Council Minutes

Minutes of Grand Forks City Council/Committee of the Whole
Monday, January 12, 2009 - 5:30 p.m._________________ __

The City Council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, January 12, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Bjerke, McNamara, Glassheim (teleconference), Gershman, Christensen, Bakken (teleconference), Kreun (teleconference) - 7; absent: none.

Mayor Brown commented on various items during the past week and upcoming events:
God's speed to the members of the North Dakota National Guard 188th Air Defense Artillery who are being deployed for Afghanistan, and wished them well on their deployment and for their safe return.
Congratulations to Fighting Sioux hockey team for a weekend of Gopher sweeping.
Due to the Martin Luther King holiday next week the council meeting will take place on Tuesday, January 20.

SUSPEND AGENDA TO ALLOW MATTER OF NEGOTIATIONS
FOR PROPOSED EXPANSION OF INDUSTRIAL PARK AND
CONVENING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO END OF
MEETING

It was moved by Council Member Christiansen and seconded by Council Member Bjerke to suspend the agenda to allow Item 2.7, the matter of discussion on negotiation strategies and instructions regarding proposed Industrial Park expansion, to the end of the meeting. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

2.1 Project Concept Report for Project No. 6273, District No. 637, paving N. 51st Street from Gateway Drive to 10th Ave.N, Federal Project #SU-6-986(083)087.__________
John Oncken, Forks Equipment, 5101 Gateway Drive, stated he was representing the
commercial businesses in this area of the planned redevelopment, including Forks Equipment,
Whitewater Truck Wash, RBB Electric, A & L Trucking and Applegren Construction, and that
their concerns are focused on the proposed sidewalk installation on west side of 51st Avenue
North, that when putting sidewalk into commercial area with the amount of traffic that they have
going through that area, over-sized trucks, agricultural equipment, creates a great safety risk for both businesses and pedestrians because of concern in blind spot areas, inability to stop in time if there is a pedestrian coming through on a sidewalk. He stated that if deemed necessary in the future that a sidewalk was absolutely necessary they would be willing as business owners to fund the sidewalk cost, and that they will have grass berms even if the sidewalk were not installed and would be maintained and kept green.

Jason Boushey, Freebird, Inc., 1015 North 51st Street, and truck manager of A & L Trucking,
also commented re. safety issue and presented information to the council from the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Adm. and that they have addressed that large tractor trailers do have blind spots
when turning - that when entering their property their employees don't have the visibility and
drivers cannot see where their trailer is coming - very concerned in having pedestrians there. He stated their company has experienced this, that a woman was killed on their property sometime ago. The purpose of the sidewalk is to keep the pedestrian safe and off the roadways, that there is a sidewalk on the east side of the road and by bringing them to the west side of the road bringing them into their high traffic areas and putting them in danger.

Several residents of the area commented relating to sidewalks.
Jerry Waletzko, 5041 West Elm Court, stated concern that these vehicles are parked on the berm and sees sidewalk as barrier to keep people off the berm, and safety issue also if people wanting access to bikeway and sidewalk in this area, forcing them onto the street.

Doug Reierson, 533 North 51st Street, stated he feels if the sidewalk is in, the City will be able to ticket vehicles and enforce parking on the berm; his biggest complaint is that businesses park on the berm and trucks parked out to the curb and on the street. He stated the neighbors feel the sidewalk is going in and that is why not seeing any of their neighbors here.

Mr. Oncker stated he understands concerns of residents and has no problem with not parking on berm and has 7 acres to park on and can make that rearranged easily to accommodate the needs of the City and residents.

Mark Walker, asst. city engineer, reported this is controversial issue and has been debated, differing opinions as to whether it is safer to have sidewalks or not, and his engineering opinion is that it if putting the sidewalks in would be a safer option, that decision is up to this board and they would bide by that decision. He stated there is a bikepath that runs adj. to Gateway Drive and one that runs on 55th from Gateway to University, people could use to gain access to the bikepaths; as far as protecting pedestrians on the sidewalk, doesn't know what kind of devices they could put in to protect pedestrians and would have to do some research. He also stated he could find if there are other areas in the city where they have heavy equipment and sidewalks or where no sidewalks and can research that and deliver before next council meeting.

Gershman stated that after discussion the issue is to stop parking on the berm. Council Member Bakken stated he thinks the safety factor overrides precedence in certain areas and that those businesses with that much large equipment going in and out; and if berm parking is the issue, should have grass berm put in and enforce and if equipment parked on the street and creates hazard or safety issue, could address that with street signs.

Council Member Kreun asked if this is an issue of parking on the berm when they design and build that road, why not put in inside curb as this would deter them from driving over the curb and protect the berm. Mr. Oncker stated that he already has an inside curb on the berms on his property, that he can stop berm parking right now, didn't realize it was getting to that point, and when he came into this business and that area that they considered berm was gravel and City hadn't done anything to improve that area, looked like a parking lot.

Council Member Christensen stated that they can solve this problem with the berm issue and grass area without sidewalks; and if sidewalk is needed later can put in and assess but at this point address the area, protect the citizens and stop the parking on the berm and Service/Safety Comm. can study whether put no parking signs on either side of that strip to see how that works and gets enforced, and will move that next week.

It was suggested by Council Member McNamara that he would recommend amending motion to limit for 90 days with report back at the end of that time to see if it is working, and if not to put the sidewalk in Mr. Walker stated they need decision next Monday on how to proceed with the project, with sidewalks or without, or even not build the project. DOT is looking for firm direction from us and if do look at it in the future and need to put sidewalks in, there won't be an opportunity to ask for federal assistance for the cost of sidewalk installation; DOT needs answer within a week or two. Council Member Christensen stated that they can get this to Service/ Safety meeting to look at putting signs up and enforce the no parking and could do that within the next 6 to 8 weeks - that they don't know which way it will go on Monday but if goes way suggesting, there will be a notice that the City will enforce it as soon as posted.

Mr. Warcup advised that if the council chooses not to put in sidewalks, and if zoned other than industrial, they would have to enact an ordinance amendment to the City Code to allow for a lack of sidewalks, that Code generally requires sidewalks in all areas except in industrial zoned areas.

Mr. Oncker reported that none of the business have received tickets for related to parking in the berms and was never an issue brought up; and would be done if that were going to be enforced. Council Member McNamara stated that if this comes back in a year and has been complete failure and decided to put sidewalks in at that point then cost would be assessed.

2.2 Project Concept Report for Project No. 6303, Reconstruction of English Coulee Shared Use Path from north of 24th Ave.S. to 17th Ave.S., Federal Project No. TEU-6-986(085)089.___________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.3 Projects for Economic Stimulus Package.
Al Grasser, city engineer, reported that this is government sponsored in trying to kick-
start the economy, that the bill isn't drafted but trying to figure out our position in such a way that when the bill is drafted we can proceed as quickly as possible. Items relate to roadway construction and appears they will run the money through federal highway but a lot of unknowns; the direction they are getting from the NDDOT is that it has to be fairly simple projects (maintenance type projects) and on listing are either sealcoat or concrete panel replacement-type project, and reason is that can get environmental clearances fairly quickly on those to meet goal and intent of legislation, as they are trying to be doing work this summer. It means we are not going to be doing reconstruction or new construction type activities as those take considerable amount of time. The packet has 5 sub-categories of items, some are SR and PR (secondary regions and primary regional) coming from the State and are entirely within the State control and we are asked to concur with those as it runs through the MPO process; the other ones are urban projects, SRTS (Safe Routes to School), and the latest information he has received is that they are not looking at funding SRTS but wanted to include if things should change.

He stated two categories which were supplied by Public Works, transit component and a trail system, categories that will be up for funding under Federal Highway Program. He noted that two items were highlighted, one is intersection of 47th Avenue South and Washington Street signal, and the other is Cherry Street from 17th to 25th Avenue South; and the latest information they have is that under the federal bill will have a cut-off when the project has gone too far so that it doesn't quality for this new program - one of the cutoff points could be a project that appears in our State Transportation Enhancement Plan and if that definition comes into play, it means that his ranking No. 1 and No. 11 will disappear by definition of the program. He stated that this program is moving very quickly, lot of projects out there and everybody trying to push projects through quickly as want to be at the beginning, and we will need to find a process to finalize this list and ranking and get it out of here quickly, could have special meetings - this list will change once they get more detail as to how the program develops and do want to be in a position to rank that.

Council Member Kreun stated he would suggest the Service/Safety Comm., to give them ability to check priorities and ranking on these as they come through, could meet and re-rank those as necessary.

Council Member Bjerke questioned several projects and if we do those, we are either creating or expanding a new service, need to discuss where funding will come for new services, and that we look at buying new bus but at what cost for the next 20 years to hire another driver, expand service, etc. and increasing transit budget; and questioned operational, maintenance expense after we purchase equipment, etc. with this money.

It was noted by Council Member Gershman that he was comfortable with having Service/Safety Comm. prioritizing these issues and will streamline process; and also noted that bus ridership is 710 riders per day with 72 riders per day increase. The question was asked how much money the City would be getting under this program - to focus on street and not expand services.

Todd Feland, director of Public Works, explained that Public Transit money is separate from roads, and that this is new information and that the State is scheduled to get in Mass Transit $12 to $16 million and that the City of Grand Forks is expected to get between $1.3 and $1.8 million for public transit, and that on the list provided and if received $1.3 million that would allow us to replace 3 buses, but fourth priority is to expand services - they would replace existing equipment, existing transit buses and existing paratransit vehicles because that is all the money that we are going to get - they have formulated the list and that the money we receive is going to be solely for replacement of buses or para-transit vehicles.

Mr. Grasser stated he left out two important features, one is that it is 100% federal money, and two is that DOT is giving us some guidance, telling us to expect and plan for around $4 to $5 million in the urban-type projects - there are segregated pots of money that we may be accessing and that on the listing there is a running accumulated total and that they go through the ranking and wherever we run out of money is where draw the line. Council Member Kreun stated that would be their intention is that they do not rank or start projects that aren't funded and continue to work in that direction.

Council Member Gershman stated on the expansion of service, we were very careful and took a long time before we expanded service to the industrial park with public transportation, and are seeing more people riding, and is providing service, and are not going to expand service to nowhere, but if need for expansion of service, will do it.

2.4 ND Legislative Priorities.
Pete Haga, mayor's office, reported that the 61st ND Legislature is in session for 80 days
until the middle of April, that the City of Grand Forks is involved with the legislative session and through legislative process to make sure that the citizens are aware that the City is engaged with what is going on with the legislature and looking at how proposed legislation will impact the City as an organization and how it provides services as well as the proposed legislation impact. The legislative process allows us to communicate a link clearly with our legislators, to let them know what the impacts are on proposed legislation. He noted that the work is done by the legislative committee that was called last week, first meeting took place last Friday and will take place every Friday at 2:00 p.m. in City Hall, everybody is welcome to attend. The meeting begins with a conference call with ND League of Cities, so reps. elected and staff from cities around ND gather around the conference call to talk about the upcoming bills that will be heard in the committees of the next week and how they may impact the localities and any action or direction that the cities might want to take.

After the discussions with the ND League of Cities the legislative committee will forward a report on what happened with that committee and the report will go to council and to citizens and will be given here the following Monday. Reports will be provided on the website as well as to some links to the bill drafts that are available and contact information.

They are trying to work with other organizations and have communicated with the School District, University of North Dakota and incoming president and his administration to try to align some of the legislative issues between the University and the City, the Chamber of Commerce, and working to schedule a Grand Forks Day after crossover which is when the bills go from the House to the Senate, and vice versa, this session where we can get a good contingent of Grand Forks members, business members, organization members, residents to let the legislators know that Grand Forks is paying attention to the legislative process, support what they are doing and let them know any issues that have come up.

He stated there is a set of legislative priorities that were submitted and forwarded from the Legislative Committee last Friday and what these legislative priorities will do, they are general statements and identify the general direction that our city's going or would like to see legislation considered, and to communicate to our residents or citizens that direction and help legislative committee as they are dealing with specific bill drafts in order to discuss what action to be taken, background to be provided by staff to legislators, testimony to be provided by staff or elected officials, or if a major issue coming up before the council as a resolution, and that is intent of these priority positions for clarity, communication and direction.

Council Member Bjerke asked if they would be asking for vote on the several priorities that were listing in the report and Mr. Haga stated that the position statements are the general statements they were seeking from the council on these 8 topic areas, these were drafted and afforded by the committee, if there are amendments, alternatives or omissions that is up to the council, and the ability for the Legislative Committee and staff to work under the direction of the council.

Council Member Bjerke reviewed the various topics and made comments relating to the issues:
A - Property Tax Relief School Finance Reform - The State does not collect property tax and relieving a tax they don't collect. Half the people in this town do not own property, renters, and this will be second consecutive legislative session where there is tax release going to half the people in the city, and are not going to benefit from this - renters helped create the use of extra oil, pay income tax and pay sales tax, and people who rent helped create the $1.2 billion surplus and get nothing out of this proposal; and would vote no on that issue.

B. Transportation/Infrastructure Funding - Will be voting yes.
C. Extra Territorial Zoning - was and is against it, lives next to western edge of the city and it has not moved in over 30 years, and doesn't think we need to go out past two miles, that we are restricting development in rural areas that we don't need to be involved in.
E. Renewable Energy/Energy Transmission - if talking about transmission line for wind power, reminded what group of people is opposed to landfills, what group is opposed to oil pipelines, what group opposed to Big Stone 2, what people in Mn are opposed to the transmission lines for Big Stone 2 which is a coal plant, interesting to see if environmentalists are going to support transmission lines going across the state when opposed every other effort to do anything with energy, but if wind energy may support this.
H - University-Related Support - undecided on that issue.

Council Member Glassheim stated that the State does not collect property taxes but the State is constitutionally mandated to provide for uniform public education but public education has been largely given over to funding by localities through property taxes, the idea of reducing property taxes by having the State pay a higher percentage of the cost of schooling makes sense to a lot of them because they are responsible for education and is righting what has become the wrong of having localities pay an excessive amount of local property taxes for schools - that Mr. Bjerke's point about the money going only to property tax payers and not helping renters has some merit and a few are starting to talk about whether some of the money should come back as sales tax reduction but that is still a minority view.

Council Member Christensen stated the city of Grand Forks belongs to an organization called the League of Cities, Mr. Duquette is on the board of directors, and what we get on Friday is a review from the League of Cities as to various bills that the League has identified that could have an impact upon cities taxing, etc. and Mr. Haga has put together a list of bullet points of various things that will affect our city and that we are not going to take positions pro or con but that there are a lot of issues that the League addresses that we are briefed on and that Mr. Haga and Mr. Duquette and staff ask for our input - and that in the next 6 weeks will get other additions that are identified and if controversial matter, we will be instructed and briefed and bring it back to the council. That he is on record as to what he believes to be the consequences of the proposed legislation Senate Bill 27__ on the extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction, didn't like the legislation that is being proposed and League of Cities are going to address that - that has been discussed and no matter how it comes out has to be prospective and in the statute and will be bringing that forward. He stated that they are not going to be up or down on these issues but briefed by Mr. Duquette and Mr. Haga as items come forward.

2.5 2009 Special Events Program.
Council Member Bjerke reported he reviewed the projects and that over half of the events
have to do with parks and recreation, that we are taking City money to fund the Park District events that should be in the park and recreation department and that they need to prioritize their budget and fund their events.

Mayor Brown congratulated the committee on No. 13 for the East Grand Forks 125th
Celebration because our hotels will be full and restaurants busy, and congratulated committee for
thinking that way.

Council Member McNamara stated he knows that there are collateral benefits that go on but
questioned the funding of the East Grand Forks City event with Special Event money. Council Member Gershman stated that Chamber is not getting close to what they were asking, there is an understanding that the people that live there do a lot of their shopping on our side of the river, and vice versa, and in spirit of understanding they contribute to our sales tax dollars significantly, that the committee had a lot of discussion about this but that since they do contribute to our sales tax dollars and that is where this money comes from.

Council Member Glassheim stated there was long discussion over that but majority of the committee felt that they were separate governmental entity but were quite closely involved with Grand Forks. He stated that they asked for $50,000 over 4 years and committee thought we should go year by year as their plans not well flushed out.
Council Member McNamara stated other towns, cities kick into the prosperity of the greater Grand Forks area and hope they noted what has been said here tonight, and appreciates what goes on in East Grand Forks, but to send tax money across the river is different issue.

Council Member Christensen stated this project is in 2012, and asked if write the $7,000 check now or hold it until 2012, and next year the same request will come forward and same debate and that contribute to the sales tax - the question is that begin a precedent of taking our sales tax dollars and funding other activities across the river. We have used some of our economic development money to participate in economic development projects in Northwood, Grafton, etc. because we are the regional economic development commission, that the city council has assumed the role of the Chamber of Commerce (that we have a joint Chamber of Commerce) and are being asked to fund something that the Chamber could get done; would like to see what others are willing to put up, but is cautious to fund activities of a recreational nature in other cities. This is a question of a precedent we start.

Council Member Gershman stated they had a similar discussion at the committee, that we are going to do this part but need to see a commitment from East Grand Forks, that put this out as seed money look at it each year. Council Member Glassheim stated that East Grand Forks will put up significantly more money than we will and they will be raising money to do this.

Council Member Kreun stated that in reviewing the list - Northern Plains Potato Growers (Potato Bowl) has their office in East Grand Forks, Chamber of Commerce for Cats Incredible and is issue between the two cities - the Greater Grand Forks Soccer Club and many EGF students on that club, Northern Valley Arts Council are people that work back and forth for that, Cross-Country Race with snowmobiles and that there are several items that are across the river, not that we shouldn't be cautious but if going to segregate then look at all of them.

2.6 2009 Arts Re-granting Program.
Council Member Gershman stated they have done a nice job, but recommended that there
be some weighted points in the rankings for attendance, the number of people and increased attendance so that there is a sense of how many people are going to these events, and that would be helpful to the Arts community.

INFORMATION ITEMS

3.1 Project Concept Report for Project No. 6101, paving S. 48th St. from 17th Ave.S. to 32nd Ave.S.____________________________________________
Informational item.

3.2 Portfolio Management/Summary ending December 31, 2008.
Informational item.

RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Christensen to
go into executive session pursuant to North Dakota Century Code Section 44-04-19.1 and 44-04-
19.2 for discussion on negotiation strategies and instructions regarding proposed Industrial Park
expansion. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Time of recess into executive session was 7:29 p.m. with the following people in attendance:
Council Members Bjerke, McNamara, Glassheim (telecon.), Gershman, Christensen, Bakken
(telecon.), Kreun (teleconf.), Mayor Brown, John Warcup, Greg Hoover, Al Grasser, Rick
Duquette, Keith Lund, Brad Gengler, Klaus Theisen, Saroj Jerath, and Alice Fontaine.

COUNCIL RECONVENES FOLLOWING EXECUTIVE
SESSION

The city council reconvened at 8:18 p.m. following the executive session with all members present. There was no motion from the committee following the executive session.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Bjerke and seconded by Council Member Gershman that we adjourn. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,



Saroj Jerath
City Auditor