Committee Minutes

Minutes of the Grand Forks City Council/Finance-Development
Committee - Monday, August 9, 2010 - 5:00 p.m. _______________

The Finance/Development Committee met on Monday, August 9, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Council Member Glassheim presiding. Present at roll call: Glassheim, Sande, Christensen (teleconference).

Also present were. Council Members Bjerke, Grandstrand, Greg Hoover, Don Shields, K. Kjelstrom, Candi Stjern, Maureen Storstad, Chief O'Neill, Roxanne Fiala, Tim Haak, Todd Feland, Pete Haga.
1. Request from Kevin Ritterman on behalf of Civic Place, LLC to amend Section 14-0202 of Grand Forks City Code relating to parking in the Central Business District, Description of Assessment District, Exhibit A. ________________________________
Greg Hoover, urban development, reported that Mr. Ritterman has asked for his
development to be included in the municipal parking assessment district, that this will allow his project to conform to the parking requirements for that district and he will be able to go ahead and do that development. That he did some research and that this does not relate to being in the district but that Mr. Ritterman's project will pay about $1,360.00/year in special assessments, of that $87.00 would be for the Corporate ramp construction and remaining $1,270.00 would be for the first two dike assessments and the development would be responsible for paying on the third dike assessment.

He reported there are two districts, district that was put together to pay for the bonds that were used for the construction of the Corporate ramp, and is also the district that was used for construction bonds for the Central ramp in the late 1980's. The other district is the operations and maintenance assessment district and is the subject property that Mr. Ritterman's group is going to develop (civic auditorium building) - that this property is in the assessment district for the construction but not for the maintenance and operation district (didn't include the motel, the civic auditorium, US Bank and some other property) - that if going to charge someone to construct the building should also require them to be in the operations and maintenance district. That within the next several months he will come back to the committee with a proposal to bring these properties back into the operations and maintenance district, and that he is recommending, that you include this project in the assessment district and would not be at odds with what he is going to propose for the future.

He stated this would allow Mr. Ritterman to have fewer parking requirements spacewise for the assessment district than being outside the district. For comparative purposes they have two requirements, Chapter XIV and Chapter XVIII, and distributed information to the committee. Chapter XIV is the less restrictive and that is the operation and maintenance district, that the Civic Place and MetroPlains are together so can see a side by side comparison and Mr. Ritterman's project and the civic auditorium are currently outside the assessment district for operations and maintenance, and the parking lot for the auditorium which is in the assessment district and is also the location of the MetroPlains project that council has approved sometime ago and that the requirement under Chapter XIV for residential property that for every two units of rentals that you have one parking space. He stated that they do have some land to the westerly end of this development that now they are doing a stormwater rain garden and some improvements for monuments that were discussed but not knowing how many spaces you might be able to get there if we did parking or how that might change the project with regard to your stormwater requirements, the other is that they have been trying to acquire the property between the motel parking lot and the civic auditorium parking lot. (Property owned by motel and property owner interested to sell but having difficulty getting approval from his bank). The opportunity also exists if Mr. Ritterman would want to proceed and try to acquire that property or even to lease the space. The other opportunity is that Mr. Ritterman could lease some space in the Central ramp, however, within the last week or so talking about leasing between 145 and 160 spaces to the School, which is beginning to tighten up the availability of what they call casual parking to customers that would come in and would have 50 spaces or less for those.

Sande stated going to estimate that being 15 spaces of the total 85 which leaves 70 spaces for 53 units plus 3340 sq. ft of commercial. Mr. Ritterman stated when approved by the City to do the project thought that they were in the Central district and potentially are tight on parking and concerned about that but have talked to MetroPlains and with the motel people can rent some stalls from them as well. That they hope to start with the demolition of the project within the next month or so, and construct 53 apartment units on approx. 7500 sq.ft. of commercial space - one building - 4 stories - main floor plus 3; there is 35 underground parking stalls and approx. 49 spaces surface parking area for storm detention and have site maxed out; and that MetroPlains will have extra stalls and in pc. of ground interested in purchasing or leasing space depending on where the City fits into that.

Christensen moved approval of the recommendation; Sande stated little more discussion might be warranted.

Sande stated he has concerns, that from the planning side and sitting on the Planning and Zoning Board has considerable amount of issues with parking and been through many different times people come looking for variances to the parking requirements in all areas of town and have been pretty consistent in turning people down when they come looking to reduce the number of required stalls, mostly from the aspect of other areas where they know that there are issues with private citizens that live in the area and don't want significant number of cars parked on the street. That he was wondering if couldn't have more concrete alternatives because of his concern with the commercial space - is all for moving forward but not 100% sure that he is sold on the concept without some good alternatives right away.

Relative to the parking ramp which has 411 stalls and is under-utilized, Christensen stated that we have 144 stalls that the School District might want to rent and is something that has to be factored in for overall management of funding of the downtown - there is available land for other surface parking that is adjacent to the City Hall, across from Red Cross building - and also some land across the street that School District could use and put surface parking there - the issue is going to be is finding some alternative parking for the School Dist as opposed to these projects because these projects if within the parking district, that parking ramp contemplates they would qualify - not sure what else can do for the further development of these two projects other than accommodate them with our existing parking.

Hoover stated he thinks best alternative is to continue to try to conclude negotiations by either the City or the developer with the motel to acquire that site that would relieve a lot of pressure on that and that based on earlier discussions with the School contemplating 145 spaces in the ramp but that would not need to happen until the first of January. Christensen stated that the City can acquire that land adj. to the motel for public purposes, 100-120 spaces, and would be about the size of area that MetroPlains would be building on and that is 96. Hoover stated can get number for you prior to this going forward to the council.

Sande stated that in Chapter XVIII they need 172 parking spots and they are currently proposing 85 and assuming get 75 on that land and at 160 parking spots, would be very comfortable with that or a close approximation. Hoover stated that if they have a deficit in this case it may be $20,000 that they would have to pay into the operation and maintenance assessment district as any other business down there now. Sande stated that assessments are a small part and is more concerned about the commercial space and the 53 units for 60 spaces isn't a lot of parking and asked what it would take to move forward to get that land. Hoover stated he would contact the owner to see if can't get this going again. Sande stated he doesn't know who drew the lines for the O & M district, but should try to give the Ritterman's some of the benefit of that as well as having them pay for some of the costs of that, and would second Christensen's motion for approval with the caveat that we move forward to try to acquire that land.

Glassheim stated he is also concerned as your needing 15 spaces looks like it would be closely but if have other people's commercial and retail go in there, need lot more parking - Sande stated he encouraged more retail and yet more parking to go with that. Glassheim stated that if put bike racks get 3% decrease and if put bus station for the transit get 5% decrease in the requirements, that he looked at the law and that is what it says. Glassheim stated that you can buy out your requirements and his understanding is that it is about $1,000 per space for the concrete pad and if 30, 40, 50 spaces short if you would have been, that's up to $50,000 more into your proforma that wasn't expected.

Mr. Ritterman stated they have talked about angle parking, possibly on side streets, and that will create a lot of additional stalls - but at certain time of the year its full - students, etc. - that angle parking would help and will follow up with engineering. Sande asked that at the city council meeting we have an update to the parking issue.

Bjerke stated he didn't know why the City would be involved with looking at buying the motel's space land, and reminded everyone that there is a State law against buying land for the purpose of economic development - and if going to buy land by eminent domain so that somebody else can have it for parking, will be on the borderline - It was noted that no one had mentioned eminent domain - Sande stated he would prefer to have Mr. Hoover facilitate a purchase by the Ritterman's of that land.

Bjerke agreed but is concerned - that he hears about the parking problems downtown and now this going to make it worse, that we need to settle with the School District too and if down to only 50 spaces, why not rent all the spaces and fill the ramp up. Sande stated his answer is that this is a very unique situation, have been trying to fill that space for many years, trying to get it back on the tax rolls and need to be progressive and not regressive. He believes in contradiction to what Mr. Christensen said, that the parking ramp is going to be full from all the Central High School students that are displaced. He also noted that here have been very few opportunities for this land, and if this doesn't work, thinks there will be even fewer opportunities in the future and need to weigh the cost and figure out the way to get it done.

Glassheim asked how much private capital is going to be invested in this project - $5 million, and if they are going to apply for a tax credit - Hoover stated the property tax has already been approved by the council - 5 years declining and 5 years from now receiving full amount.

Sande stated that he doesn't believe by the time that this comes to city council, that there will be a purchase agreement in place for the land across the street, however, has yet to see Mr. Ritterman or Dakota Commercial come to Planning and Zoning and ask for a variance for parking - if they come to city council and say that they are actively working on purchasing that land so that they can build additional parking spots, would take them at their word and moved for a call to the question. Glassheim asked for vote on the motion of recommending approval to the council and that staff and Mr. Ritterman proceed and try to work on the parking spaces. Motion carried.

2. Discussion of proposed new license and permit fees.
Candi Stjern, asst. city auditor, reported that each year they ask departments to look
at services they are providing free of charge to see if there are any fees that should be associated with those services, fees are included in the staff report and department heads are here to speak to their items.
Don Shields reviewed proposed license/permit fees for daycare and for swimming pools;
and stated that for professional business daycare inspections have an annual inspection that takes approx. 45 to 90 minutes; have not charged anything for those, and in terms of equity they are proposing to develop a policy and if want to include those, to set a fee of about $100 annually for reimbursement for that effort. They have an inspection check list, look at diseases that can be readily passed along, and many daycares have food facilities and other operations, etc. Glassheim asked that daycares be notified that this will be discussed (but not going to council yet). Shields noted that there are two types of daycare facilities - home daycare and business daycare and that this does not include home daycare. He presented copies of the business daycares and of the inspection form. He stated that if they are inclined to do so, would press ahead and bring that back to you when city attorney drafts paperwork. The question was asked how many of the daycares were non-profits - Shields not aware of that.

Shields stated that in the past they have collected a fee for inspection of swimming pools, there
are approx. 39 swimming pool facilities in town, but many of those facilities have changed by adding whirl pools per facility - inspection doing things like water sampling and education, some of the facilities may have 4 pools within them or spas or up to 6, and what they are proposing under licensing and would have to bring that back to committee also and charging a base for the swimming pool so if facility had one or more, and a base fee of $225 and a $25 additional fee per pool.

Grandstrand opposed fees for daycares because it affects the people who probably have the least ability to pay. Sande stated that some of the non-profits work under tight budgets, but doesn't think $100/year is going to be excessive for them but not sure what $100 or $1200/year will add to our budget, what going to do with it but if don't start assessing fees at some point will never get there. Shields stated that fees would go into the General Fund and used at your discretion; and that this is a policy decision. to see if you would want them to charge for that, have not done that in the past. Glassheim suggested that it should be at a cost of doing business - that is what it costs us to do the inspections and should we recover it or not. Christensen stated that $1200 but these people get permitted by somebody to have these commercial daycare facilities and wherever they get their permit, all listed inspection is done and seems redundant - if commercial permitted by the State of ND

Christensen asked how much revenue would we generate under swimming pool business, now number of pools and what is gross revenue. Shields stated that if have 39 facilities and approx. 70 pools and talking about an additional 30 pools at an additional $25.00/ea - that neither of these is a significant amount of dollars and maybe an additional $1200 for pools, etc. but really more of a consistency basis whether you want to recover costs for doing business - not a purpose of raising money - several philosophical reasons for licensing, so would have opportunity to decide whether want to own a license for some reason, leave the license in place and some license fees in the city and give control, recover costs in doing business and is policy decision. Glassheim asked if they should move on recommending that the department go ahead or not go ahead on each one of these - individually
Chief O'Neill stated many of the fees they have presented, some of the permits gives them a tool in order to hold people to compliance, if person has system malfunctioning and not dealing with it, gives them a tool to enforce them to fix system. PSAP is proposing some of their false alarm fees and has to double check to make sure not duplicating with those. He also reviewed the balance of the fees, and questioned if they want to recover all their fees or do you want to encourage inspection/training, etc. with or without the fees - at council's discretion.

Grandstrand stated that even if its only a little small amount for something, we either encourage something or discouraging something; false alarms, makes a lot of sense and collect a decent amount of revenue from that but to discourage something that we want to have people do, doesn't make sense.

O'Neill stated that if start charging fees for some of this you will get less demand for it. Glassheim stated these are punitive because we want them to do the things right and the training and testing fees are more educational. That if we are going to provide extra services to individuals but which also stand to benefit the whole city by reducing fires for everybody, then may have to have the courage to increase our mill levy if going to provide more education and more training and more services - if don't mind fees then we need to increase the mill levy - have to be paid for by somebody - either by the general public or cost of our doing this or by punitive fees. Chief O'Neill stated this is policy discussion and they will abide by the wishes of the council. He noted that the false alarm calls are based on per month number.

Sande stated he didn't know how we move this forward because there is a wide variety of opinions on all of these topics. Christensen stated to send back for more information. Glassheim stated that the health department wanted direction before drafting these, and asked Chief O'Neill for direction or move it forward. O'Neill stated he was ready for direction from council.

Glassheim stated he would like to see these come to council for a vote, 4 different opinions here and doesn't want to make a decision based on that, would like to see it come before council and will go item by item and vote - finance and departments are proposing these and have some reason for them but if we don't want them that is fine but would like to be able to vote on them and not like them killed or held in committee for years.

Sande asked what is the purpose and information provided that "….annually the finance department reviews with departments the license and permit fees which are charged…" and why do we do that and what is the purpose of doing that and for how long. Candi Stjern stated that the regular fees that we charge each year we look to see if should increase them with inflation to keep up with our expenses and those are separate from these. Glassheim stated that several years ago the council felt we were behind because we had not adjusted them upwards for a number of years, and that the council did instruct the departments to come back to us to review them annually, but these are new ones and that is why reviewing them separately. Stjern stated that they can try to get more numbers on what they think these fees will produce before going back to council. Glassheim stated that they can hold this again if that is what committee wants. Christensen moved that we defer this for 2 weeks to get more detail before moving it forward to council with the proposed revenue; Sande seconded the motion. Motion carried.

3. Pledged Collateral Report.
Maureen Storstad, finance, reported pledged collateral reports done twice per year according to NDCC, that all the deposits are collateralized. The report shows that all the funds in City's name are safe and pledged according to requirements. Banking services are bid out every 5
years and will be coming up for bid next year, every odd-numbered year bring in who is our designated depositories, have list of banks that hold our funds. Motion by Sande and Christensen to approve pledged securities and move to council. Motion carried.

4. Appointment to the Convention and Visitors Bureau.
Pete Haga reported this is mayor's appointment, that Ms. Gerszewski has served on the Board before as nominee from the Alerus Center, experienced and served very well. Sande noted that this is replacement for his position on the Convention and Visitors Bureau, that the position is at large, that Sheila Gerszewski very competent. Motion by Sande and Christensen to approve the appointment and move to council. Motion carried.

ADJOURN

The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk