Committee Minutes

Grand Forks City Council Service/Safety Standby Committee
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 4:30 p.m._- Council Chambers _____

The city council of the city of Grand Forks sitting as the Service/Safety Standby Committee met in the council chambers in City Hall on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. Present at roll call were Council Members Kreun, Bjerke. Mr. Bakken is out of town and Mr. Gershman indicated he might be late but thought he would be here.

Others present were Todd Feland, Chief Packett, Pete Haga, Brad Gengler, Al Grasser, Al Morken, Jane Williams. .

1. Chestnut Street sidewalks.
Letters had been sent out to individuals that affected. Al Grasser, city engineer, reported the area is the Julian Anderson Subdivision, an area bounded from 47th Ave.S. to 55th Ave.S., Belmont Road and Chestnut Street; and this area was put together as a rural subdivision, large lots - 100'x170' and had septic tanks, rural water and gravel roads. In 1995 the neighborhood petitioned the City for paving and protest for paving was very close and when the paving went through, did not install the street lighting or the sidewalks. He stated he has been asked by people on both sides of the issue to show them a document that they have been exempt but doesn't believe there is a document - the documentation as to the exemption was the fact that the city council approved the plans and specs. for the paving without the sidewalk and lighting being present and not aware of any time for that exemption. The area has developed to the west and to the east and extending to the south, and have received comments from people about the ability to be able to walk through this neighborhood without sidewalks; the issue went to Service/Safety Comm. in February to work with the neighborhood council person to get input and develop some costs. They had a meeting on July 9 with the neighborhood and received a number of comments on the sidewalks and lighting, to date they have received comments from 35 of the 51 property owners and of the 35 comments, 33 were opposed and 2 in favor. He stated the residents are opposed to the project; however, they did discuss the two options for funding - do a sidewalk list that the council would order in or an assessment district with cost to be very substantial - the 10-year assessment period would help defer those costs. The area is fully developed and that is going to create a number of challenges, there are some places where trees would be a problem, fence, grade issues. He also noted that sidewalks are non-protestable and is a safety issue to separate the pedestrians from traffic. Street lighting is lacking in the neighborhood and they were in opposition to lighting, which is protestable, and no intention of advancing a project.
5
Lee Lindquist, 5317 Chestnut Street, reported when their addition went through annexation, with nothing in writing but inference that with the size of the lots and the 85 ft. setbacks, there was not a need for sidewalks and that there wouldn't be any sidewalks until such time as people within the neighborhood felt the sidewalks were necessary, and that nothing had been said or discussed in the neighborhood that he is aware of. Some of the things that makes their area unique is that it is a 40-year old established neighborhood and a number of things impacted - fences, trees, shrubs and possibly fire hydrants. He noted there are three things: that there is very little traffic unless live there or visiting; 2) that people having a need to walk, ride bikes, etc. that on 55th have a bike trail, on 52nd have bike trail that goes from east to west; on 47th have bike path, plus Optimist Park across the street that has sidewalk around the perimeter - lot of areas for people within the proposed and adjacent areas to ride, walk, etc.; 3) that with trees and shrubs and fences there are few locations where sidewalk could create more of a safety hazard - obstruction to view. Some concern with that and Joe Kalenze's comment as it relates to the corner on the north end is probably the most legitimate safety issue for people walking on the street. He commented on financial concerns - that with the area around them being developed, have more than share of assessments - the improvements on 47th, on 55th, the specials for lots have been significantly higher than most lots within the community because of size of lots and are also looking at a couple others - last dike assessment and that within the next 5 to 7 years there will be an additional assessment for the renovation of Belmont Road. He stated he would like to see the city council give strong support to the feelings of people who live within the area, and one of the things that people have concern with is that the initiative for this came from residents that live outside of the proposed area - and that there are ample places to walk and ride bike within the area. He also encouraged committee to come out and look at the area and some of things they have mentioned.

Council Member Kreun asked if there were to be sidewalk installation, would one side be more preferable. Mr. Lindquist stated that when brought up at the public hearing, everybody wanted it on the other side of the street.

Jerry O'Connor stated he would agree with Mr. Lindquist and presented pictures taken in the area - show how beautiful the area is, and that trees were put in within the last 5 years.

It was noted that 47th Ave.S. was paved a couple years ago and that assessment district policy is to go halfway back to the next classified street and the assessments for 47th went to the drainway and the assessments for 55th went north to the drainway, so every property in the areas should have been in one or the other of those assessment districts. Mr. Grasser also noted that Belmont does qualify for federal funding and that assessment district would spread halfway to Cherry Street and these same properties would be within that assessment district - that project is not within the 6-year planning project. Kreun stated that if those areas develop and as a collector street become more heavily traveled, that traffic would drive reconstruction more than the condition of the road.

Tom Dennis, resident of the area, stated that he and his wife would be against the sidewalks and few use that section of Chestnut Street as a thoroughfare, that curve keeps the speeds low, and never had a worry with safety - sidewalks would be fulfilling the letter of the law but with no real function.

Mr. O'Connor asked what they would gain or what lose. Kreun stated that his understanding of the ordinance is that technically they are required to do this but because this was a situation where annexation started in 1975 and during street process, the sidewalks were negotiated out for another time when the residents asked to have the sidewalks installed. He stated that the eleva-tions are extremely different on different lots because of the way it was developed as a rural sub-division, can have problem with water drainage but has helped drainage by putting in the street. He stated they may have to move some electrical service boxes, fire hydrants and that this wasn't brought forth by any of the property owners; at this time his recommendation is to leave it as is.

Council Member Bjerke stated that 33 to 2 is good score, and doesn't think there is a need for sidewalks and unless other information comes forward would not be in favor; and moves that we recommend to the city council that we deny putting this on the sidewalk list. Kreun seconded the motion. Motion carried.

Kreun stated that in the future if residents of the area brought forth petition for sidewalks, it would be difficult to deny; however, this wasn't brought forward by residents of the area.

Mr. Grasser stated possibly for council to consider a time certain on this, as doesn't want to be dealing with this issue again within short periods of time and it was suggested by Mr. Kreun to possibly put a time frame on it, that in 10 years unless certain percentage of property owners are in favor of sidewalks, or to review it

2. 32nd Avenue signal modifications report - Information only.
Jane Williams, traffic engineer, stated that they have received the draft report on the coordination study, study not complete as have one more step to go - to put in the left turn for north and south at 38th Street and 32nd Avenue South and will be doing that on September 4 and 5, and that the consultant has agreed to come back and do the final tuning of the 32nd Avenue S. corridor. She gave a brief summary of the executive summary and some of the highlights and savings; that they have eliminated over 25,678 vehicle stops, Monday through Thursday, and over 30,000 on Fridays; have approximate savings of 600 gal. gas per day and cumulative for all the vehicles. She stated they have a total savings of over $1.2 million annually for traveling public.

Ms. Williams stated they also wanted to bring up some of the recommendations that the consultant has included in immediate and in long term to maintain this system; they recommend a bi-annual tune-up, go out and take counts for review, and would be another contract that we would have to do as types of vehicles change or as traffic changes on the street, turning movements, etc. They need to look at other corridors and get them cross-coordinated with 32nd so they work together. Also prior to having this done, we have other hardware upgrades of things that we had bought out of our maintenance funds, etc. and in order to do some of the others, we will be continuing to do that and some hardware upgrades and once get to a point will hopefully do our other corridors.

It was noted that the cost to the study itself was $25,000 and hardware costs approx. $46,000; the $25,000 was funded through MPO and the $46,000 came out of electrical division funds (Highway Users funds and General Funds). There is hardware that needs to go into controller cabinets and have to upgrade to accomplish this but well worth it.

Mr. Grasser stated they knew this study was coming and put all our assets into 32nd and wants to make pitch to the committee as they are dealing with budget issues and this is good example of how far we can go with a little bit of money. Some of the controllers were 10 and 15 years old and were able to get some of these 2070 controllers which is the next generation and some of the software we got this year. He noted that were going to bring the left turns to the council for decision, but was made by staff but wanted you to be aware of it - the left turns when you go to a permissive operation, there is a much higher potential for side impact accidents and a Federal Highway bulletin that says it increases those by 60% and will monitor that, but was recommended by the consultant to improve the corridor, and that there is only so much time at an intersection so when give more priority to your main line, we may pick up some complaints from people on the side streets waiting longer than had to and not as accessible - tradeoffs.

Kreun asked what happens if reach high percentage of crashes in those left turn lanes. Grasser stated we may have to sacrifice some corridor efficiency for safety to go back in and put those protected only in, drivers don't like them - makes sense during peak driving times but rest of the day that you have the opportunity to make a safe movement. The trade-off is that to give us some comfort on making this decision is that this allows some people to make that turn where before were doing it on the red. Kreun suggested they monitor accidents to find out if it is below the national average, 60% increase. Williams stated that most of the complaints that they have received from the 32nd corridor is why haven’t they done it on Washington; and going to be dependent upon us being able to keep up with the hardware. Bjerke stated this is outstanding job.

3. Digital TV transition presentation.
Pete Haga reported this was asked by Council Member Bakken to follow up with some questions regarding the transition to digital television that will happen on February 17, 2009, and there are some things going on as far as the local cable programming and digital programming, and Mr. Butch Moteberg from Midcontinent Communications will provide more of the detailed information. He stated they have been contacted as a city from the FCC as they had started something called the FCC and Mayor's Digital Transition Initiative specifically targeted at areas such as ours with the population that is using more of the structures such as rabbit ears, roof top antennas, to help us get the information out about what this transition is, why it is underway and how to be able to take timely action on what to do with obtaining either converter boxes or the digital televisions. He stated as part of that initiative we are going to spend the next couple of months helping to push this information to make sure all of our residents, even on regional level, are aware of what transition is and what steps they need to take if they are going to be affected. We will be doing that in cooperation with the FCC through brochures, posters and have made contact with several organizations - brochures will be at the Public Information Center, the Public Library, Senior Center and will be on an aggressive schedule trying to provide that information. In addition to brochures they will be putting links and a website that covers everything you needed to know, and more - wwwdtv.com and will be on our website and will be airing information on the City's channel 2 and one of the main things they will want to be promoting is that if you do need a converter box, there are coupons available from the federal level and will be a cost savings for residents.

Butch Moteberg from Midcontinent Communications, general manager for the Grand Forks Region, stated that the government has put the word out as far as digital converter boxes and that it has scared a lot of elderly people and people with analog sets who will have to get the converter box, $40 coupon for the converter box, but if on cable it is not going to do them any good because we are going to bring in the signal digital, we will convert it back to an analog signal for a period of a certain timeframe, which they are not sure yet - could be 5 years or 10 but nothing set and haven't mandated us to change it yet - in 2009 the broadcasters will have to be in digital and we have already picked up WDAZ, WDAY which they carry in some of the other areas plus KVLY, and pull those signals out of Fargo, bring up on our fiber network and that is how you get them in HD if you have the digital converter box. The only ones that will be affected by not having the broadcast signal would be anyone that doesn't have cable and is picking it up off air, and if have cable and have an analog set that is hooked up to cable you will still be able to get our basic cable package in an analog version. It was noted you would have to have a box on every TV that you want over and above that analog - and those that don't have the digital box either have to get a box or just get the basic channels - but still get channel 8, 4 and 11 analog on that set.

Kreun asked how they get that information out to people as there is a lot of misinformation - that Midcontinent is running ads saying that as long as you have an analog set connected to our cable system, you will still receive your basic cable - channels 2 through 79 - lot of people don't understand what basic cable is. Committee and Info Center have received inquiries and Bakken brought it as an agenda item and is fairly important to the general public. Mr. Moteberg stated they have quite a few public service announcements or commercials but if don't have their service they won't see those; and they could drop off some information to the Info Center and bring to Senior Center and Library, etc. so public knows what is going on.

Kreun stated questions brought to them is that they have fewer channels but price hasn't changed. Mr. M. stated they don't have fewer channels, still offer them as the basic cable but only difference is you need the box, which they lowered the price of that to $3.95 to off-set that. He stated that eventually everything is going to go to a digital or to an HD signal and that comes down to the contract situations where each channel that they have, has a contract with that channel that gives Midcontinent the right to rebroadcast it to our customers - some have more restrictions than others - like ESPN who wants it below a certain channel level and those are the channels they have to deal with when making these decisions, is which ones are going to be the easiest to leave off if it comes down to that and also juggling the channels because you go to Best Buy or whatever and people are buying HD sets and they want more high definition programming and that is what they are trying to do is please as many customers as possible by giving them enough HD channels along with digital channels, and keeping their analog there.

Kreun stated when answering the question and if they have the box on your set, will get that channel - but person who doesn't have box but has cable TV and they feel they aren't receiving certain channels and why hasn't price changed, and what is answer. Mr. M. stated he doesn't have a good answer for that one - just the different format and eventually they are all going to be digital so will need a box or a cable TV. Kreun asked when will that take place and how long will transition take - Mr. M. stated he doesn't have a timeframe on it - could be 5 years or 10. - Eventually all that will be built into the TV's - and new TV have it all but until we get to that point --

Kreun asked how that affects our franchise with Midcontinent and what responsibilities does Midcontinent have to the City to maintain the franchise. Mr. Moteberg stated our relationship is fine - channels or fees is not something that is regulated by the local franchise but comes in with what areas they serve. He stated they have a non-exclusive franchise so anyone can come in here and build Grand Forks and offer cable, telephone, etc.; that if doing a good job and have good customer service and that is goal and reasonable rates. He stated if do some checking around, find out what the prices are in Minneapolis, etc. for cable and box, internet and phone, will find that we are quite a bit lower than most of the other areas. He stated they pay about $300,000 or $400,000 a year in franchise fees.

Kreun stated we are asking questions, because questions are asked of us; and that we will have to relay that information to Mr. Bakken as well as citizens Mr. Moteberg stated they could call him. Bjerke stated could put info out on Channel 2 and everyone who has cable gets that channel.

ADJOURN

The meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk