Print VersionStay Informed
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE/URBAN DEVEOPMENT COMMITTEES
Monday, August 14, 2000 - 7:00 p.m.________________________________

Members present: Kreun, Glassheim, Hoff, Klave
Christensen, Burke, Lunak

1. Matter of Red River Renaissance.
Chairman Christensen reported this is joint meeting to consider additional issues regarding the management of the greenway and that he and Chairman Kreun had visited with Mr. Staley, Burke, Glassheim and also with staff members Lisa Dressler, Melody Parvey-Biby, C.Grotte, and what is before the committee is not a proposed ordinance but is result of input from various parties as to a proposal to go forward with the management of an area that is yet to be born - greenway. He stated he didn’t think they would be making any final decisions as to management of the greenway - that they have an introduced ordinance which has been tabled in its current form several times. He stated that the joint committee is currently reviewing the 2001 budget and trying to come up with thoughts as to how to address the beginning of the construction of the dike assuming contracts are let and some form of construction begins in 2001. He thought they only had an issue re. funding of one or more staff positions which would assist the council in reviewing betterments to the dike plan as the construction of the dike begins. He stated the prior council had passed a governance structure, this council doesn’t believe that type of governance draft is warranted at this juncture for an area that will be created over the next 5 to 6 years, that the City has spent approx. $330 or $430,000 with Mr. Flink & Associates. The council knows there will be an area to be managed as a result of the construction of the dike, that there will be a greenway - that they are trying to develop some form of on-going oversight of an area called the greenway as the construction of the dike begins as the dike plan was prepared and as the concept of a greenway was formulated. He stated he wasn’t sure if the former council adopted a firm greenway master plan, Ms. Dressler stated that both sides did. He stated that when they met they tried to put together a management concept, to consider the data and input and discuss that, and not sure making any final decision this evening.

Chairman Kreun stated they met on this and would like input from other members, Park District and other concerned groups that are in the audience.

Hoff stated he wanted to make sure that there is a speaking order and wants to determine who is chairing this joint meeting. Kreun stated it was a joint meeting and they are joint chairs, and would be an informational meeting, and can establish a speaking order if so desired. Kreun stated he would act as chair. Hoff stated he wanted to take issue with some of the things that Mr. Christensen said, that there were several things that appeared to speak for all of them and takes issue with the motion that there shall be an area called the greenway, that Mr. Christensen stated there will be an area to be managed because of construction of the dike, but will that area be a greenway with adequate infrastructure, a recreation area or will it be “an area of junked cars and weeds”, nothing is so sure that we can say it will happen.

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE/URBAN DEVEOPMENT - Page 2

Glassheim stated that this has been going on for two years and City has made no decision on what or how going to do it, but thinks need to make a decision. He asked if wanted to adopt this concept, whether resolution or statement of ideas where we are relative to the ordinance. Mr. Swanson stated that the ordinance has had its first reading and has been tabled, and it would need to be brought back to the floor by a motion and some action taken on that ordinance, whether pass, amend or defeat it. He stated he wasn’t sure what has been proposed now, whether ordinance form or something else - primarily the reason they were acting on the ordinance because were establishing an independent body or entity, and to confer or delegate some authority to them.

Glassheim stated this would be a concept statement or plan or intention to proceed by the council; Mr. Swanson stated he wouldn’t see reason to adopt by ordinance, but by resolution. Mr. Swanson stated they would have to take some action on the ordinance to clear that off the books; that they could immediately follow after defeating of ordinance, if they wished to do that, by motion to adopt a resolution of whatever content they design.

John Staley, Park District, and Jim Bollman, president of the Board, were present. Mr. Staley clarified the policy of the Board for the greenway and that has stayed the same since December of last year - that going back to the agreement they did in June was that all the land would go into one ownership, split lands into two areas for management purposes, one would be managed totally with Park District funds (Riverside Park, Lincoln Memorial, etc.) and re. the other area or 600 acres, the Board has said they would be available to contract for maintenance, management for those remaining acres, that it’s a council decision. Mr. Staley stated that they wouldn’t charge for their professional staff, but any extra out of pocket costs like seasonal employees to mow, etc. would want to contract for that. He stated the full-time professional staff would be available to consult and to team work with the City, and that’s been the position all along with it. He stated their intention was never to operate, the City would maintain the coordinator position and planning position and Park District would be happy to work as a team with them in the planning design, but should they have a tree contract (to plant or remove trees) their professional staff would mark the trees at no expense to the City but the cost of the trees and extra cost of planting the trees would be expense of the project.

Will Gosnold, president of GOALS, stated at their last meeting they came up with ideas they would like to present for consideration, and that the interest of GOALS is to cooperate with everybody in developing this, esp. with Park District, City Council, Corps of Engineers, etc. ; that he talked with the ND National Guard people and are considering asking their engineering group to look into developing the type of multi-use trails (all-weather trails) as a training exercise for the Guard, which they would do in segments and would take some time, that they don’t have any engineering assets here but they would not charge anything for the design, personnel or equipment, only charge for the gasoline required to bring the equipment here, to operate it and send it back, and that some of the GOALS people stated they could raise funds for that; that the second part of the plan was to go to the local service clubs, businesses and ask them if they would consider adopting
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE/URBANDEVELOPMENT - PAGE 3

sections of the greenway for maintenance, etc. which would help with mowing and maintenance. He stated they are just getting started with this and would like to offer that as a possibility to consider, and if able to do that would have trails they want and would cost the taxpayers nothing. Kreun stated that when they have a coordinator to work out those details with the Park District and GOALS and Friends of the Greenway, and their goal is to attain this cohesiveness to bring that together, and doesn’t see why that wouldn’t be an option. Christensen stated it was his concept to welcome those initiatives. Mr. Grosnold stated that one condition is that the National Guard would want the City to be committed to it.

Ann Sande, 1110 Belmont Road, vice president of Friends of the Greenway, stated they have received a copy of the greenway management concept and there are several issues that need to be addressed: one is to whom does the proposed greenway division report - whether to the city engineer, director of public works, etc. and thinks that needs to be specified in this concept; second the proposal is to be responsible for the marketing events scheduled within the greenway and in an effort to make the greenway a tourist attraction, does that mean that whoever this person or persons are will be doing the marketing effort for every event in the greenway or that Friends of the Greenway or GOALS would not be doing their own marketing - that it’s not clear in the concept plan. Kreun stated that in their discussions within their meeting, they left that open so that the director would be able to coordinate each individual type of event as it comes about, so that if Friends of the Greenway had an event they could coordinate that with the Park District to prepare it or other groups that had an event coming on, and could utilize staff together. Mrs. Sande stated the director would be keeping a schedule of event, so no overlap or conflict; but would like to handle their own events; and that she is not sure that whoever the person or persons are that will be in the Greenway Division may have no expertise in marketing. She stated one thing she is concerned about is Mr. Christensen’s statement that the greenway does not exist until the dike is built, that she believes we have a greenway right now, that we have this land which City is responsible for it and required to manage it;
the greenway exists now and there will be more intensive management after the dike is built, but City is responsible now and not an incremental greenway.

Christensen stated that the greenway division as contemplated would be under the engineering department and people who work in the engineering department then report to Mr. Vein, and why would it make a difference if have division within the department. Mrs. Sande stated there is a difference between reporting directly to Mr. Vein and reporting to Mr. Grotte who reports to Mr. Vein, etc. and need to consider at what level how important this division is. Christensen stated they could address that as part of the divisional structure of the engineering department. Kreun stated that they want one person in charge so that person can take that information and see that it gets done or go to the proper entities so one reporting entity. Mrs. Sande stated that the City is also responsible for the land north of Riverside Park and responsible for the land behind Reeves Drive, if there are issues there, whether there’s a dike there or not. Christensen stated there are homeowners on Reeves where land hasn’t been purchased. Mr. Vein reported that the
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE/URBAN DEVELOPMENT - PAGE 4

Corps is preparing the plats of where R/W necessary for the project and will be purchasing prior to construction of dike, but presently don’t own that land going down to the river.

Joanne Gabrynowicz, 1323 Noble Cove, raised question - that under the organizational structure, paragraph 2, the heading, Other Partners - the Greenway Division will work with the Greenway Alliance, and is it intended that the Greenway Division is the public sector entity and the Alliance is the private sector entity; Ms. Dressler stated that the Greenway Alliance has public as well as federal and state agencies, - Ms. Gabrynowicz asked what is the formal relationship between the Division and the Alliance, and if there is a partnership and legal relationship for responsibility and oversight, and if informal use of the word; Ms. Dressler stated that the Alliance is a technical advisory group which was set up three years ago and advising both Grand Fork and East Grand Forks (their input would be advisory and no obligation on behalf of the Division to accept that advice). Alliance makes recommendations to the Division. Christensen stated they are working together, that they can’t enter into legal relationships without contractual authority without some type of resolution authorizing an alliance of joint venture - meant as cooperative rather than legal partnership.

John French, 1213 Belmont Road, president of the Grand Forks County Wildlife Federation, stated that about 14 months ago he was contacted by the ND Game & Fish Department and they indicated they would like to be involved in the greenway and all they needed was an invitation, that he contacted the mayor and waited a month and got back in touch with Game & Fish and they hadn’t been contacted, wrote the mayor a letter following up and to best of his knowledge never been contacted, they have money, they have expertise and nobody has contacted them. (Mr. Staley contacted them) Kreun stated if they can come to agreement with this type of governance issue, that would be responsibility of director/coordinator to contact those people. Ms. Dressler stated that other staff members have contacted them and they are on the Alliance. Kreun asked for copies of the letters that Mr. French wrote so they can follow up with them. Mr. French stated that they’ve been ranked extremely low as far as participation; and Asst. to the Game & Fish Commissioner contacted him and talked to him on several occasions, glad that something is being done, people are frustrated and politics that have gone on with this and very frustrating.

Hoff asked Ms. Dressler if there is a website that promotes the greenway and pulls people together; Ms. Dressler stated the Info. Center has website and link. It was noted there are at least 4 websites.

Kreun asked for final comments before closing the information meeting.

K.Vein stated he’s been dealing with governance for 2 to 3 years, looked at different types of structures that could be there - anything from strong side public to strong side private, reviewed other cities and found that in right situation, everyone has it’s place, and original concept was leaning to strong side public but did have a private aspect in it, with budget
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE/URBAN DEVELOPMENT - PAGE 5

approved by the council and still had independence to it, and that’s the ordinance that was before us. He stated that now as they look at this, puts a little more to the public side, and from staff perspective, willing to work with each of those, and important thing is to finalize the governance and go on. He stated there are some concepts, details that will evolve but important for public and staff to define responsibilities and get finalized and resolved. He stated it can be revisited in several years as it goes on. that will continue to happen in order to make this successful. He stated we need to look at the master plan and make sure that is in line with what see the future is going to be and look at the CIP that was previously adopted and look at funding options out there, and help them as they deal with outside entities and continue this process.

Glassheim stated his preference has been the original proposal, the Red River Renaissance, that he reviewed the management plan and have five amendments which would be his preference and prepared to move forward and not have a major debate on council floor with this general framework with maybe several changes which wouldn’t damage those who want to move ahead but in a more limited way than the Red River Renaissance is proposing. Committee chairs asked to hear the amendments and take under advisement.

Glassheim stated that either 1 or 2 staff positions and his impression that they need 2 if that can be justified in terms of work plan. Burke stated they could ask current staff to put together a work plan and make judgment about how much of work plan want done, and have until end of budgeting process to make that decision; 2) that at the bottom of page 1, would call that Responsibilities of the Greenway Division and say that the Greenway Division will work with Planning Department to develop an overall strategy to implement the city of Grand Forks’ approved plan, and wants to establish that the Greenway Division is in charge, but charged with working with the Planning Department, needs to e one place to go, to coordinate, to talk with, to get input. That the Engineering Department and the Planning Department will work together in the development of the implementation of an overall greenway strategy to implent.. clarify that and title it “Responsibilities of the Greenway Division” and Greenway Division is under the engineering department as it’s been set up. Glassheim stated that they could include in reporting structure to report to the city engineer. He stated he would want to consider something which was in an earlier draft about working with the City of Grand Forks Urban Development Department on maintenance of the greenway lands in the downtown area from Point Bridget to Kennedy Bridge, and living along there and knowing what the riverfront looked like until the Urban Development Department took it over; and thinks Urban Development has made that into a place that habitable and ready for usage, and if recognizing the Park District’s contribution and place in this and recognizing Planning Department’s contribution and place in this, would like to us recognize Urban Development’s place in this too. He stated in the front it’s a verbal thing about assist with the non-profit organizations and writing grants, and for legal reasons it would be good to say that the 501 3 C, is the one doing the grant work but the Greenway Division may help them do it, but it’s not the Greenway Division writing the grant because of how the money flows. He stated those are the only content problems he has with it, but thinks this is workable and livable esp. if we say that
MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE/URBAN DEVELOPMENT - PAGE 6

the Greenway Division is in charge and there is sufficient staff, however that is determined to be.

Klave stated that the group that got together to this stage are listening to all the input here tonight and for that group to get together and take this from a concept to a draft form to be brought to the council floor.

Hoff stated that groups have been meeting , that these have been unofficial meetings, not consisting of quorums, and that this supports a point that he made to Mr. Gershman in writing about minority council members who ran openly on third party platforms have been denied social fabric of the council, the series of informal meetings, informal phone calls, informal notes being passed back and forth and time and time again are excluded as though by a deliberate policy from informal meetings which are not given public notice and this is an example of that very thing, he has greenway ideas too and would have liked to have had input into this, but his point remains He stated he would like to see action taken on this matter tonight.

Mr. Vein stated they will take those concepts and get written up and E-mail to everybody in advance and have a special committee meeting half an hour before council to see if any last minute changes and then it can be forwarded to council with a recommendation from both committees. Hoff asked that they keep them involved re. the informal talks that take place.

Mrs. Sande stated that the City is responsible for the Koininia area, not the Park District, and as far as she is aware Urban Development is not officially charged with the maintenance of that area. Christensen stated that is something that the council has to address. Mrs. Sande stated that she thought they should be included by reference in the description.

Kreun called the meeting adjourned. Hoff asked if they need a motion for adjournment.
Hoff asked for point of order for the record, this meeting required a move for adjournment, a second and a vote, and has not been adjourned, that it was an informal meeting but had parliamentary procedure, that this is not proper and wants the record noted.

Meeting closed at 8:20 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk

Dated: 8/15/00