Print VersionStay Informed
Minutes/Committee of the Whole
Monday, September 10, 2007 – 5:30 p.m.
Page 1 of 6
The City Council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, September 10, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present Council Members Brooks, McNamara, Glassheim, Christensen, Kreun - 5; Absent: Bakken, Gershman (official City business) – 2.

Mayor Brown made the following announcements:

1) Mayor Brown has followed the President Bush and General Hoeven and proclaimed tomorrow, September 11, 2007 as Patriot Day in observance of the anniversary of the September 11 tragedy and in honor of all those that give their lives to protect our freedom.
2)Commented that Grand Forks was host of the Special Olympics Soccer and Bocce tournaments over the weekend and was a great event.
3) The tour the trails event in the Greenway was held this past Sunday and had a great turnout with hundreds of people participating and enjoying a beautiful fall day.
4) This week is Potato Bowl week with a number of community activities culminating with a parade and UND football game on Saturday and encouraged everyone to participate.

Amend agenda to include item on CDBG 2008 Funding.

Motion by Christensen, second by Glassheim to amend the agenda to include an item 2.21 2008 CDBG Funding Priorities. Aye: All. Motion carried.


2.1 Application from USA Wrestling of North Dakota for gaming site authorization at Overtime Bar & Grill, 425 N . 42nd Street.

There were no comments.

2.2 Create Special Assesssment District for Project No. 6192, Dist. No. 298, watermain on 2500-2600 blocks of N. 43rd St. and 4200 block of 26th Ave N.

There were no comments.

2.3 Plans and specifications for Project No. 6150, Dist. No. 46, sanitary sewer for 5500 and 5600 blocks of 1st Ave. N .

There were no comments.

2.4 Change Order No. 2 for Project No. 5986, police department impound lot improvements.

There were no comments.

2.5 Request to enter into engineering services agreement to complete the engineering and design for replacement of Lift Station No. 187, (loc. in the southwest quadrant of Columbia Road and 32md Ave. S.), Project No. 6144

There were no comments.

2.6 Bids for Project No. 5955, Landfill building relocation.

There were no comments.

2.7 Change Order No. 3 for Project No. 6133, Dist. No. 93, and 6134, overlay Sunbeam Addition east of Belmont Road and overlay 62nd Ave S from Columbia Road to Washington St. and Belmont Road from 62nd Ave S to Adams Drive.

There were no comments.

2.8 Amendment No. 1 to engineering services agreement with Webster, Foster & Weston for Project No. 6174, Dist 458, Rehabilitate Storm Pump Stations Nos. 182 and 188

There were no comments.

2.9 Plans and Specifications for Project No. 6174.1 and No. 6174.2, Dist. No. 458, Rehabilitate Storm Pump Stations 182 and 188 (structure modifications bid package)

There were no comments.

2.10Architectural services to obtain cost estimates for rehabilitation of Riverside Pool.

Brooks stated that the funding report is stated as betterment funds and wanted to clarify that this means it will be added to the amount that is special assessed in the final flood protection assessment. Schmisek replied that yes, anything listed as betterment funds will be included in the final flood protection assessment. He continued that Council should keep in mind that items must be capital uses and can not be put in reserve and that any capital project needs to be constructed within 24 months of the bond sale to meet federal arbitrage requirements. Walker pointed out that on page 54 of the packet there is also a list of items that have been used in the flood side in the area of betterment funds.

Christensen commented that we already paid $20,000 for a study by WTI which came back with an estimate for the pool at $3 million and that we have been truing to look at cutting back on tax dollars, but now looking at spending another $12,000 for another study on the same thing. He referenced an article from the GF Herald that detailed the enrollment of schools and pointed out that the Wilder School in the Riverside area is seeing declining enrollment and only has 74 students and other near northend schools are also lower in enrollment, while southend is continuing to grow. Christensen continued that he had asked Walker to contact a local pool builder to verify costs and that Custom Pools had been contacted and expressed that it was easier to build a new pool rather than repair the old and seemed to agree with the costs in the WTI study. He commented that he also is considering the recent discussions occurring at the Park District in regards to their desire to build a new wellness center including a pool amenity and that maybe this should be a community conversation about whether there is a need and where the pool should go for the betterment of the community with the end result being a saving to citizens in tax dollars in their final special assessment and perhaps it would also be prudent to wait with a decision on this until the final cost estimates for the flood project are available so that we know what the final special assessment will be. Walker stated that he had visited with the Corps and they are working on final numbers. Christensen inquired if the feeling is that this assessment will be smaller than the other two phases. Schmisek stated that yes, the though is the final assessment will be smaller than the first two, based on costs we anticipate at this time and covering the temporary warrant that we did last year and the temporary one that we will probably sell this fall to cover our costs until the final numbers are ready.

Christensen stated that there is an issue of expenditure and whether there is youth in this area to make use of it and perhaps we need more data, but there is also a concern as to who would operate the pool, as the Park District has expressed that they do not have an interest in operating one at that location.

Kreun commented that this reminds him of previous issues where we have paid for numerous studies that all yield similar results because the affected party does not like the answer the study provides, and then ending up implementing the first study that was done and would encourage that if we approve the use of EAPC to supplement the study done by WTI that we then take the result and use it.

Glassheim listed several projects for which betterment funds have been used and that this use seems to fit with the others we have done and agreed that if we do this it should be a final result as the neighborhood needs a decision. He continued that he agrees along with others that $3 million is too much for the City to invest in this, but perhaps some of the local companies will have some ideas that result in a lower number that would be palatable. He added that there is still $600,000 of the original amount set aside for Riverside Pool left and maybe if a project could be proposed for $1 to $1.5 million then perhaps we could work something out or if not then could look at getting something else established in that Park. He commented that the park does serve as a northern anchor for the Greenway trail system and it would be a nice amenity to have a water feature and perhaps a little store where people could get refreshments when they are using the trails.

Glassheim continued that we were very fortunate to be awarded additional money from the state which lowered the special assessments for this project. He continued that young people are a crucial thing for a neighborhood and we have already invested in other things in this area so questioned whether this is the time to walk away from the neighborhood, considering that in a few years there could be more people there given that it has very affordable homes for young families starting out.

Christensen stated that he and others will vote for the $12,000 and is in favor of maintaining the neighborhood, but has a concern that the City is not tasked with Park and Rec function and o.k. if something comes in with $1.5 million project to look at it, but there will also be other considerations that need to be addressed like maintenance, operation, and who will cover any annual shortfall that occurs.

McNamara concurred with Glassheim in that we owe Riverside Park neighborhood a final answer on this matter and that we promised them a great park to replace what was there pre-flood and need to deliver that.

2.11FY2008 Sanitation Enterprise Fund rate changes

There were no comments.

2.12 Public Works Department – Resolution re. Snow and ice removal from sidewalks (Grand
Forks City Code 16-0301)

There were no comments.

2.13 Public Works Department – Street Division street sweeper exchange.

There were no comments.

2.14 Lincoln Dog Park Bid.

Brooks stated that the funding source for this is betterment funds and inquired whether, as had been discussed with Riverside Pool item, that would again mean that it would increase the amount of the final special assessment on the dike when it is done. Schmisek responded that it would. Brooks stated that he had commented before on letting the Park District handle this issue and now here we are again with the City funding this.

Kreun asked what the reimbursement mechanism is and why is the Park District not the lead with us reimbursing them. Parvey-Biby stated that we have the ability to use betterment funds for this and other capital items in the Greenway have been funded this way with the Park District reimbursing us and so just used the same procedure here.

2.15 Lincoln Dog Park Rules.

Brooks inquired who was responsible for the enforcement of the rules, the Park District or the City. Parvey-Biby stated that these are planned to be codes of conduct for users of the Park and we are hoping that people abide by them, but if there becomes a need for an actual enforcement, then will look at putting something in ordinance. She continued that currently this land is managed and maintained by the City, but once the dog park is constructed the lease with the Park District will be amended to move this area into that leased, managed and maintained by the Park District. She added that there are other ordinances already in place in City Code that deal with issues such as excessive barking, cleaning up after your pet, and licensing, so any immediate issues should be able to be handled under those sections if they arise. Christensen suggested that since the land will be under the Park District’s control, then should be governed under their rules and that perhaps our City Attorney should work with their Attorney to establish the rules for the park. Swanson responded that he made the recommendation to leave the dog park usage guidelines as rules at this time rather than pursue ordinance changes.

Kreun commented we have a large number of dogs in the City but there are very few that are licensed, despite that there is an ordinance that requires all dogs to be licensed. He suggested that perhaps during the first summer/season that the park is open we try to make it very convenient for individuals to get their pets licensed in hopes of increasing the number of licensed pets and maybe we could work with the Park District on ideas to make that happen.

McNamara asked what determined the hours of operation at 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Parvey-Biby replied that those are the general hours of operation for all parks and wanted the dog park to be consistent with those.


2.16 Parking lease – St. John’s Block

There were no comments.


2.17 Request on behalf of City of Grand Forks for final approval of the Replat of Lots 2 through 8
and the north 120 feet of Lot 9, Block 1, Walchester Place Addn. (loc. in 1500 block of Walnut
St.)

There were no comments.


2.18 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Visim LLP for final approval (fast track) of Replat of Lot
2, Block 1, Amundson’s Second Resubdiv, and to include variance from Section 18-
0907(4)(L)(1)c.to allow for second access (loc. at 3101 S. 42nd Street)

There were no comments.


2.19 Request from Widseth, Smith and Nolting & Assoc. on behalf of Valdak Corporation for final
approval (fast track) of Replat of Lot 1, Block 1, Meadow Ridge First Addn. (loc. at S.
Washington St. and 47th Ave. S.)

There were no comments.

2.20 Request from Cheney-Dakota, LLC for final approval (fast track) of Replat of Block 1 of
Replat of Lot C, Block 1 of Replat of Lots 1-6, Block 1, Columbia Park 27th Addn. (loc. at 3901
32nd Ave. S.)

There were no comments.

2.21 2008 CDBG Funding Priorities.

Christensen asked whether the Council could still have the ability to determine a specific use for some of the funds if they so wished. Hoover stated that they could. He continued that Council would need to direct staff as to the amount of funding to be allocated and that they would like the Citizen Advisory Comimittee (CAC) to include funding for that purpose. Christensen responded that what he is thinking is that if there was a project that needed funding that would meet the criteria for these funds that Council would allocate the money to that project and then the CAC would allocate the remainder. Hoover stated that would be allowed.

Hoover stated that of the $1,575,000 available this year, that $315,000 would be retained for administration of the program by Urban Development, $200,000 would be given to the United Way to allocate for Public Service uses, $500,000 would be used in the HomeCents Program, $250,000 would be used in the American Dream Program, and $310,000 would be in the Other Bricks & Mortar uses which the CAC allocates. He continued that there is one infrastructure project that could qualify for funding, the rehabilitation of the undercrossing on Gateway Drive at 11th Avenue North near Wilder School with an estimated cost of $182,800.

Kreun stated that he would like to see the City projects evaluated with the same due diligence that the committee gives other projects from agencies, as if that could receive funding it would keep specials and the draw on general tax dollars down and thereby save the citizens money. Christensen stated that he would like to see Council allocate the funds to the program and then give CAC the rest. He inquired what other funding sources would be available if we didn’t use CDBG funds. Grasser stated that there would probably be a combination of sources – lighting improvements from the lighting maintenance account, sidewalk from the street repair funds, etc. Christensen asked how many of those draw from general tax dollars and stated that if CDBG funding were used could be a saving and that rehabs in this area could also be a draw to encourage people to live there.

Glassheim stated that the Council has already set aside some funds to help revive this neighborhood and is in support of work continuing there, but would still like to see the City project compete with others submitted, as there may be a project submitted by someone else that could be equally or more valuable to the community and won’t know that until the applications come in.


3. Information Items

There were none.


4. Citizen Request

There were none.

5. City Administrator Comments

There were none.

6.Mayor and Council Member Comments

Kreun commented that he wanted to expound on the additional funds from the State and that thanks are due to the hard work of Sen. Holmberg and Rep. Glassheim for initiating and shepherding the bill through to get us the aid.

Glassheim announced that the Near Northside Neighborhood Group will be meeting September 18 at 7:00 p.m. at St. Mike’s Church and anyone interested is welcome to attend.


7. Adjournment.

Motion to adjourn by Brooks, second by Glassheim. Aye: All. Nay: None. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,


John M. Schmisek, CPA
City Auditor

SLL