Council Minutes

Minutes of Grand Forks City Council/Committee of the Whole
Monday, July 28, 2008 - 5:30 p.m._________________ __

The City Council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, July 28, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Bjerke, Glassheim (teleconference), Gershman, Christensen Kreun - 5; absent: Council Member Bakken - 1.

Mayor Brown commented on various items during the past week and upcoming events:
He reported that the budget presentation had been postponed from Wednesday until later time in order to include some additional information, and will announce new date and time when scheduled.
This weekend is Cat Fish Days and the Chili Contest and these are local events that are lot of fun for the whole family, Chili Contest has been battle between Mayor Stauss' team and his team for the last 5 years; and that he has spoken with Col. Michel from the Air Base and President Kelly of UND and they will have teams as well; and invite everyone to attend August 2.

2.1 Application for abatement for 2007 taxes by James and Linda Oliver, 1958 23rd Avenue South.________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.2 Riverside Pool - Joint Powers Agreement (JPA)
Rick Duquette, city administrator, reviewed some recommendations that relate to the Joint Powers Agreement, that they presented this at the finance committee last week and has some additional information, and he recognized Mr. Staley and Mr. Palmiscno from the Park District who were present this evening.
Page 3 of the JPA - there is a request from the Park District to add the word "capital" to line 4 and he was recommending the word "marketing" to line 4 - Budget, Costs of Operation, Utilities, Capital Maintenance and Marketing.
That in Section 4 a. An annual budgets shall be prepared by the City for approval by the Park District Commission and the City Council.
That on page 3, 4 b. The Park District has asked that we add something related to clarify that the collection of contributions could be handled by possibly inserting the sense??? that states the net cost at the end of the year by the Park District will be sent to the City who will reduce their cost with the contributions and gifts. - that falls in line with the ballot measure and make those changes with little more clarification and how the private contributions are handled related to the Joint Powers Agreement.
There has been some discussion related to adding something related to the Park District staff agreeing to meet with representatives of Riverside Pool support group or Riverside Neighborhood Assn. for marketing ideas or purposes. Glassheim stated that it would not just be the Riverside Neighborhood but others who are interested in the well being and expansion of the pool usage - that group would be formed and meet few times each year with Park Dist. staff.
He stated he would work with Mr. Swanson to include in the agreement language.
Final item is line 10 - Term. and now says the term of this agreement shall be for a period of five years from date of execution thereof, and thought that should say something like for a term of five years from the full opening of the Riverside pool and to end by December 31, 2014. The concept is that this pool might not have a full season in 2009 but give it a full five years before looking at the agreement again. He stated they will bring that back at the next city council meeting.


COUNCIL MEMBER McNAMARA REPORTED PRESENT

Council Member Bjerke questioned whether the City was responsible for capital maintenance,
and asked where money from donations goes and who has control of those funds. It was noted
that the Park District was into this for $15,000 and balance is the City's but that the City owns the
pool, and that private donations will go to defray cost of the operations and capital improvements.
It was also stated that donations would go to the Grand Forks Foundation and they would manage
that with directions of donor designated for the Riverside pool. Mr. Duquette stated they are
proposing a budget and council will be updated on routine basis.

Council Member Christensen suggested that as the Park District has their own 501C3 and that
appears that anyone making a contribution could make the contribution to the 501C3 and be
designated to be drawn upon. He also stated the regarding the issue of management, that they
will segregate the operations and accounting.

Council Member McNamara reported there was discussion some time ago about this reverting to the control of the Park District after 5 years, and that Mr. Hutchison had thought that they should run it and that at some point it should revert back to their control. Mr. Duquette stated he was not aware of an agreement to do that, it is not in the ballot language and not in any discussions that he and Mr. Staley have had relating to this pool and has no response to that. Council Member Christensen stated that the City owns the pool and that the Park District will manage it, and they will share in it as far as the potential loss up to $15,000 and after that it is the City's.

2.3 Application for Class 1 (General On & Off Sale Alcoholic Beverage) license by L.P.O., Inc. (Larry O'Connell), 2015 Library Circle.______________________
The location for this license is the former fabric store at the South Forks Plaza. Council
Member Bjerke stated if the application is granted and that certain positions (managers) not hired as yet, and asked if those individuals would be checked and reviewed; and it was so noted by Chief Packett that they would be reviewed as they are added to the license/payroll for the establishment.

2.4 Application for transfer of Class 4 (Food & Beverage Establishment) license by GM Grand Forks, LLC, 1930 South Columbia Road.______________________________
There were no comments.

2.5 Future Assessment District Project No. 4247.1, Dist. No. 354.1, Sanitary Forcemain along S. 48th Street from 17th Ave.S. to 32nd Ave.S. for newly annexed property from June 1996-June, 2008._______________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.6 Assessment District Project No. 4660.1, Dist. No. 552.1, Johnson's 4th Addn. paving (11th Ave.S./S. 40th St./15th Ave.S.) for newly annexed property in the future assessment district. (This property is Lot 5, Blk. 1, McEnroe's 1st Addn. and a 140 ft x 683.3 ft. unplatted strip of land south of and parallel to Garden View Drive). ____
There were no comments.

2.7 Assessment District Project No. 5048.6, Dist. No. 563.2, paving S. 42nd St., 17th Ave.S. and 11th Ave.S., for newly annexed property in the future assessment district. (This property is Lots 1-5, Blk. 1, McEnroe's 1st Addn. and a 140 ft. x 1282.9 ft. unplatted strip of land south of and parallel to Garden View Drive.) ___
There were no comments.
2.8 Dial-A-Ride (DAR)/Senior Rider Service fee increase.
The city auditor reported that a letter from Clyde Varnson, Nodak Radio Cab Company,
had been placed on council members' desks.
Todd Feland, director of public works, reviewed a summary of the staff report and stated
that the challenge they have is that the taxicab company that has been running this service, Grand Forks Taxi, has received two CPI increases and have reported to us that they cannot sustain the service that they are providing without a $1.00 increase and that would increase cost of the service from $7.38 per ride to $8.38 per ride. He stated that we are 2 1/2 years into a 5 year agreement which was initiated on January 1, 2006, and that the service agreement can be amended. He stated at the time they received this bid they combined both dial-a-ride and senior rider and before January 1, 2006 we went off the taxicab prevailing rate on a per ride basis; and at that time had two proposals and the council pursued one of those proposals, Grand Forks Taxi, as the other company did not comply with the requirements of the RFP. He stated that he did comparison check that if we were to increase the $1.00 per ride what would have been the ramifications if had considered the other competitor's proposal and found that with the $1.00 increase would be less than that operation, using 2 separate vehicles. He stated that currently the system has approx. 8 vehicles, 5 are ADA type vans, and that from January 2006 to July 2008 the fuel has increased 84% and that the City of East Grand Forks will need to act if we increase this for rides that go between the cities and their own rides.

The Service/Safety Committee provided recommendations: 1) increase the $1.00 per ride with the City paying the $5.88 per ride and the user paying $2.50 per ride; 2) the increase would be effective this billing month, July 2008; 3) that the rider should pay a portion of this cost which will require public hearings and public notice and request is that this will be effective January 1, 2009 and raise the user fee from $2.50 to $2.75; that what sets the dial-a-ride fee is that you can meet two times what your adult cash fare is and that is $1.50 and can go up to $3.00 for user fee on dial-a-ride. 4) fuel prices have increased after this contract was enacted; and 5) this plan will provide and better insure that continue service without any service disruption to people who depend on this service day to day.

Council Member Christensen asked what the current subsidy provided by the citizens are providing each ride and if increase was justified; it was noted that is $4.88 and that the increase in proposed budget for 2009 has $310,000 for dial-a-ride senior/rider service to pay subsidy to the contractor; and that if we use the $0.25 user fee increase assuming 56,000 rides which is what doing currently, would have $329,280 and there is an increase and if increase the $0.25 to the rider and that decreases down to $315,280 and in either case will have to increase that but that we have surpluses in both dial-a-ride and city bus to handle both. He stated the City started this agreement January 1, 2006 and City's subsidy was $4.35; on January 1, 2007 was $4.57 because CPI went up 3.2%; and in January 1, 2008 CPI went up 4.4% and they are asking for $1.00 because of fuel increases in order to keep the doors open. He stated his concern is how long can the company continue; and that it is still our service and we would have to do this if they weren't here today and more disruption and costs would increase.

Council Member McNamara stated the cost of fuel fluctuates and that if fuel comes down, what is mechanism for reviewing/adjustment cost. Feland stated that on January 1, 2009 we would look at the CPI and due another increase, and that from now out we will look at annual increases and take this into account and track fuel costs from here on out and try to come up with formula so that if things moderate, perhaps not an increase and review in 2010 plus or minus. Feland stated that the contract provides that it is an annual increase but agreement can be modified and thinks request for increase is legitimate and fair and reasonable. He stated he can work on formula to review this monthly and look at City's subsidy based upon cost of fuel; and would do a quarterly report on how the company is doing, and how service is and also to look at appropriate charges.
When this agreement was entered into 2 1/2 years ago fuel was more moderate and now has increased to point where they didn't foresee it and perhaps should have put in inflators in the agreement.

Council Member Gershman stated that the CPI does not include fuel or food, and to say that gas has increased 3.25% is not correct; and asked if surplus is an on-going surplus or reserves. Feland stated we built in some room on both dial-a-ride and senior/rider and public transit for fuel costs and this is more than built in, but built in a buffer and if look at revenues over expenses for both public transit and dial-a-ride we did have tens of thousands revenue over expenses and in this year's budget we can cover these expenses with the revenue that we have. He also questioned why have comparison of Grand Forks Taxi and Nodak was in there when we have a contract with Grand Forks Taxi.

Feland stated he would come back quarterly and give briefing to Service/Safety Committee about operation and price and have that committee review it.

2.9 Beautification Program and city-wide holiday lighting.
Meredith Richards, urban development, made a brief presentation; that through the
finance/development committee in 2006 they asked staff to look at the Beautification Program as funding source to beef up some of the holiday lighting, that they purchased banners, LED lights but that piecemealing it wasn't what the committee and City wanted and got to the point of city-wide lighting plan before you tonight.
She reviewed goals to highlight commercial areas, develop consistent theme, focus on displays and encourage private displays. Commercial areas were as follows: Downtown, with various decorating features: $49,500; Gateway Drive, focusing on key intersections, $16,000; North Washington Street, focus on unique elements, $40,000; South Washington Street, key intersections, $19,200; DeMers Avenue, $42,700; and Columbia and 32nd Ave.S., $27,800. Funding of $215,000 from Beautification Program Carryover. It was noted that the Street Department picked up cost for maintenance and repair, and that Mark Aubol stated this should be relatively inexpensive to maintain and that they do have a long life and are easy to repair (approx. $3500 to $5000) and Ms. Richards stated they could look at future Beautification Program budget as a source to fund a reserve for replacement. Council Member Kreun stated he would like to put a budget amount for that from some source, that Street Dept. very good at doing these things but should find a funding source for the actual maintenance. Richards stated that if this is implemented, it will need to be expanded because as the city grows other areas should be highlighted.

Council Member Bjerke stated in the report under cost estimates and funding source it talks about the overall power cost to be similar and asked what that number would be. Ms. Richards stated she was not sure, in terms of downtown lighting the cost of powering the lights on buildings are picked up by the building owners, lights on street poles downtown paid with electrical bill for street lights.

Council Member McNamara asked for funding sources. Ms. Richards stated the carryover of $215,000 is 2007 and 2008 funds, there is approx. $109,700 will be budgeted for 2009 and haven't touched that. Funds come from budget line item under Fund 2169, which is Sales Tax Infrastructure money and has been a line item for a number of years for beautification; council discretion on how you want to use it for beautification. Sales tax money is as flexible as the council wants to determine - that 30% goes into Infrastructure, 20.5% goes into Economic Development and 49.5% goes to Property Tax Relief; and that if the council wants to change those percentages, they can do that.

2.10 2009 CDBG and HOME Programs.
Council Member Bjerke stated he is concern as how they spend this money, that he will
be meeting with Urban Development on Wednesday, and should be looking as putting as much of that money to infrastructure as possibly can.

Council Member Christensen stated during discussion they allocated some for infrastructure for the Mayor's project in Ward 3. Greg Hoover, urban development, stated that the committee recommended at $150,000 for MUNI Program activities. Christensen stated they are aware of that and are trying to find the LMI area where they can allocate these funds to infrastructure, and also discussed that the City would have to compete for the funds, that they have extra money and not sure that Mr. Grasser should have to compete for funds where he thinks it qualifies (ADA ramps-handicapped accessible ramps) and thinks should put that in there, and that would be a shift and start moving away from funding non-profits, but if begin this shift then should see if we start the transition - but if have unmet needs that could be funded with CDBG funds, should consider and make a decision in 2009 or 2010; and that we made money in our CDBG Program $1.5 million. Hoover stated that was correct about funding and the Bricks and Mortar activities, are working with Engineering to identify some of those projects for infrastructure, etc. and if identify more than the $150,000 they will come back during the budget cycle and definitely for 2010.

2.11 Request for additional capital improvement dollars for the Alerus Center.
Council Member Kreun stated at their last Commission meeting was to bring this to the council so they can see what short range and long range plans are and that this will go to the finance committee or combined meeting to see how to approach this, that the issues are included in the staff report, some are updating the building, some with promotion of partners, UND football contract; some issues are to be able to sell more advertising and things within the internal building with naming rights for different rooms, and this would accommodate all of that; and would like to put this on an agenda to inform council either on work session or combined safety/service or finance committee. He stated they have had good conversations with UND Athletics and are willing to work with us, want to make it the Home of UND Football and be a part of that.

Council Member Bjerke stated it says to complete original design, and would hope to be out front and put it on the table 3 to 5 year plan - building is 7.5 years old and lets finish this, that there is no escalator in there and that was in the original plan; that the public wants to see all the numbers/projects and complete original design, and end it. Kreun stated the escalator has been a discussion topic that may be added, not sure, and all those things brought forward.

Council Member McNamara stated in the news has been the University's looking at building their own facilities on campus, the financial aspect relative to our own bond issue, and what is agreement that we are looking at cutting, and how much exposure with potentially no football tenant and that would be included in discussion. Kreun stated we will work with them and they will be a part of the process and the cost - partnership. Council Member Gershman stated there was some contemplation of possibly another football stadium at some time in the future but talking 15 to 20 years from now, there is a focus on the Alerus Center to do some things there; that the stadium was a concern but so far in the future and if were to happen, looking at 35,000 spectators is what they need to justify that, and t that point the Alerus Center couldn't do it anyway and that is so far out in the future.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Bjerke brought up the matter of process for approving a liquor license which doesn't include names of mangers, etc. and year before finding out that information, and doesn't agree with that process, that once they open those names should be forwarded to the appropriate people and should be checked. The city auditor stated that when a manager is hired they are required to fill out the personal information form which is submitted to the police department.
Council Member McNamara stated that one of the things for denial of a liquor license was criminal record of management of the establishment as well as questions about the criminal record of the owners. Mr. Warcup stated one of the criteria is the qualifications of the management team, of the corporate officers, and/or qualifications of the individual - and as the city auditor stated, when those people are hired, even if the management team changes or if put in as blank, that information is forwarded to the police department.
Mr. Duquette stated they need to tighten up the process.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Kreun that we adjourn. Carried 5 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,



John M. Schmisek
City Auditor