Print VersionStay Informed
Minutes of Grand Forks City Council/Committee of the
Whole -Monday, June 11, 2007 - 7:00 p.m.___________

The city council of the city of Grand Forks sitting as the Committee of the Whole met in the council chambers in City Hall on Monday, June 11, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, McNamara, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen (teleconference), Kreun - 6; absent: Council Member Bakken - 1.

Mayor Brown commented on various events during the past week and upcoming events:
He stated they had their First Mayor's Urban Neighborhood's Initiative meeting at the
Near Northside and thanked residents who came to speak about their neighborhood, learn about existing resources and team up with them to keep traditional neighborhoods strong. He thanked entities who had representatives there including Mr. Duquette, Mr. Hoover and several of our departments and council members Glassheim, McNamara. A special thanks to Gate City who stepped up to help preserve our vital neighborhoods with a $1 million low interest rehab. loan. If interested in how these programs work and what the Muni Program is about, call Greg Hoover at Urban Development Office.
He attended ArtFest on Saturday and it was fantastic, thanks and appreciation to the organizers and volunteers, and also to city staff who helped to make this work.
This Wednesday at 3:30 p.m. there will be a summit on maturing population of Grand Forks at the Grand Forks Senior Citizen Center. They will be mapping the assets available in our community and using that information to chart a course to fill the gaps.
The Town Square's Farmers Market begins its 7th season on Saturday, June 16 and will run for 16 Saturdays this year, ending September 29.
Next Monday, June 18, the Grand Forks Police Department will hold an Awards Ceremony in the Police Building, awards presented to several citizens for outstanding contributions to the department and Grand Forks Police Department employees will also be recognized in the areas of Medal of Merit, lifesaving, fire arms proficiency, physical fitness, bike patrol century club and years of service awards as well as the Sgt. Wayne "Andy" Anderson Meritorious Service Award.

DOG PARK COMMITTEE REPORT UPDATE

Representatives of the committee reported they had submitted a proposal asking for consideration for dog park in the Lincoln Park Drive site, 3.33 acres, and will be holding a public information input meeting on June 21 at 5:00 p.m. at the Lincoln Park warming house. They reported their committee had met several times and have resolved some of the previous problems, that this is a good compromise for everyone, with no major objections from the group; and have started a fund raising effort and think they can make this happen.

There was some discussion re. collapsible fencing (on hinges, that unhook ends and it falls on the ground and not have to remove) that would reduce cost of installing and removal of the fencing every year. Representatives stated they have talked to the Park District about permanent fencing and were told it would have to be taken down and put back up every year. Mr. Gershman suggested that they check the cost of the collapsible fencing, engineering will look at cost.

The question was asked what City's involvement is; the City had representation - Kim Greendahl and Council Member Glassheim as well as Park Board. That at a meeting with the Park Board they approved the proposal contingent on council approval, and that the Park Board will be doing operations and maintenance along with the Paws Group, total cost is approx. $40,000 , they would raise $10,000 and that each of the entities would be asked for $15,000 for the original construction, with permanent fencing, and a lease with the Park District. It was noted that the site will be in two sections, one for small dogs and large dogs.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DISCUSSION ITEMS

2.1 City council meeting time.
Council Member Gershman presented several reasons for moving the council meetings to
5:30 or 5:00 p.m. - easier for the public to come after work, esp. in the winter, meets media deadlines which fosters a better informed public esp. when have a controversial item that goes late and public not informed the next morning of that issue, easier for senior citizens, no public transportation later in evening and better for staff, city council members and the public. He also noted that all committee meetings are held at 4:00 or 5:00 p.m. East Grand Forks and Fargo hold council/commission meetings at 5:00 p.m.

Bobbie Vogel, 2500 14th Avenue S., stated that 5:00 p.m. was okay for him, but problem for some people because of supper hour.

Council Members Brooks stated the dinner hour is time families get together and that there is an audience out there that wants to listen to the council meetings live, but would be good for council and staff - that he would like to hear from the public, good idea to try to the end of the year. He also stated that they may be doing something more permanent with committees - and that this was being televised because want public involved and informed, however, work sessions and standby committees meet downstairs, and are moving away from the public - time to bring to vote. Council Member McNamara stated his first consideration would be what is best for the public and public participation, would be in favor of test period of time to see if that meets the needs of the public, is looking for input.

Council Member Gershman also noted there is another consideration for earlier meetings on Monday night, for about 6 months of the year - Monday Night Football - and for lot of people
council meetings conflicts with that.

2.2 Issuance of Revenue Bonds on behalf of Altru Health System, call a public hearing.________________________________________________________
Council Member Brooks reported that this has been done previously, that the City sets
the public hearing and has no liability, not part of our financial statements; that this allows Altru Health Systems to issue tax exempt bonds with a favorable interest rate on the bonds. Rick Duquette, city administrator, stated that Altru will make a brief presentation at the public hearing as they refinance these bonds and what they are going with bonding, City has no liability. Dwight Thompson, Altru, was present but made no comments.

2.3 Applications for exemption of remodeling improvements to a residential building at various locations.________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.4 Consideration of technical corrections ordinance amending various ordinances
Howard Swanson, city attorney, reported there are 19 clauses to the ordinance and
reviewed 8 items which fall within the area he considers partially of substantive change, balance were housekeeping issues (correcting typos, spelling or grammatical errors or incomplete sentences). There were several minor changes suggested by Council Member Christensen who also asked to include in the ordinance that the funds collected from the storm sewer would be segregated from funds from the flood protection greenway fee. It was noted that the funds are separated, both for accounting and budgeting purposes.

2.5 Skate Park Relocation - Land lease to Park District.
There were no comments.

2.6 Change order for Project No. 6131, 2007 Concrete Panel Replacement Project._____________________________________________________
. Council Member Christensen stated they should allow engineering office to go forward and set up the $2.4 million because for additional panels that should be repaired within the district, and also that we use the $1.8 (additional funds from State) to fund repairs, because if we do that that will then reduce the monies that we are spending for flood protection betterments and should cause a smaller amount of special assessment for the benefits and asked if we allocated the $1.8 million. Mr. Kreun stated that he doesn't think that money qualifies for this usage as that is not a matching fund. Mr. Grasser reported that when the council put the extra dollars in there for the 3 ft. flood fight raise, that was 100% local money, about 6 or 8 months ago went back to the State saying this is direct flood protection and would like the State to cost share at their 45% on that, and that is where that money came back into the budget and without that would not have had $2.4 million in betterments to put towards the street repair. The State is going to reimburse us on the 3 ft. raise which revitalizes our local account which allowed us to go up to the $2.4 million on the flood road repair but there is no direct State contribution on the road repair itself, and indirect relationship there based on the money that came back

2.7 Request to proceed with engineering agreement to complete project concept report for S. 48th Street construction from 16th Ave.S. to 32nd Ave.S, Project No. 6101.
Council Member Christensen stated he doesn't think there is any money, probably in
2008, so if do this project now and it has a shelf life of 3 years, what would they have to do to extend this project until 2008 and shelf life would overlap in 2010 when State will give us the money to do this project, and see if we can't find the money to do it in 2008. John Thompson, asst. city engineer, stated that the concept report itself will take 6 months to a year to complete and it will be done in mid-2008, it actually adds one more year to the life of it. Mr. Christensen stated that if they run into any timing issues here would they have 2 months for update on the report; Mr. Thompson stated they wouldn't have to do much for an update if following through with it.

2.8 Three-way Construction Engineering Services Agreement for Project No. 5988, Dist. 627, paving 40th Ave.S. (S. 20th St. to S. Wash.St.)_____________________________
There were no comments.

2.9 Agreement with East Grand Forks for maintenance of the Pedestrian Bridges, Project No. 6138._____________________________________________________
Council Member Glassheim asked why the Herald's proposal isn't a good one. Council
Member Kreun stated MN is larger state and what want to do is leverage funds depending on what is needed and if leave that open sometimes they have access to a lot more money, we have a larger community but find out what the problem is and what needs are and then find out the funding from both States or both cities to do the best you can for both communities and works out to betterment of both communities to leave this vague at this time. Council Member Brooks stated that in reference to the editorial and he wasn't a part of the negotiating team to work that agreement out and that they came to this agreement and talking about something that isn't going to happen for awhile in terms of major repairs, but visited later on and that the group that got together with staff and came to this agreement and the agreement was passed by East Grand Forks.

Council Member Glassheim stated that it seems odd to go into relationships and agreements without clear understanding of where the money comes from, and if it is variable and depends on the circumstances 10 years from now and uneasy not to know in advance; and there is mediation procedure if you can't come to an agreement 10 years from now and livable. Each community is going to take one bridge and have taken all the GPS readings and will take care of graffiti on north bridge and we will do the same on the south bridge and have authorized some money because of the fire that set underneath the Spaulding and we are paying for that already, and thinks this is a good agreement. Mr. Grasser reviewed several items of the agreement where each party shall be responsible for inspections on the bridge, repairs on the bridge and that the document has tied up a lot more loose ends, and thinks the agreement is workable.

2.10 Bid from Norby's Work Perks for office furniture.
There were no comments.

2.11 Public Works Department - Sale of Turtle River Township property.
There were no comments.

2.12 Matter of immediate Capital Improvements Plan for Grand Forks Water Treatment Plant (GFWTP) and agreement for GFWTP Long Term Technology Alternatives Study._____________________________________________________
A presentation was made by Hazel Sletten, water utility superintendent, and Todd
Feland, public works director, relative to the Capital Improvements Plan for the Grand Forks Water Treatment Plant and long term technology alternatives study.

Mr. Feland stated they are asking to proceed with the immediate 5-year plan of the CIP and go ahead with this long term technology alternative study - that they will be monitoring for the LT2 rule and that in 2009 will have a better idea of where they are going.

Council Member Kreun stated this is one of their large projects that they will be working on for the next several years and has to be understood by council members how important these projects are to our community, not many people like to look at the technicalities and the money, however, when they toured the plant - how many people does it take to run a water treatment plant with all the technology - 2 people (operators) in the whole plant; technology has come a long way; and would recommend that we take the recommendation from Mr. Feland and do our immediate improvements and then work with the consultant to put in place a long term technology alternative plan.

Council Member Glassheim asked if we are going short term and intermediate term repairs if those would be wasted if we change to a new plant; and that the $2 million plus in rehab will carry us through 2011 or 2013 and if need those for the next 6 years. Mr. Feland stated what they planning upwards of $2 million investment and if they were to decide in 2009 that they want to proceed with some sort of improvement and had a new rehab facility in 2015, that some of that might be lost but these are things that we should do because these are normal rehab. improve-ments and have held off because we weren't sure what they were going to do, and thinks the target date of something new is so far out there that we have too many years out there not to make this investment in our facility. He stated that part of our goal is to get them in place so that we get as many years of use out of them as possible; and it is time to make some immediate investments in this plant, failure is never an option and don't want that to happen, know that we are not going to have a new facility tomorrow or the next year. He stated that if we make the immediate investment of the $2 million at the water treatment plant, and if come back in 2009 and say that we are not quite ready to go long term, and should invest another $8 million in existing plant, and that $8 million will get you another 15 years, this is cost benefit and benefit far outweighs the cost of this improvement.

Council Member Brooks stated that along with this study you will also be looking at funding and cost involved and a look at some projected rate structures that will go along with it, that when looking at our accounting system and governmental accounting system it is structured the way it is because a number of our enterprise funds pay for themselves and are self sustaining, that we need to do a financial plan along with the long term plan so it can be paid within the fees generated to cover that.

Questions were raised re. source of funding of $2 million investment in the current plant for necessary repairs. Mr. Feland stated that we do have cash reserves in the Water Enterprise Fund because we have deferred projects and have had some good revenue over expenses. The $2 million that they are looking at investing is coming from cash reserves and is money they have built up over the years and not intending for these projects to raise current rates; obviously a long term project may require increase rates, and intermediate project may require raising rates. .

2.13 Grand Forks Renaissance Zone Project GF-42.
There were no comments

2.14 Request from CPS, Ltd on behalf of BOSOX, Inc. for final approval (fast track) of Replat of Lot F, Blk. 1 (of the Replat of Lots B and C, Blk. 1 of Replat of Lots 1 and 2, Blk. 1), Columbia Park 10th Addn._______________________________________
It was noted that this item may not proceed and may be removed from the agenda. next week.

2.15 Request from Pribula Engineering on behalf of Greg Chalmers and Eric Toutenhoofd for final approval (fast track) of Replat of Lots 13, 14 and 15, Blk. 1, Holes' Central Addn. (loc. at 419 and 423 Walnut St.)._________________________
There were no comments.

2.16 Request from Arvin Heemstra for approval of conditional use permit (CUP) for purpose of constructing a private horse stable and riding arena in NE Quarter of Section 23, T151N, R51 W of Fifth P.M. (loc. at 7173 32nd Ave.S.) _____________
Mr. Swanson stated he wanted to have a chance to confer with the Planning Department
to insure that the current ordinance gives authority for a conditional use permit, and will report that to council on or before next Monday. Brad Gengler, city planner, stated the number of horses was discussed at Planning Commission meeting, and the applicant indicated that he has 2 horses on site and intent is for private purposes, not a commercial riding stable open to the public.

2.17 Request from James Bradshaw on behalf of Strata Corporation for final approval (fast track) of Strata Third Resubdiv, being a replat of Lot B of Replat of Lots 1 and 2, Strata Resubdiv. (loc. at 1625 N. 36th St,)__________________________________
There were no comments.

2.18 Request from Sunset Bluffs, LLC for approval to vacate portion of street R/W only for lands in the northeast corner of Lot B, Blk. 1, Shadyridge Estates 5th Resubdiv. (loc. in southeast corner of Adams Dr. and Shadyridge ­ Court.__________________
There were no comments.

2.19 Request from the City of Grand Forks and others for approval to vacate street rights of way in Shadyridge Estates Third and Sixth Addns._________________
There were no comments.
2.20 Request on behalf of City of Grand Forks for vacation of all of Gertrude Avenue R/W northeast of S. 3rd St. and all of Division Ave. R/W northeast of S. 3rd St. and alleyways dedicated in Auditor's Resubdiv. Nos. 15, 21 and 23.__________________
There were no comments.

2.21 Request from Widseth Smith Nolting & Assoc., inc. on behalf of Rick and Kathy Fayette for prelim. approval of plat of Shady Acres Addn., being part of the E. Half of SE Quarter of Sec. 32, T151N R50W of 5th P.M. (loc. on Grand Forks County Road No. 17 (S,. Columbia Rd.)_________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.22 Request from Sunset Bluffs, LLC for prelim. approval of replat of Lots B thru H, J, K and L, Blk. L, Shadyridge Estates Fifth Resubdiv. (loc. at Adams Dr. and Shadyridge Court­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­).______________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.23 Request from Sunset Bluffs, LLC for prelim. approval of ordinance to amend zoning map to include within Shadyridge Estates PUD, Concept
Development Plan, Amendment Number 3, all of Shadyridge Estates First.,
Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Resubdivs., Shadyridge Seventh
Addn., Shadyridge Estates Eighth Resubdiv., Greenwood Subdiv., and
unplatted portions of Sec. 26, T151N, R50W of 5th P.M. (all loc. within
vicinity of Adams Dr. and Shadyridge Court).________________________
There were no comments.

2.24 Request from CPS, Ltd. in behalf of Lavonne Adams and others, including City of Grand Forks for prelim. approval of plat of Shadyridge Estates Eighth Resubdiv. (loc. on Desiree Dr.)_____________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.25 Request from Turning Point, LLC on behalf of UND Aerospace Foundation for prelim. approval of ordinance to amend zoning map to include within Dakota Planned Unit Development, Concept Dev. Plan, all of Lots 2, 3, 4, B and D, Blk. 1, University Technology Park Addn. (loc. west of Interstate 29 between Univ.Ave. and DeMers. Ave.)___________________________________________________________
Council Member Kreun brought attention to the Note in the staff report, that the
Commission grant preliminary approval to the request, that applicant submit detailed plans for all purposed multiple family developments on site and to be submitted prior to final approval; there was a lot of discussion at Planning and Zoning on this rezoning request, the potential of putting a large number of people in one entrance/exit area, had its pros and cons, and they will take this up in Planning and Zoning for a lot more discussion when they bring that more detailed plan to them because they are undecided at this point but gave it preliminary approval.

Mr. Swanson stated that they should be aware that if final approval is given to the concept development plan of changing the zoning, you do not have authority thereafter to deny the use in the more appropriate zone or newly changed zone, you may have some control over the detail but once you grant the concept development change you have placed it into a situation where they do have property rights and move forward with multi-family development. Mr. Kreun stated that was part of the concern and what their questions were and have answered some of them and Mr. Gengler will get that information to the Planning and Zoning in a written form so that they understand what the consequences will be, not all bad but is quite a change, and they will be monitoring it very closely.

Council Member Christensen stated he and Mr. Kreun voted against this, that there are so many unanswered questions on the project and felt it would be better to deny it but didn't go that way so
that if this were approved on Monday, location has only one way in and out and that there could probably be 1200 people, lot of people concentrated in that area, deserves lot more review because of concentrated housing in that area of town

Mr. Swanson stated that a step to change the concept plan requires both preliminary approval and final approval, once you change the concept you then have a detailed development aspect of a PUD and once the concept plan is changed you do not have the discretion in reviewing a detailed development plan, once you give final approval to a concept development plan change, you are committed to allowing that use to move forward and your authority is limited only within the context of details within how they are placing that use onto the site.

Council Member Kreun stated this is preliminary approval next week. Mr. Gengler stated this is the concept development plan, otherwise known as baseline zoning, and what was discussed was not whether apartments should be there but the proposed density and that exceeded most expectations voiced at Planning and Zoning Commission - that they are requesting a certain density and that it will be up to Planning and Zoning and city council's discretion whether to approve 20 units per acre, or 16. The detailed plans as the Commission indicated that they want the applicant to come back and show them on paper how their traffic circulation is going to work, etc. and that isn't subject to approval but only the zoning document.

Council Member Christensen stated you don't want to give preliminary approval because you really have 20 acres that was zoned light industrial and apparently that isn't being done, they have a right to come and ask for obtaining of zoning but do we want to give up on this area being light industrial and move it down to high density apartments, but if approve that zoning, one half apartments and one half B-1 zoning, or whole thing could be apartments - there should be more discussion and more observation and more thinking about what we want this 20 acres to be developed in our community. The only issue and concern about having all these apartments west and north of Mini Mart and across the Interstate developed into apartments, that is a high concentration of communal living - and should be thinking of that before approval - developed other than high concentration of apartments - develop into condominiums or some type of other living arrangements - that is what long range planning is about -

Mr. Swanson stated that they are actually seeking some B-1 uses in addition to multi-uses. Mr. Gengler stated the original proposal - now the area is zoned I-2 (Heavy Industrial) and they are proposing the two lots adjacent to Interstate multiple family configuration and submittal is 20 units per acre, and that for Lots 2 and D applicant had submitted B-1 and R-4 type uses, that Planning and Zoning Commission chose if this is to proceed, he recommended that R-4 designation be taken off and that it remains B-1 which under current zoning regulations R-4 type uses are permitted along with all the other office designations in a limited business district. The entire area subject to the request is conventionally zoned as I-2 (Heavy Industrial) and their request was to go to a PUD with B-1 and R-4 type uses controlled by the detailed development plan and ultimately controlled by the concept development plan which would then establish the densities, land uses, etc. subject to the final approval of the detailed development plan. Mr. Swanson stated that he may have misled the council in speaking only in terms of multi-family.

Council Member Brooks stated they are talking of area east of Congressional II and that neighborhood went through a level 4 bio-lab discussion in that same area, and neighborhood would probably be wild about getting multiple family in there and putting to rest any talks about a bio-lab; that he would like to hear from the people out there regarding some of the things brought up re. this area.

Mr. Swanson stated the request as a PUD with B-1 type uses does not incorporate all the B-1 limitations, such as density, the density is to be set in course of approving the concept development plan, that they have said B-1 type uses and R-4 type uses to designate the parameters of what could go in there, but key on density is what is approved in the concept plan. Council Member Kreun asked for that info in their packets next week for review. Mr. Swanson stated that the applicant is not seeking conventional zoning, either B-1 or R-4, zone.

COMMENTS BY MAYOR AND COUNCIL

1) Council Member McNamara complimented Todd Feland and Hazel Sletten for their presentation on the water treatment plant, great job and great plan.

ADJOURN

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

Respectfully submitted,



Maureen Storstad
for City Auditor