Council Minutes

Minutes of Grand Forks City Council/Committee of the Whole
Monday, March 9, 2009 - 5:30 p.m._________________ __

The City Council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, March 9, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in City Hall with President Gershman presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Bjerke, McNamara, Glassheim (teleconference), Gershman, Kreun - 5; absent: Council Member Bakken - 1.

ND LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

Pete Haga, Community/Government Relations Officer, reported they held Grand Forks Day in Bismarck which was organized by the Chamber of Commerce and by departments with approx. two dozen people from Grand Forks attending and met with Governor Hoeven, Chancellor Goetz and with reps. of Dept. of Transportation and Department of Commerce and shared information. He reviewed various hearings that were attended and supported, including UND funding and BRIC funding, and the joint resolution of the city council and the Student Senate on the affordability of tuition which was entered into the record. Testimony was also provided in opposition to House Bill that exempts clothing from sales tax that has an est. $1.5 million impact on our budget on an annual basis. Next weeks hearings include extraterritorial zoning on Thursday and the City will be taking a delegation of 3 or 4 members from the City, including the city planner and city administrator; bills on property tax exemptions for new housing; a study on certified technology parks which would have an impact in the future with some of our work with the University; the Governor's property tax reduction plan with impact of funding for schools and dollar for dollar offset in property taxes; and the police department re. killing or injury of a law enforcement animal.

Council Member Glassheim stated need for additional information re. the centers of excellence, on how it has been working and what kind of job it has been creating, as there is an attack being mounted on it to delay the money for at least a year or possibly for the next two years as some middle level leadership is not happy with centers of excellence. President Gershman stated that Keith Lund at Economic Development Corp. would be able to supply some hard numbers and also the University. Mr. Haga agreed with status on that issue and will need support of community if want to see the centers of excellence continue.

2.1 Alerus Center's unaudited financial statement for year ended December 31, 2008.
Council Member Bjerke stated that the Finance Comm. will be meeting with Alerus Center Commission to work on some items, and hopes that in the future can get a simple one page report showing profit and loss, and would support some type of policy re. transferring of money - has more questions and will be giving Council Member McNamara who sits on that committee, a listing of his questions and will be able to address them at the committee meeting.

Council Member McNamara stated that he has concern re. oversight part and doesn't think these are transfers but budget amendments that our finance director approved and asked when administration was aware of this, and questioned why it did not come to the city council. Rick Duquette, city administrator, reported he became aware of the transfers through Mr. Schmisek's memo that the council members received, thinks it is important that this be transparent, his sense of doing things is that we move money within the budget and if moving money outside the budget that should be brought back to the city council for authorization.

Council Member McNamara asked chair of the Alerus Center Commission how much visibility does he have on deal making, etc. and when did he become aware of the transfers. Council Member Kreun stated that he is not involved in the deal making because if involved, it becomes public knowledge and lose your ability to negotiate with other venues - as he understand it what happens is that when the amounts are needed, is transfer of an account and when have several venues taking place at the same time, expect to make those back, and assuming that is the way Mr. Schmisek or Ms. Jerath looked at those and were brought up after the fact. He stated that the city council received the information at the same time that he did, and designed that way because of the quasi privacy scenario that you have when you are bidding some of the concerts, etc. He stated he agrees with Mr. Bjerke and the recommendations aren't far off of what they would do as well, and thinks these issues are legitimate and look at along with some of the other items, cash flow analysis is one of things they have on their agenda that they would like to look at, long term capital plans for 2009 and long term needs that they briefed on before, the event fund which is a separate issue and that is why in their annual report, they suggested that take place. That the two types of accounting system, one from Commission and one from the City, and how do they interface to get to the simplest report that we can get, thought that with the statement we had was clear as could get, the operations deficit and the event fund deficit, and when look at what the auditor's did, those numbers don't quite match either, and would like to have explanation of why that doesn't match and perhaps need couple meetings for council and public to get understanding of it.

Council Member McNamara stated that these transfers went from the Alerus to the finance department for the City of Grand Forks, and that is where these transfers were contained, that finance director made his decision and the money was moved.

Council Member Christensen reported present.

Council Member Christensen stated that on Friday he was asked by reps. from Brady's, that the auditors want a method of reporting and setting the Alerus Center up as an enterprise fund, whatever money comes across from the City to the Alerus hits revenues, and when it is spent, its spent - they are also going to have you put together what is source and application of funds, which you get when you get an audit and financial statement - doesn't think the Alerus is in any different position than any other enterprise fund that we have in the city, but its generally accepted accounting principles will apply to the Alerus as it applies to every fund we have, that we have other issues and will get to those tomorrow. At this juncture there is no money in a concert fund and this will be for our city attorney that if in fact these transfers weren't approved with a budget transfer at year end, how do we make the budget adjustment as we have a rule that says we can't spend more than we budgeted for, and that is why we make these year end budget amendments and that we have to get our arms around this so this doesn't happen again - that it will be transparent and what Brady's and the auditor set up to govern how the Alerus reports, income and expenses and cash advances from the City will be, how they operate, and no separate accounting standards for any department in this city.

President Gershman stated the Finance/Development Standby Committee and the Alerus Commission will be meeting tomorrow at 4:30 p.m. at the Alerus Center and is open to the council and looking forward to getting everything on the table, press is welcome to those meetings.

Council Member Kreun stated the accounting standards are the same, depending on how you use, and that we have to remember this has been a very successful venue in Grand Forks - have generated $20 million worth of economic impact in the city and have to look at the whole process and analyze all of this when we take into consideration what we are trying to accomplish. This has been going on for 8 years, every year we have this report, that they can come to an agreement with the council and commission and the bond issue and home rule charter and the City so there is one number that we can all agree on at the end of the day.

Mr. McNamara stated there are no more transfers or no other way into the budget except through the council. Ms. Jerath agreed. He also stated that transferring within the city budget is subject but a separate political subdivision, that is where we have budgets and lines drawn and cannot cross those without council approval. President Gershman stated that if we don't have that particular policy in place, then would like to see one drafted - it was noted that is in place.

Council Member Christensen stated there is nothing in the budget for any shortfall transfers to the Alerus, and if the Alerus is short in 2009, cannot ask for money, but different if there are some cash flow issues, but the protocol between the Alerus and the Auditor's Office is going to have to get established - if extraordinary expenses that aren't budgeted for, they don't get paid, has to be in the budget and in 2007 and 2008 there were some items budgeted for out of 2163 Fund for the Alerus (about $142,000) shortfalls, but the transfers weren't made - but that there can be an adjustment.

2.2 Application for abatement of 2007 taxes by Rudolph Berg, 2621 Mistwood Court.
There were no comments.

2.3 Applications for exemption of remodeling improvements to residential or commercial buildings at various locations.
There were no comments.

2.4 Introduction of revisions of Chapter XV of the Grand Forks City Code relating to Waterworks and Sewage System.___
There were no comments.

2.5 Public Works Department - Street Division rotary mowers bid.
There were no comments.

2.6 Fargo Metropolitan Area Transit/Grand Forks Cities Area Transit Joint Procure-ment Agreement validating bus farebox, revenue and data collection system._____
Todd Feland, director of public works, reported these are to replace existing systems, and
replacing would be less expensive than rehabbing existing ones; Fargo and Grand Forks have the same systems.

2.7 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - Water and Wastewater infrastructure DWSRF/CWSRF submittal projects.
There were no comments.

2.8 ND WARN Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network.
There were no comments.

2.9 Consulting services for final design of PSAP construction project.
President Gershman stated because of the issue of not being able to bond this because the fee has to be renewed every 12 years and we are in 6th year, and because not sure we can utilize the surplus that we have for the construction, would recommend that next Monday we move to hold this for two months to see what the Legislature does to let the bond counsel know how we can spend the money - reluctant to spend $112,000 on engineering when we might not be able to use it, that he knows there is a concern of getting into the ground but that this can be moved rather quickly through Planning & Zoning and contractors and engineers are interested in getting work and getting it quickly and that we cannot apply the stimulus plan to this project - there are some issues here.

Council Member Kreun stated the committee had some concern and that we are fairly close in finding out which way the bonds can be sold, that the city attorney is working on this, and that we have had favorable reports on the 12 years vs. the 6 years, and is a bit of a gamble but the design phase of this portion wouldn't be wasted even if have to wait for the end of the legislative session, and because of financing and selling of the bonds we have to make that decision but the recommendation was that it was important enough to get the final design as it will be utilized. Perhaps what council can do is ask them again how much time can we use up before it starts to affect us on the construction portion, can get that information and bring that back on Monday.

Council Member Bjerke questioned if the $1.2 million cannot be used for this project. The city auditor stated her understanding was that the money cannot be used for construction, and that PSAP director has asked the city attorney to have an Attorney General's opinion on that.

Howard Swanson, city attorney, stated he has not been asked, and the first time he has been aware that there is a question as to whether or not surplus money presently held, can be used for construction activities and will have to review that. The question he was asked to research was whether or not a revenue bond could be sold based upon a fee that has a termination date of 6 years or less remaining or whether that bond should be sold as a general obligation bond and the revenues from the fees used in lieu of paying off the bond but as a form of rent payment - will review that. He stated there were questions with hiring architects or engineers for design and that he has not seen any contracts and would like to see those before taking any action on those, that he has had one conference with bond counsel and he raised particular concerns about whether it is a revenue bond or a general obligation bond.

Council Member Christensen stated that the minutes of the February 26 meeting of PSAP Board state the Board requested the city attorney to obtain an Attorney General's opinion re. the use of 911 funds. Al Morken, director of PSAP, stated he sent an e-mail to Mr. Swanson with the information with copy to Council Member Kreun and John Schmisek who is on the Board re. that specific question, knew Mr. Swanson was tied up in court and has not followed up with a phone call, but will follow up with that. Council Member Christensen asked copies of the e-mail be forwarded to council.

Mr. Christensen asked for explanation re. issue of $1.3 million in excess cash that they cannot use it to pay for the building. Mr. Morken stated a legislative committee was set up related to how these 911 funds could be utilized, and what the state law states "..the governing body may use proceeds of the fee imposed under Section 57-40.6-12 solely for the implementing, maintaining or operating the emergency service communications system and may enter into agreements to effectuate the same." There were some questions re. to that and also statutes set up the emergency service coordination committee that was to develop guidelines re. allowable uses of the fee collected under this chapter - in December, 2007 the legislative committee set up guidelines and includes public safety answering point facility operation includes land and building purchase, construction, lease or rent, utilities, maintenance, repair, remodeling, essential for support of the communication in 911 Coordination function. Discussion was they did an audit in 2004 of the different funding mechanisms that they used for 911 and during that audit some entities had some issues with how the 911 funds were being spent - and in the 2004 audit Grand Forks was rated very high with the way the finance department had set up the collection of fees and how they spent it. One of the questions that came up was that they were allowed to pay lease but not construction so the auditors said that made no sense, that if can lease why not construct - the question is that this is not part of the Century Code but of a legislative committee. According to this it specifically says that we can but there is no Attorney General's opinion related to that - there is an Attorney General's opinion related to emergency communication system (PSAP) (A.G.'s No. is 2004-L30) and if the council members want copies, he will e-mail that info. to them.

Council Member Christensen stated we are not in any position to make any decisions until we know what the law is, and what we can do with cash carryover of $1.3 million or the source of revenues received, and that Mr. Swanson should be given opportunity to address the issues and obtain an A.G.'s opinion if he thinks it is necessary.

2.10 Matter of request from the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization to amend the Grand Forks Comprehensive Plan by amending the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Central Business District Plan (River Forks Plan 1994) together with all maps, information, recommendations and data contained therein.___________________________________
Earl Haugen, MPO, made a brief presentation re. the downtown business district plan and that as updating the city's land use plan, came across need to update the plan for downtown - that the River Forks Plan is still the reference plan by ordinance as controlling the downtown of Grand Forks and also the same in East Grand Forks, and were asked to update that document for Grand Forks and East Grand Forks and approached this as a one downtown theme.

He stated they used two different committee structures to assist them in addition to usual Planning Comm. council and MPO technical advisor/committee and board. Had a steering committee comprised of reps from different governmental bodies, property ownership and other interests in the downtown, and used technical steering committee made up of professional staff people rep. various agencies that operate and exist to further downtown Grand Forks/East Grand Forks.

As part of update did a market analysis and showed highlights - that there is opportunity for growth in the downtown - both residential and vacant office space and retail opportunities - and the planned recommendations are: map showing various areas where they focused - civic auditorium area and different concepts that could go into play for that area and Central High School parking lot - map showing vacation of portion of 1st Avenue and have run traffic analysis and while 1st Avenue is used, it is not vital to the traffic circulation of downtown Grand Forks and suggesting it is not necessary to remain a through street in the future if desired to layout and develop a property or if can leave it and keep them independent but the civic auditorium site becomes redevelopment. The civic auditorium is not a structure that is reusable or re-adaptable to many types of uses and recommendation is to demolish it and redevelop on-site.

There is recommendation to reconnect downtowns with separate bike-ped bridge and recommending that we try to utilize where the old one was and utilize the pier that is in the river, but not to increase or add another structure that impedes flood flow. Elevation would require further study. There are issues with both the Kennedy and the Sorlie Bridges, are fracture critical bridges and on lists to have work done on them. 2018 is when Sorlie is scheduled for complete replacement and if that occurs will have a down time for up to 18 months, give or take. The committee is recommending to establish this connection prior to that occurrence, if possible. The target date for the Sorlie Bridge and improvement is a moving target, may not be replaced but rehabbed, difficulty in rehabbing it to improve bike-ped crossing as they have studied that in the past and found it to not be feasible to make improvements for bike-ped crossings of the Sorlie Bridge.

He reported they have looked at traffic or connecting in the outskirts of the core of the downtown and trying to make a stronger connection between downtown and the University and are suggesting a common lighting structure down University Avenue making that a visual connection, and also suggesting ways to improve the bike-ped connection between the University and downtown, and suggest a shared parking bike lane, but advising that further study needs to be done before that is in place.

He reported a parkway concept in the area of North 3rd Street, a one-way heading from the downtown to Gateway Dr., residents and others would acknowledge or raise concern of speeding and suggesting some curb extension, etc. to help impede traffic flow so it slows down for the residential areas. Also suggest the one-way pair be reconsidered as whether should remain one-way pair or not - two way traffic will help the speed issue, two-way traffic will also bring more accessibility to the neighborhood - one-way pair has been there for long time and wouldn't be accepted by many of the residents.

Through market analysis and talking with different stakeholders and community people seems to be a need for some type of more unique hotel experience in the downtown - couple buildings suggest might be appropriate for that - Griffith Building lack of windows to upper floors, map shows longer term projects that would like to see over time but not of necessity to happen right away - that they talk about redevelopment and extension of downtown in the warehousing area with RR triangle pc. on west end of the downtown.

They were asked to look at an organization structure that could assist the downtown - it is to form an organization that's primary focus is the downtown for promotion of the downtown and for marketing of the downtown and helping assemble properties and sell the downtown as well. They have a 3 to 5 years period that the organization should have to see if it can thrive and survive and have an estimated cost during that time period to fund it so has a stable source of funding over a longer period of time than annually, that organization would hire 1 fulltime person to help with that and an important part of this recommendation is that there be benchmarking showing performance measures that they can gauge whether this is a success or not and whether we go past the suggested time frame of 3 to 5 years with it.

Back to the Sorlie Bridge issue, if it is going to be replaced, there will be a need for an organization formed in both communities to assist the DOT's in their design and their whole operation of rebuilding or replacing that bridge and suggesting that the organization that could be created even though the Sorlie Bridge might not be for another 9 or 10 years from now, that it have a chance to put its foot in the door of the community and become stronger recognized voice for the downtown as that project occurs in the future.

There are some principals of implementation that are identified in the plan, and not just take the public sector but a partnership between the public and the private sector - not one project is going to be able to carry this plan through, not one program, not one policy but the coordinated effort of all those. Also suggested that there be some regulatory flexibility in financial creativity recognized as necessary in order to make this successful. There has been some talk about how does the downtown fit in this process all the way through the development of this and have been considering and working with UND to identify what some of those are and identified in the planning document and where we go from here - have had steering committee and they have reviewed the full 97 page draft document, received their comments and now going through the preliminary approval process, and steering committee will meet later this month to finalize the draft document, and later will meet for the formal adoption and in April will be back with formal public hearing dates for consideration.

Council Member Bjerke presented questions and concerns re. the presentation - that once this becomes an ordinance, everyone thinks that everything in the plan will happen, that is public perception - this could be funded through cooperative advertising fund that the downtown business contribute to, concerned about pedestrian bridge - questioned need for 3 pedestrian bridges in town of 54,000; that a lot of this is private sector and if they know the public sector (taxpayers) will be involved, what is their motivation , just hang on and wait and money is given to you; concerned with budget of approx. $500,000/year and how funded, concerned with newly created fulltime position - very concerned once this goes out and will it be the citizens of Grand Forks - that have spent a lot of money on downtown and question is, is it ever enough?

Mr. Haugen stated they have an annual estimate of population for 2008, estimated the city of Grand Forks grew by 1% and is 55,136 -- raise of 560 people from 2007 pop. and 1% is slightly better than what the growth was between 2006 and 2007.

Council Member Christensen stated the reason we are getting this report is that two years ago they wanted to do something with the civic auditorium and what was required was that we have report so have some validity to tear the civic down and just got that. Have had on the drawing board for at least 18 months or longer a plan still waiting for RFP's to implement what is in this report, doesn't think we have to create two more jobs and where would we get the half million to fund this. Mr. Haugen stated the report suggests different funding sources and different funding partners to that, the steering committee is made up of business owners downtown and they stated they are more than willing to participate with that type of an effort. Mr. Christensen stated that we can't get enough people to pay for parking fees that we assess and have a committee that is going to study parking fees. That if this gets us to point so can tear the civic down, then have that accomplished. This is a private sector deal and the downtown has some issues as far as development because if doesn't have parking but get the civic center torn down.

President Gershman stated that these reports come out and that is why we have public hearings for people to talk - seeing reports like this shows that people are thinking and if public/private is the way many things are done in this country and in our city and big supporter of that - see where it goes and that is why have public hearings.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Bjerke stated that the notes from the Planning and Zoning Commission re. park and open space committee and commended Mr. Gengler as he doesn't think city staff should advocate a position and then be a voting member when citizens come before a board with a request - doesn't understand why city staff is on any board , and should be looked at further .

2) Council Member McNamara stated the policy relative to transfers - that we have budgets and stick to the budgets - the Library Board, Noxious Weed Board, GFK and the Alerus Center all have their own budgets and anything moved in that direction would be a budget amendment or are there budget amendments and are there cash flow items that you would move between those, and what is the policy. The city auditor stated they have never encountered that kind of problem, that the Library Board has never asked us to advance them money and in the case of the Alerus Center, didn't think it was an outside agency but that the Alerus is part of the city, otherwise the City's policy about the transfers is that transfers are budgeted transfers in the annual budget and if budgeted transfers we do transfer funds as they are budgeted and they are approved by the council in an approved budget.

3) Council Member Glassheim stated that he thinks the City does own the Alerus Center, and there is a Board that runs it but not separate the way the Airport is, needs to be clarified. He stated moving forward on the Downtown Plan, would caution a little on making the one-ways two way as there was mixed reaction to that, knows this is concept plan but will need to be looked at more closely but to accept it as if the whole neighborhood wanted it.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Bjerke and seconded by Council Member McNamara to adjourn. Carried 6 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,



Saroj Jerath
City Auditor