Members Present: Barney (Mayor), Jantzer, Olson, Podrygula, Sipma, Straight, Wolsky Members Absent: None

Transcription

1 Page 1 Members Present: Barney (Mayor), Jantzer, Olson, Podrygula, Sipma, Straight, Wolsky Members Absent: None To the Honorable Mayor and All Aldermen: Following are the recommendations of the Committee of the Whole meeting called to order at 4:15 p.m. on : President Jantzer began by stating, the Committee had intended to review the garbage collection ordinance during the November meeting but they have delayed that discussion until next month. 1. The City Council approve the National Disaster Resilience Public Infrastructure Program Policies. The above motion by Alderman Sipma, seconded by Alderman Olson, and carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Barney, Jantzer, Olson, Podrygula, Sipma, Straight, Wolsky. nays: none. 2. The City Council approve the updated Conflict of Interest Policy for HUD CDBG-DR and CDBG-NDR grants. The above motion by Alderman Sipma, seconded by Alderman Olson, and carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Barney, Jantzer, Olson, Podrygula, Sipma, Straight, Wolsky. nays: none. 3. The City Council give authorization to sell the attached listed structures through public auction with the execution of sale to the highest responsible bidders. The above motion by Alderman Sipma, seconded by Alderman Olson, and carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Barney, Jantzer, Olson, Podrygula, Sipma, Straight, Wolsky. nays: none. 4. The City Council approve the contract amendment with Moore Engineering in the amount of $10,338 for the 16 th St and 31 st Ave Intersection Improvements and authorize the Mayor to sign the amendment. (4125) The above motion by Alderman Sipma, seconded by Alderman Olson, and carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Barney, Jantzer, Olson, Podrygula, Sipma, Straight, Wolsky. nays: none. 5. The City Council approve the contract amendment with Ackerman Estvold in the amount of $69,000 for Storm Sewer District 122 and authorize the Mayor to sign the amendment. (4197)

2 Page 2 The above motion by Alderman Sipma, seconded by Alderman Olson, and carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Barney, Jantzer, Olson, Podrygula, Sipma, Straight, Wolsky. nays: none. 6. The City Council approve the Demolition Program Salvage Policy. The above motion by Alderman Wolsky, seconded by Alderman Straight. Upon questioning by Alderman Wolsky, John Zakian, NDR Program Manager, explained, his goal is to maximize the potential program income. He said, there have been homes demolished up to this point but they realized some items can be salvaged. Mayor Barney asked if the value of the salvaged items would be deducted from the purchase price, to which Mr. Zakian responded by saying, it is HUD policy that if there are items in the home after the purchase price has been negotiated, those items can be sold back to the owner at a price determined by the City. He clarified, the contract with CDM Smith would not require an amendment and the policy would be included as part of the current demolition program. This policy creates a more defined opportunity to generate program income that can be put back into the project. Whereupon a vote was taken on the above motion by Alderman Wolsky, seconded by Alderman Straight and carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Barney, Jantzer, Olson, Podrygula, Sipma, Straight, Wolsky. nays: none. 7. The City Council grant approval for the Fire Chief to move forward with the bid process for the remodel of Fire Station #3 prior to FAA funding authorization; recommend approval to allow for bidding in February to gain the best construction prices and start construction in April/May; pass an ordinance to amend the 2018 annual budget to allow for completion of the project if FAA funding is delayed. The above motion by Alderman Podrygula, seconded by Alderman Straight. Alderman Wolsky asked the Fire Chief to explain the different cost estimates provided in the engineer s report. Chief Flermoen stated, the preliminary report was done for the Airport Master Plan. They had discussions on whether to construct a new building or do a remodel and they decided to remodel. They brought it forward during budget discussions but because of the financial constraints, she was asked to scale it back. The architects redesigned on a budget of about $1 million. Upon further questioning, she explained the how the FAA funding for the Airport Station would work. She said the allocations are awarded in August and the funds are reimbursed in September. The timeline they would like to move forward with, is on a construction schedule where they would submit the preliminary application to the FAA and would bid the project in February to begin construction in April or May.

3 Page 3 Alderman Podrygula explained, he is concerned the City is cutting corners when in the long run it may be more expensive. He said the consulting engineer says, if the cost of remodeling is over 50% of the cost to rebuild then he recommends rebuilding. This project costs about 65% the cost of a new building. He applauded staff for trying to keep costs down but is uncomfortable with this situation. He described some of the issues with the current building including, the site, poor drainage, roof issues, frozen pipes and code violations. He said the quality of the building needs to be improved as soon as possible. He emphasized, this is an example where the City should invest in the infrastructure now because later on there may be consequences. Whereupon a vote was taken on the above motion by Alderman Podrygula, seconded by Alderman Straight and carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Barney, Jantzer, Olson, Podrygula, Sipma, Straight, Wolsky. nays: none. 8. The City Council deny all 46 abatement applications requested by Rogahn Kelly, LLC and Wipfli LLP representing Townhomes at Stonebridge 5th addition. The City Assessor explained that November 1 st was the deadline to file a tax appeal for the value year 2015 and just prior to that day, the Assessor s Office received over 180 applications for abatement from several applicants. He said, the Committee members have received all of the documentation and he could answer any questions. He then stated, the applicant submitted the abatement on behalf of 46 Townhomes at Stonebridge 5 th Addition. He explained, the townhomes were assessed in 2015 by using the estimated cost to build at that time and comparisons to what other townhomes were selling for. The company is requesting about a 50% reduction from the assessed value of around $220,000 but they have not shared any documentation to support their calculations. He said, City staff has unsuccessfully asked for appointments to look at the properties and has been unable to obtain documentation from the company to confirm their requested values. Mr. Ternes then said, he assumes the applicant does not plan on attending the meeting tonight or the City Council meeting to discuss the issue but may be planning to appeal directly to the County who gives final approval or denial. Mayor Barney moved the City Council affirm the assessment provided by the City Assessor and deny the abatement applications for all 46 abatement applications requested by Rogahn Kelly, LLC and Wipfli LLP representing Townhomes at Stonebridge 5th addition. Motion seconded by Alderman Sipma. Mayor Barney said he respects the work of the City Assessor which has been proven time and again. The company has not adhered to the proper procedures and have not cooperated so he believes the Committee should support the recommendation from Mr. Ternes and his staff. Alderman Podrygula agreed with the Mayor s comments and said he believes the staff is honest and admits mistakes if they occur. In this situation, the applicant has not followed procedure and the lack of evidence provided shows bad faith on their behalf. Upon questioning by Alderman Wolsky, Mr. Ternes responded by saying, when the applicant signs the document they agree to open the premises to the Assessor s staff. He added, he cannot say whether that

4 Page 4 would make a difference in their assessment. He continued by saying, this tax representative in a phone call had indicated frustration with assessors in general in ND on a recent phone call. Mr. Ternes also stated, this company applied for a two year tax exemption for these townhomes in 2014 and indicated on the application their estimate of market value of the homes was $210,000 at the time. Whereupon a vote was taken on the above motion by Mayor Barney, seconded by Alderman Sipma, and carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Barney, Jantzer, Olson, Podrygula, Sipma, Straight, Wolsky. nays: none. 9. The City Council deny all 16 abatement applications requested by Fredrickson for C & K Consulting for 16 vacant lot parcels in Stonebridge Farms 4 th. The City Assessor described the location of the request. He said, the tax representative filed abatements for 16 lots owned by C& K Consulting. The properties were assessed at $75,000 per lot according to the 2013 and 2014 sales data, and the request is for $25,000 per lot. He provided documentation showing a number of comparable sales of $73,000 and $74,000 for lots in that area. He said, the reason these lots are assessed at $75,000 was an assumption that many of the lots being sold for a few thousand dollars less were bought in groups of more than one at a time. The company did not provide any documentation justifying their request of $25,000. He added, the current reduction in recent sale prices of similar lots in this area was already recognized for 2017 and would continue to be recognized for Alderman Sipma moved the City Council affirm the assessment provided by the City Assessor and deny all 16 abatement applications requested by Fredrickson for C & K Consulting for 16 vacant lot parcels in Stonebridge Farms 4th. Motion seconded by Alderman Olson. Upon questioning by Alderman Sipma, Mr. Ternes explained the process that takes place with abatement requests. He said, the City of Minot hardly receives any abatements. In the past, tax representatives would meet with the Assessor s Office and discuss individual properties. Now, there are large companies who are hired to find tax savings for their clients and he expects that is the reason they are simply signing the paperwork without providing documentation and then submitting it at the deadline. He also said, they are probably collecting data now at this late date and will provide that data at the county level. Whereupon a vote was taken on the motion by Alderman Sipma, seconded by Alderman Olson and carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Barney, Jantzer, Olson, Podrygula, Sipma, Straight, Wolsky; nays: none. 10. The City Council deny all abatement applications requested by Fredrickson & Byron, representing the property owners of Stonebridge Villas I, Stonebridge Villas II, Townhomes at Stonebridge, LLC and Stonebridge Development Company, LLC. The City Assessor explained, this application was submitted by the same company that represents the 16 lots discussed in the previous item. It is an abatement request for the 46 properties that were already addressed, in addition to three apartment buildings and the vacant lots that were not included with the 16 previous lots. He said, they have not provided any documentation and did not provide an opportunity to

5 Page 5 look at the apartments or townhomes. This company is requesting the 46 townhomes be valued at $100,000 which is about $30,000 less than the previous tax representative requested on the same 46 townhomes. They are asking for reductions between 50% and 75%. All of the properties were assessed similarly to other properties in the area. He mentioned that the apartment units are valued slightly higher than other newer apartment units but these are about 20% larger than many apartments and have twice as much land. Alderman Sipma moved the City Council deny all abatement applications requested by Fredrickson & Byron, representing the property owners of Stonebridge Villas I, Stonebridge Villas II, Townhomes at Stonebridge, LLC and Stonebridge Development Company, LLC. Motion seconded by Alderman Straight and carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Barney, Jantzer, Olson, Podrygula, Sipma, Straight, Wolsky; nays: none. 11. The City Council approve the Northridge Villas 2nd Addition Development Agreement and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. The above motion by Alderman Olson, seconded by Alderman Straight. John Zimmerman came forward and explained that the Development Agreement is being finalized with staff but there is one issue regarding the existing storm water management system that he would like to address. He said, in 2013 Eagle s Landing Subdivision built a detention pond for their property. They used corrugated steel for the pipe rather than the preferred concrete pipe that the City requires. After conducting some research, he discovered they used corrugated steel because at that time, there was a 4-6 week delay for the concrete pipe. He said the structural integrity of the pipe has been confirmed by the salesman and it should last up to 50 years. It was professionally installed and constructed and he requested the need for replacement be removed from the agreement. He continued by saying, the requirement would result in an unnecessary expense of $15,000 to $34,000. They have already demonstrated they are willing to go the extra mile for this project, referring to the greenway they purchased to create a trail system. The City Engineer stated, in 2013, the project was overlooked and the detention pond was not inspected after the infrastructure was completed. He said, he is not questioning the integrity of the pipe but does not want to deviate from the standards required by the City. Doing so could set a precedent for other developer s in the future to request deviations from City requirements. Staff is comfortable with the developer applying a coating to the pipe which would prevent rust and corrosion add years to the lifespan of the pipe. At the request of Alderman Wolsky, the City Engineer said he would try to provide a cost estimate prior to the City Council s decision on Monday. Alderman Straight said he is uncomfortable requiring the developer to pay for the replacement since it was a mistake by the City in not inspecting the detention pond. Upon further questioning, Mr. Meyer said, the developer at the time was aware of the requirement to use a concrete pipe.

6 Page 6 Whereupon a vote was taken on the motion by Alderman Olson, seconded by Alderman Straight and carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Barney, Jantzer, Olson, Podrygula, Sipma, Wolsky; nays: Straight. 12. Committee Structure and City Council Schedule Alderman Jantzer prefaced the discussion by saying, the topic was discussed at length during the Change of Government Ad Hoc meetings last year. Mayor Barney made a motion to split the Council into two committees, each composed of three Council members and two lay people from the community; Meetings will take place using the current schedule with the City Council meeting the first Monday of each month and the Committee meetings on the Tuesday and Wednesday prior to Council. Motion seconded by Alderman Olson. The Mayor explained, it seems cumbersome for the same group to meet and discuss the same items two weeks in a row. He said, adding members from the community promotes open government, transparency, and provides a platform to groom future City Council candidates. The committee discussed how meeting agendas should be broken up and whether the meetings will be categorized by topic. The Mayor suggested staff could prepare a recommended strategy for the Council to review regarding agenda composition. Alderman Olson said she supports the idea and believes the current process is redundant. Since City Council has the final vote on all decisions anyway, it is a good idea to have members of the community join in the discussion on the Committees. Alderman Podrygula said he believes it is too early to make changes. After the election next June, it is possible that half of the City Council will change. He also said, the segregation of the Council is arbitrary since the members should attend all of the meetings in order to understand the issues. The average citizen may be turned away by the time commitment and he commented on the learning curve involved with serving on Committees. He mentioned concerns that unelected citizens making significant decisions would reduce the accountability. He then listed several issues that should be addressed that he believes are more important than changing the Committees. Upon questioning by Alderman Jantzer, Mayor Barney said, the committee members would be appointed by the Mayor through the same application process that currently takes place for other committees such as Planning Commission. The members are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by City Council. Alderman Wolsky stated, he would like to improve how appointments are made and the notification process for those appointments. Alderman Sipma said, it is the elected officials who are accountable for making decisions, not lay people. He mentioned how opinions may change between the Committee of the Whole meeting and City Council and said he is not sure he s in favor of making any changes yet. He said he feels more prepared going into Council meetings after discussing issues during the Committee of the Whole.

7 Page 7 The Mayor said, the elected officials will still make the final decisions but including the public would be an asset. He reminded the Committee that ad hocs are composed of citizens to hold discussions but their recommendations go to the City Council. Alderman Podrygula moved the Committee divide the issue. Motion seconded by Alderman Wolsky and carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Barney, Jantzer, Olson, Podrygula, Sipma, Straight, Wolsky; nays: none. Alderman Olson reminded the Committee, the Planning Commission is not elected and they operate just fine holding discussions and forwarding recommendations to the Council. Whereupon a vote was taken on the above motion by Mayor Barney, seconded by Alderman Olson, to split the Council into two committees, each composed of three Council members and two lay people from the community and failed by the following roll call vote: ayes: Barney, Jantzer, Olson nays: Podrygula, Sipma, Straight, Wolsky. Alderman Wolsky said he would like to add a working meeting where the Council members could hold discussions outside of regular business. He would also like to see reports from the numerous other committees that Council members are a part of, including, Visit Minot and MADC. The Committee discussed the timing between the current meeting schedule and the desire to avoid inefficiencies. Whereupon a vote was taken on the above motion by Mayor Barney, seconded by Alderman Olson to continue using the current schedule with the City Council meeting the first Monday of each month and the Committee meetings on the Tuesday and Wednesday prior to Council and carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Barney, Jantzer, Olson, Podrygula, Sipma, Straight, Wolsky; nays: none. 13. The City Council authorize steps to be taken to secure approval of a Substantial Amendment to CDBG-DR Allocation #1 to create two new activities with one to acquire blighted homes and with one to create a small business revolving loan program. The above motion by Alderman Sipma, seconded by Alderman Straight. John Zakian came forward to describe the proposed amendments to the CDBG-DR Allocation #1. He began by saying, he has discouraged substantial amendments but in this situation there is no threat of rescoring the application and losing funding. If the Council grants approval to move forward, staff will draft the amendment and then allow 30 days for public input before City Council votes to approve the amendment. He explained, the grant is five years old and most projects have concluded. He gave examples such as the down payment assistant program and the voluntary acquisition program that were replaced or shifted into new programs. Since there is no congressional statutory deadline to expend the funds, there is more flexibility to develop new programs. After conversations with the Council and the public, it became clear, one of the priorities is to get rid of the zombie houses. He requested that $800,000 be allocated to a

8 Page 8 program to acquire those homes. He said, the program will involve the Finance Department and the City Attorney and could result in condemnation similar to the involuntary buyout. He said, he does not want the program to reward owners who have not maintained properties so suggested using post-flood values in the assessments, rather than pre-flood values that other programs have used. Alderman Sipma asked if neighbors would be able to purchase the properties, to which Mr. Zakian stated, those guidelines are provided in the documentation. Mr. Zakian estimated, there are 25 properties that could be included in the program and said they are located outside the buyout but in the flood inundation area. The goal is to put properties back into productive use. He said, the program will spend $800,000 but can optimistically expect to gain about $300,000 from generating funds. He continued by describing the second piece to the amendment which would launch a revolving loan program to support both existing and new small businesses. The program would not compete with bank loans or credit unions but would cater to those who cannot borrow from a bank. It is planned to seek from the federal Economic Development Administration (EDA) a matching grant of $800,000 which will produce a loan pool to begin this effort of $1.6 million. This is considerable interest with the Chamber of Commerce, MADC and Downtown Business and Professional Association to support the program. Upon questioning by Alderman Wolsky, Mr. Zakian explained there is a broad set of opportunities to provide loans. For example, a landlord downtown who had businesses before the flood now has buildings that are left vacant because of the flood. This program can help them attract small businesses. There are businesses downtown who could use additional working capital to further sustain themselves. Mr. Zakian said, if a neighborhood association is organized as a 501c3 it is able to apply for a loan. HUD s definition of a small business is the same as SBA, which says up to 500. HUD s rule allows you to include a 501c3 as a small business because it is seen as a job generator. Whereupon a vote was taken on the above motion by Alderman Sipma, seconded by Alderman Straight and carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Barney, Jantzer, Olson, Podrygula, Sipma, Straight; nays: Wolsky. 14. The City Council approve the Gathering Space Scoring Criteria. Mr. Zakian presented information on the Downtown Gathering Space. He said, in addition to building the place, we also need to acquire the property. Staff has selected three sites based on criteria described in the NDR Action Plan. The area needs to be the correct size and there needs to be sufficient funding to develop the site. HUD expects a specific set of criteria to be used to select a site. He went into detail explaining the criteria included in the scorecard, which will be used to weigh the scores of the final three sites and make a decision. The factors are: Public Input (30%), Costs (20%), Connectivity/Accessibility (10%), Environmental Consideration (10%), Historical Consideration (10%), Economic Impact (10%), and Visibility (10%). The criteria has been drafted based on factors provided by HUD and input from a technical review team, which included Alderman Straight, the City Manager, Planning Director, City Engineer, Park District, DBPA, CDM Smith and Mr. Zakian.

9 Page 9 After explaining all of categories, Mr. Zakian requested input from the Committee. Alderman Wolsky said, he has issues with the weights associated with the criteria. He does not believe environmental consideration should carry the same weight as accessibility. He also questioned the subjectivity of historical consideration and said several categories equate to increased costs. He suggested adding a category for uniqueness. Mr. Zakian responded by saying, it was a challenge to develop the scorecard and there is no perfect objective criteria but it cannot be too subjective because it would be more opinion driven rather than factually driven. The environmental and historic factors also consider time, for example SHPO is involved with historical considerations and the money must be spent by He responded to concerns about opportunity cost by saying, it could be factored into economic impact, for instance, a site can be scored on whether the location is better suited for something else. During the public input meetings, a broad overlay of the scorecard will be presented but the public will not be asked to judge the sites. The Committee discussed concerns over the timing of the two public input meetings, December 5 th and 14 th. They suggested moving the date or location of the December 14 th meeting to avoid conflicts with the Christmas train. Whereupon Alderman Podrygula moved to approve the scorecard criteria for the Downtown Gathering Space. Motion seconded by Alderman Sipma and carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Barney, Jantzer, Olson, Podrygula, Sipma, Straight; nays: Wolsky. 15. Presentation of the Build Minot Community Campaign Results Janet Anderson, Library Director, and Randy Monley brought the results of the Build Minot Campaign to share with the Committee. Ms. Anderson said, in 2016 Ms. Monley came up with the idea to give citizens the opportunity to share their ideas for how to build a better community. With the sponsorship of The Friends of the Library, there were rotating Mega-Block structures strategically placed around the city where citizens could write their suggestions on the blocks. Three structures rotated to 20 locations between January and May of The project was a community engagement campaign which gathered data that can be used by the City and other entities. She shared a brochure demonstrating the results of the campaign. The top suggestions were divided into five categories which include: Recreation (748), Family (210), Transportation/walkability (154), Beautification (125), and Help for At-Risk Populations (120). They removed categories they believed are not pertinent at this time, including Other, Restaurants and Businesses. Ms. Anderson also shared some of the changes that occurred throughout the city during this timeframe, not necessarily as a result of the campaign but to show that these changes represent things the community needed. There was the opening of a trampoline park, reevaluation of animal laws, indoor mini golf, more public art downtown, the opening of Caleb s Clubhouse, development of plans for a greenspace and the installation of a four way stop at Main and 2 nd, which was commonly requested.

10 Page 10 She continued by saying the Library plans to use this information to develop programs and services, but the hope is that this information can be used by others as well. The goal was to share ideas and the people of Minot have taken the time to share their thoughts. The Committee members commended Ms. Anderson for a fantastic project and encouraged her to share the data with the Chamber of Commerce. Alderman Straight also said, the success of implementing recycling will depend on participation by children in the community and requested she help with engagement on that project in the future. 16. Rosehill Cemetery Fence Opening to South Hill Complex At the Direction of Alderman Wolsky, the Assistant Public Works Director explained the reasoning for the fencing between the Rosehill Cemetery and South Hill Complex. He said, over the past four years, they have installed decorative fencing around the cemetery. There were issues with children at the baseball diamonds entering the cemetery and disrespecting the area by playing and sitting on the tombstones. After several complaints, the Superintendent at the Cemetery requested that something be done so they blocked access from the fields. Alderman Wolsky said, he requested the issue be placed on the agenda because he is concerned about pedestrian access throughout the city. He would like to set a vision for staff to guide similar decisions in the future. Alderman Wolsky made a motion to direct the City Manager to explore dates for a Council Retreat to discuss principles to guide staff in their operations. Motion seconded by Alderman Straight. Alderman Podrygula stated, he does not want to micromanage the staff but agreed there may be a need to provide vision and guidance. The Committee discussed the need to obey open meeting laws and said it would be open to the public. The City Manager stated, the idea has been discussed with each of the Council members individually and there was $2,500 approved in the 2018 budget for a City Council Retreat. He added, due to the potential turnover after the election in June, it may be a good idea to delay planning a strategy until a more long term Council is in place. He also asked for direction on what topics they would like to discuss. Alderman Podrygula said he would like to see more teamwork between the Council and staff. Whereupon a vote was taken on the above motion by Alderman Wolsky, seconded by Alderman Straight and carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Jantzer, Olson, Podrygula, Sipma, Straight, Wolsky; nays: Barney. 17. County Weed Board Representation

11 Page 11 Alderman Sipma said he was approached by Derrill Fick, of the Ward County Weed Board, to see if the City was still interested in a representative to serve on the Board as was suggested during the Nuisance Weed Ad Hoc Committee. The City Clerk explained, after speaking with staff at the County Auditor s Office, it was determined there is an opening on Ward County Weed Board. According to ND Century Code however, the members of the Board are appointed by the County Commission. They agreed to redefine the five zones that make up the Ward County Weed Board. Area 4 is now defined as Harrison Township minus the city limits of Minot. Area 5 is now defined to exclusively include the city limits of Minot. The former representative from Area 5 has stepped down from the position since he does not reside within the city limits, which opens a spot on the Board for another member. Applications can be submitted to the Ward County Auditor s Office for consideration by the County Commission. Alderman Sipma suggested the City nominate the City Code Enforcement Officer as a member of the Board however, the current employee does not reside in the city limits and therefore does not fill the criteria. Mayor Barney moved to nominate Shaun Sipma on behalf of the City Council to apply for the position on the Ward County Weed Board. Motion seconded by Alderman Straight and carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Barney, Jantzer, Olson, Podrygula, Sipma, Straight, Wolsky; nays: none. 18. Airport Activities, Reports and Project Updates The Airport Director submitted a written report and was available for any questions. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:59 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Kelly Matalka, City Clerk