Committee Minutes

Minutes of the Grand Forks City Council/Finance-Development
Standby Committee Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - 12:00 Noon___

The Finance/Development Standby Committee met on Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at 12:00 noon in Room 101 in City Hall with Chairman Christensen presiding. Present at roll call: Christensen, Brooks, Glassheim, Gershman.

Also present were Greg Hoover, Rick Duquette.

2. Parking lease - St. John's Block.
Motion by Brooks and Glassheim to approve with language to assure sufficient space for Amazing Grains. Carried.

1. Downtown municipal parking system.
Greg Hoover, urban development director, stated this is a follow up of the MPO parking study and recommendation recapping some of the things they have done to date, one of the things is that they set up a stakeholder group to advise on matters relating to the system and among the things they would talk about would be the issues with respect to the Riverboat Road spaces, there are 9 spaces at the end of the 2nd Avenue along the dike that are part of the system, have run into technical issues that he is trying to work through right now, were told that we cannot lease to particular businesses for those spaces because they are on public roads, will be working with others in the city to see if we can't designate both those spaces for areas as public lots: 1) Riverboat Road no longer is a road to anywhere, entry to a lot and the others at the end of where it dead ends against the dike and would say that is a continuation of public parking lot as opposed to a dead-end street; that they have had some discussions on that and would lease those spots both the 9 and the 27 diagonal on the wet side on Riverboat Road but can't get to that point until they actually get that determination, that if vacated the property goes to the adjacent property owners as far as the 9, and that would go to the Sampson group and the MetroPlains group, and want to avoid that.

Gershman stated on Riverboat Road before the bridge could have diagonal parking on both sides, and doesn't understand why diagonal parking is opposite of driving in. Hoover stated that the city engineer explained that it is a safety issue - would be hesitant to address that but again this is one of the reasons we want to put the stakeholder group together to review a lot of these things, including parking, fees, and the fact that in his opinion the assessment system we have is totally unworkable, and that is one of the reasons the consultants agreed and committee agreed in accepting the report to put the stakeholders group together to talk with people involved with downtown parking to get their input on some of these things. Gershman stated he couldn't understand why there can't be diagonal parking on both sides and would like that revisited by the engineer.

Christensen asked what there is to study, they know what the fees are, know who parks where, and if vacate the street and it goes back to the owners and that isn't going to happen, and the only real question is, can designate that as something other than a thoroughfare without vacating it; that we have $90,000 in cameras and paint one block away, and questioned why going to spend a lot of time for those stalls. Hoover stated he is trying to get a sense from committee is if they want to stay with what was agreed and get input from the people who are affected by this (municipal parking system) or not; and if don't want it, tell him and they will move forward as far as staff. Christensen asked what are they trying to achieve with public process, know we have a parking issue downtown and that issue seems to accelerate Thursday, Friday and Saturday in the evenings and when school is on, and questioned who would comprise your stakeholder group, some business owners downtown, somebody from Central High School, Sampson, and have put together his 7 people and what ask them to study. Hoover stated they are not asking them to study anything, that they will put forward ideas of things they are looking at, would like to have their input on what they think about the parking assessment; and the way it would happen at this juncture is staff would put together these things and come to committee for input, go to council and then having the input from the public, and if don't want to have the input ahead of time, advise him.

Glassheim stated he doesn't understand why they would not have input, they have no authority or final say but a group that would meet and not sure if 7 is enough to get various interest represented, know we have a problem and why wouldn't want to solicit people's opinions who are involved in this. Hoover stated the purpose of the stakeholder group according to the recommendation is that they meet once a quarter until whenever and are to continue to check back to see how things are going, etc. Brooks stated the committee will deal with these issues and council becomes the appeal for the people, let them work it out with this committee and if problem and can't resolve, then come to council. Gershman stated his opinion is that the stakeholder committee is a good idea because once you get the stakeholders in the room they are going to understand some of the issues, that they should meet and review and have a report back by October 15, but questioned quarterly meetings.

Glassheim moved that the committee recommend that the council request staff to set stakeholders committee to review parking related to the municipal parking system and provide report back to committee by November 15. The motion was seconded by Brooks. Motion carried.

Hoover stated you may find interest when put accounts of people who are delinquent on payment of their assessments - that Meadowbrook has always been behind in their payments, they owe us $12,000, that Monte Stensland has never paid, but will get this report out to the committee, that at some point should make this public, parking assessment. Brooks moved that we authorize staff to begin collection action. Gershman stated they should notify them that that they have 30 days to bring it current or start action, and that any delinquent account the longer you let it go, the worse the problem, and have to have trigger point that if somebody is 2 quarters behind, pull serious trigger - this has got to be 5 years. Christensen stated that besides getting a judgment, that he doesn't value this assessment for parking. Brooks stated that his motion died for lack of second.

There was some discussion relating to businesses who are delinquent in payment of their parking assessments - that Meadowbrooke has always been behind in their payments, they owe us $12,000, and some that have never paid, but will get this report out to the committee. Hoover stated that they have sent them more than just an invoice, have followed up beginning last fall and will check again with legal but thinks it is toothless tiger because can't really do anything other than get a judgment, they ignore the judgment and that is one of things that he wants to have some feedback from the committee. He stated according to the ordinance it cannot go back to the business, and would like to have this explored taking the approach that the Mall does, that the assessment goes to the property owner and they pass it on and then if they don't pay, put a lien on their property.

Glassheim stated this is the operating fees to the business because assessment is set up in terms of usage generated by the particular kind of business; that they need to come back to committee with details. Hoover stated they base this on the municipal parking system budget and that is divided by a complicated formula, but suggested that they take total square footage in a building and divide it proportionately. Glassheim stated it was set up because sq. footage doesn't generate cars and tried to rationalized by the kind of business you had and how many cars that generates, based on national figures. Hoover also noted that they don't get information on change of leases, don't know who left and who has come in, etc. and they should change because their usage is less. Hoover stated they will bring that back. Christensen stated it gets down to the cost for the municipal system, how many spaces do we have and ask how much revenue do we generate from parking and the assessment and do we want to go through this exercise as opposed to forgetting about that revenue and moving on.

Hoover stated they are going to be doing away with their security (rent-a-cop) and going to a different system, have 2 people and one works 8:00 to 5:00 and the other works 9:00 to 3:00 and will be doing all the permitting; one individual will have motor scooter and one of his responsibilities is that he will go through the ramps and on-street and mark cars. Gershman stated it is important as get some discipline in it, everybody is treated the same and generates revenue, either through fines or leases. Christensen stated to get parking off the streets and into the ramp and change parking from 2 hours to 1 hour - change parking on 3rd because that is the only place that has 2 hour parking.

Glassheim reported that there was an accident near the bridge, there is a bike trail where people cross and sometimes cars stop to let people cross, can't have a traffic light at the bridge, and needs to be a place closer than 3rd Street to cross. Hoover stated he has passed this on to Al Grasser, city engineer, and he is looking at this.

ADJOURN

The meeting adjourned at 1:00 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk