this can be dismissed but pointed it out, there is an inconsistency or potential conflict and the heading seems to amend portions of the Home Rule Charter but the latter phrase under the line and before the identification of the petition's committee speaks in terms of ordinance, one could interpret this as either a petition to amend the Home Rule Charter or another potential interpretation is that it is an attempt to initiate an ordinance. He stated he believes the heading will prevail over the ending of that portion but it is an error that should not be there. The overall concerns that otherwise might be identified as to the subject matter of the petition really are not germane to the council's discussion as to whether or not it is a proper petition calling for an election or the timing of the election. If it is determined by their office to be a proper set of petitions the timing of an election can be no sooner than 60 days from the time that you act and no later than two years from the time that you act, and that is the time frame that you have.

Some of the issues that you should be aware of, although they are not determinative as to the action that the council would take. The text of the petitions calls for certain things to occur in year 2020 and year 2030, and should be aware that Xcel Energy franchise agreement will expire on December 31, 2008; the franchise agreement with Nodak CoOp Electric expires on September 15, 2017, and the action if approved of amending the Home Rule Charter cannot affect the current franchise agreements, that would be an unconstitutional adoption of legislation and as it relates to Xcel then it would essentially be January 1, 2009 before any change assuming it is approved, could go into effect, and with Nodak it would not be until the 16th of September, 2017 before those could go into effect. He stated another couple legal issues that would potentially need to be resolved, if the petition that calls for the city commission to act, is adopted and not found to be defective in form, there is at least a suggestion, if not an argument, that it would have no application to the city council because it refers to a city commission, you have a city council form of government; the argument would be that if the form of government were changed to a city commission then that section would then be offerable, that is a concern at least that could have been avoided or potentially should be avoided.

The other issues again that would potentially rise down the road were not ones that be determinative as to the validity is a potential conflict under the Home Rule Charter and State law with respect to the regulation of utility by Public Service Commission. There are certain things that the Home Rule Charter can take a different position on than State law and there are other areas of law that State law would prevail on.

He stated that those are generally the comments that he wanted to make. As an aside there is no provision either in the City of Grand Forks Home Rule Charter nor in State law for either of the city auditor or the city attorney to give advance rulings prior to the submission of petitions; that is unlike an initiated measure or referred measure on the State level, there you need to have the Secretary of State approval for both the petition content and the form of petition. That is something the City should look at because we could quite frankly avoid some of the issues that maybe raised by these two sets of petitions. The council does have the authority, even outside of these petitions to generally accept the suggested issue and place it on a ballot for the public to act upon, and that he would simply tell the council at this point that if that were something you were interested in, his office would take the opportunity and directive from the council to properly draft the amendment and incorporate what he believes to be the substantive goals of the committee and bring the petition forward, place it in the proper form, eliminate as many, not eliminate all, but would eliminate many of the formatting type issues and move that forward, but he doesn't have that opportunity to do that to assist the petitioners, would only have that opportunity to do so if the council were to draft it; that of course would assume that the petitioners would be willing to work in that vein as well, but it certainly would eliminate some of the issues with respect to the conflict between city commission and city council as well as ordinance and Home Rule Charter.

Council Member Gershman stated they have before them over 4,000 signatures and understand the intent of what those people were trying to do, and appreciates clarification of that, and he would be in support of having you work on language that would take the gist of what they are trying to do and to move it forward. He stated he didn't know what his timeline was but they are more interested in getting it on the November ballot so we don't have to have a special election and asked what is timeline to do that and his workload. Mr. Swanson stated the timeline to meet a November election requires the ballot to be approved and provided to the County no later than 4:00 p.m. on September 8, and that is the only window you have if trying to make the November election. The city council's next meeting is September 5., 2006 and Mr. Swanson was asked if he would have time if asked by council to draft language by the 5th. Mr. Swanson stated they have already drafted ballot language as would have had to do that one way or the other, amending the language that they would propose for the Home Rule Charter has not been done yet but would have time to do that.

Council Member Glassheim asked if we would have the right to make changes to the petitioner's petition. Mr. Swanson stated that the petition before council that refers to the city commission has sufficient signatures that they can require you assuming it is a valid set of petitions to call an election, at the same time you could have a competing measure if you wanted to proposed by the city council and that doesn't make a lot of sense to him, and he is suggesting is that if the petitioners were willing or interested and if we came to the ability to work together and come up with draft language that met his concerns as well as move forward with what they are proposing and that would put it in a position to be acted upon and if approved, it would be consistent. Some of the legal issues will still be there regardless as he can't draft around those but can draft around some of the concerns. He stated depending upon what the council has he would have a good clue and would try to move forward, it is not an undaunting task, as they have part of it done already, the rest of it as they have drafted enough Home Rule Charter amendments to know how to handle that, but it would take a little time to arrange a meeting with representatives of the petitioners committee to see if they are agreeable to it, if not agreeable then he is not sure it is worth the effort, but if they are agreeable they would be willing to put the effort into it.

Council Member Kreun asked if there is an action that has to be taken to do this and can that be done tonight or wait until next Tuesday. Mr. Swanson stated procedurally they could act tonight if it was a unanimous vote but is not asking that they do that because he doesn't know where the petition is standing and that he has not had any communication with them at all. As far as what action would be taken the council would have to act upon approving the draft language that his office would come up with and concurrent with that would expect that the petitioners committee then would withdraw their petition, and if not interested in doing that then it wouldn't make a lot of sense to have competing proposals. Council Member Kreun stated he would be in favor of having you work with them to redraft the language so it would be acceptable with the intent that they had included and then vote on this on September 5 so that it could go on the ballot. Mr. Swanson stated that what they are acting upon is only the ballot language and moving it forward, and not taking a position on whether that should be approved or not approved. He stated the council is going to be put in a situation either with or without the petitions to make a decision.

Council Member Brooks stated they could try in one week's time to get some more petitions, but doesn't think we need to vote tonight, there are occasions where one council person has gone to staff and directed them to bring something to council and not sure why need a vote to do that.

Council Member McNamara asked what is basis for city council doing this and is it the overwhelming number of petitioners that signed this and any implications for the petitioner that comes in with 420 signatures, what implications does it have for the future if other people that may not have nearly as many (other comments unable to understand). Mr. Swanson that relates back to his initial comments where he said he thinks they need to look at potentially adopting some ordinances requiring pre-approval of petitions to try to avoid this situation, it is unfortunate that the error in language problems exist in this petition, if the petitioning committee, however, have adequate signatures on the ones refer to the city commission, if they take the position that they do not want to have what he perceives to be errors or defects in drafting corrected, then they can force the matter to go to the ballot based upon the signatures that they have turned in with the errors. Those errors then compound whatever legal issues may exist if it were approved by the electorate, not real concerned about the future implications, in his tenure they have had few initiated measures and even fewer referred measures but without either by statute or city ordinance the ability either for Mr. Schmisek or himself to do any type of work pre-petition, doesn't feel he can do that until the matter comes to the council for action, and then if the council itself directs that an initiated measure which it has the authority to do, be placed upon the ballot, that is where he would be acting upon as far as authority.

Council Member Gershman requested Mr. Swanson to do what Mr. Brooks and the rest of them have suggested.

Mr. Swanson stated the issue as to whether or not the propriety of adopting the Home Rule Charter that really is not one that the council can engage in the debate as to whether or not it is going to be placed on the ballot, the way the ND law is established, the question comes down if the ballot is valid then it is an administerial act of defining the date and approving the ballot language. He stated he shares some of the concerns as to the propriety or legality of adopting it, but that debate is for another time and another forum and is not germane to the issue of whether or not the petitions themselves are valid and whether an election needs to be called. There have been similar issues raised in other jurisdictions and those are some of the things that he needs to look at a little more closely with respect to whether the petitions are valid or not. The other issues as to whether the State law supercedes Home Rule authority, etc. would really have to be hammered out either prior to the election or more likely if it were to be approved after the election and at the time where the City would attempt to exercise that authority or requirement with the franchisee. He stated there is no authority for the city council to decline to put a matter on the ballot if the petitions are otherwise legitimate, and that is the issue he is focusing on now is whether or not the errors in the petition render them to be fatally defective.

2.3 Bids for Project No. 6012 and 6013, sanitary sewer and watermain for Desiree Drive.______________________________________________________________
      There were no comments.
2.4 Plans and specifications for Project No. 6039, Dist. No. 295, watermain on N. 48th Street (1600-1800 blocks)________________________________________________
      There were no comments.
2.5 Create special assessment district for Project No. 6026, Dist. 626, paving Columbia Park 32nd Addition._____________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.6 Create special assessment district for Project No. 6033, Dist 628, paving S. 38th St. from north property line of Lot 7, Block 1 of Columbia Park 27th Addition to the Southend Drainway.____________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.7 Amendment No. 1 to engineering services agreement with Webster, Foster & Weston for Project No. 5983, Rehabilitate Pump Station No. 8.____________
There were no comments.
    2.8 Application for moving permit to move dwelling from Minto, ND to 812 S. 10th Street, and schedule public hearing.______________________________________
        Council Member McNamara asked what the process is for moving a dwelling. Bev
    Collings, Inspections, reviewed the process: that applicant applied for a moving permit, that several inspectors went to Minto to inspect the house and listed updates required to meet the current City Code (that when moving a structure it has to meet the current City Code rather than Code it was built under); that applicant would submit site plan showing setbacks.. The main issue they look at is if the building is compatible for the neighborhood, market value is important and notification is given to everyone in the new neighborhood within 200 feet. The public can appear and make comments during the public hearing next Tuesday.

    2.9 Urban Development reorganization.
        Greg Hoover, director of Urban Development, gave a brief overview of the proposal and
    that their management team which consists of Terry Hanson, executive director of the Housing Authority, himself and four other management staff in their office have been working on this for about 6 months and have analyzed the needs of the agency and have come up with this proposal that they believe matches their management and administrative staff needs and aligns functions better with the needs and provides for better operating efficiency and reduces personnel costs by about $76,000 in year one. He stated they would merge their finance and administrative positions into one area called Admin.Services; and go back to original structure in CDBG program now that their deputy director has left them and would go back to CD Manager and 3 CD Specialists. These employees except for one are classified city employees, they are funded by a variety of sources, none of which are general fund, and have attempted to give more time to employees who might be affected by this, is that they will move forward if the council approves with change in management structure first, and that should be completed by mid-October and after that move forward with the proposed changes to the administrative support staff and that would take place about mid-November.

    Council Member Gershman commended him for the reorganization that will save $76,100 in the first year, and what doing with that money. Mr. Hoover stated that their federal funds are continuing to decrease over time, and on national front for administration to cut CDBG and Section 8 Housing funding; and are forestalling future cost to the program, and in their opinion this matter meets the needs of the organization.

    In answer to Council Member Brooks' question, the funds are either federal or special revenues such as 5996, 2169, enterprise type funds. Mr. Hoover stated net reduction in 2 positions, and has possibility of affecting individuals who are in current positions, the proposal which has been reviewed and concurred with by the Human Resources Department is on the CD, Community Development, side, where we have 4 CD Specialists and recruitment for that CD Manager will come from the entire Urban Development Office and it is possible that one of the CD Specialists might be bumped out of a position if someone else in the organization would apply and be the successful candidate, but doesn't see that happening because of the high technical nature of the CDBG Home Program. He stated the other management position, are proposing to eliminate the Senior Accountant, and that position will be opened up city-wide so some other candidate from within the City internally is a successful applicant, that individual would possibly be bumped out of that position. He stated they have taken another position and it is currently a shared position by 2 people, 60-40 split, and proposing to go with one person 100% in that position, the two people in that split position and the person with seniority would get that position, and are eliminating further position of administrative specialist but are creating an office specialist so the administrative specialist and the part-time person could apply for that position but one person will be out.

    Mr. Hoover stated they met with the employee reps. last week and a question was asked that should one of these people go into the lower grade position, when in a probationary period, they are not allowed to apply for a higher grade position during that six months but the Code allows for that to be waived and the HR director has stated that should that happen he would recommend to the Civil Service Commission that requirement be waived so they could apply for the higher graded position.
      2.10 2007 Community Development Block Grant Program. (CDBG)
      Mayor Brown stated there were a number of people who wished to address this issue, and
      made comments that a number of Prairie Harvest supporters are here to lend their support to save
      the CDBG non-profit dollars but have chosen not to speak.
          Pat Burger, United Way, gave brief overview of the CDBG programs for public service
      activities through non-profit organizations and thanked council for working with the non-profits to distribute these funds to assist communities and the most vulnerable citizens. She stated in the past 19 years over $2 million has gone into the program funds and a little over $13 million has been spent in Bricks and Mortar and included over 44 separate agencies as well as the City of Grand Forks and City has worked hard to provide for low and moderate income families. She noted that income levels are defined by HUD and that for one person the income is $12,000 or less and for a family of 4, $17,450; moderate income for a family of 4, $46,550. She noted that many of the agencies that got together to respond to the council's request of taking a look at the CDBG funds pointed out that most of their clients are probably living entirely on their Social Security disability, $550/mo. Salvation Army gives out monthly reports and statistics and that in July they had 80 households that were served through the food shelf, they do rent and utility assistance on 33 cases, emergency clothing for 340 individuals. She stated this is what they talk about the needs of the constituents in our community. She noted in Social Services have seen increase in food stamps and about 1700 families in Grand Forks are receiving assistance, food stamp programs; and 31% of families with school age children are eligible for low or reduced lunch programs. St. Vincent's de Paul and Grand Forks Food Cupboard, East Grand Forks Food Shelf have served a total of 681 families and food baskets at value of approx. $96,000. Shelter: on the average about 80 people are staying at the Grand Forks Mission each night and a number of agencies at CVIC through Red River Valley Community Action and Prairie Harvest have transitional shelters, emergency shelters and have waiting lists. Impact of the non-profit organizations to the community needs: that non-profits provide safety net so residents have some of the basic needs: food, shelter, etc. She stated that if they weren't around many of these services would have to be provided entirely by the government (local or federal); many of the non-profit organizations receive funds through CDBG but numerous funding sources that go in there.

      She also made the following comments:
      That non-profits are working together to save money, lot of collaboration going on in the community.
      That CDBG funds leverage outside investments for wide variety of projects and fall into Bricks & Mortar Program, capital projects that fund agencies either repair facilities of buildings they have or add onto, and that in last 5 years, $5 to $6 million has been spent on capital dollars and non-profits buy locally, use local contractors and work hard to improve historic buildings and also noted that they do pay taxes. Samples of Bricks & Mortar projects include - Development Homes received $75,000; Prairie Harvest received $7,000 grant and turned it into an $800,000 building that has apt. space for individuals dealing with mental illness; Y-Family Center put in elevator; $430,000 to Rescue Mission to upgrade kitchen, addition to the building; and if CDBG funds not been available not able to do project. Listen Center has taken old buildings and refurbished and without CDBG the growth they have encountered in serving clients would not be possible.
      That non-profit sector strong part of the economy - 2,000 people employed in this sector, payroll and budgets and are local dollars. She stated they have talked about a non-profit center and are willing to look at that again. Strong service agencies good business for Grand Forks as they provide safe housing, funding for childcare programs and emergency assistance and hopes they can keep the CDBG funds available for their intended use and not make cuts to the program services or to the Bricks and Mortar projects, and asked that in the future let the non-profits be involved in the conversation to begin with in meetings and discuss the needs and together can work to solve some of these issues.

      Other individuals spoke for the CDBG funding programs:
      Ann and Bob Larson, 1154 26th Avenue South
      Debra Johnson, executive director of Prairie Harvest Foundation
      Bobby Vogel, 2500 14th Avenue South
      Janell Regimbal, Lutheran Social Services of ND

      Council Member Glassheim stated that since the issues of the CDBG funds was raised the council and staff worked to bring this to a conclusion. Issues were raised as Mr. Kreun and Mr. Bakken were concerned to see funds set aside to help low and moderate income people pay special assessment projects for infrastructure; the mayor has been concerned to adopt a neighborhood improvement policy for low and moderate income neighborhoods in the city; Mr. Gershman has been interested in seeing how the City could help non-profits save administrative overhead and make use of their funds more efficiently; and that he has been interested in making sure that the non-profits had sufficient funds from the City in support their functions. He stated that next Tuesday they will come up with a solution to the problems and retain all the good points, and thanked them for coming tonight.

      Council Member Brooks stated this is a process they go through with the budget and many things discussed that sets pace for the next year, stated group before us tonight bring some unique attributes to us and presented very well and educated us very well and thanked them for what they did.

      Council Member Gershman thanked agencies and clients for coming out tonight. He stated unfortunate thing about this is that all of them were trying to accomplish the same goals and that it seem punitive when they took the money, and that next week Mr. Glassheim is going to make a motion, worked hard on it and spent time with Mr. Schmisek looking for some funds to do infrastructure projects as Mr. Bakken and Mr. Kreun would like, and part of that motion will be that we sit down and those that are able to have the conversation of whether coming together, some services can't , and take this to another level. He recognized work Mr. Glassheim did.

      Council Member Kreun stated that he has a huge concern for what is happening in our infrastructure in our community, some people have difficult time paying for some of the updates that need to be done through special assessments. He stated that the City has competed in this process by the CAC (Citizens Advisory Committee) and City hasn't been awarded very many of the projects as part of the CDBG funds and we have a large responsibility to the community and that is why this question came up and where this money should be spent, money would be redirected to different individuals in low to moderate income levels to help them, difference of how spend the same money for same individuals that have difficult time paying of those things and that the City leverages these dollars through Highway Users and federal funds, and is satisfied with the process that we can utilize for our infrastructure funds because without good reliable housing we don't have the people to serve. He stated they would look at this again next year to see how it works and which areas can be affected. It causes discussion and angst but out of that comes a good solution. He thanked Council Member Glassheim.

      Mayor Brown thanked Mr. Glassheim and Mr. Kreun for bringing this forward and Mr. Schmisek for his input.

      MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMENTS

      1) Council Member Bakken thanked Mr. Glassheim for his work on this project.

      2) Council Member Kreun asked Council Member Bakken if there was something he could bring to the MPO meeting re. the walk bridge that leads to nowhere, to ask why that is not taking place on the other side of the river.

      ADJOURN

      It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Kreun to adjourn. Carried 6 votes affirmative. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

      Very truly yours,



      John M. Schmisek
      City Auditor