Council Minutes

Minutes/Committee of the Whole
Monday, November 24, 2008 – 5:30 p.m.

The City Council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, November 24, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present: Council Members Bjerke, McNamara, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Bakken, Kreun - 7; Absent: None.

Mayor Brown made the following announcements:

1) Stated that City Hall will be closed on Thursday in observance of Thanksgiving Holiday.
2) Expressed condolences to the family of Georgene Emard, a long time resident of Grand Forks who was active in
accessibility issues in the community and appreciate all the contributions that she made to the community.
3) Was proud to attend the Eagle Scout ceremony for Brock Moser and great to see building new leaders in the
community.


2.1 Matter of 2008 sidewalk warrants.

There were no comments.

2.2 Budget Amendment – Capital Project Funds – Public Safety Training Center and Mosquito Control Facility.

There were no comments.

2.3 Construction progress update for Project No. 6320, Riverside Pool Restoration.

Council Member Kreun commented that even with the use of $55,000 of the contingency funds included in the project, there are still some funds left in the contingency and project should still come in well below the initially anticipated $1.1 million cost for the rehab.

2.4 Request for driveway variance.

Al Grasser, City Engineer, informed the Council that since the staff report was completed and submitted for the packet, staff has met with the owner and reached concurrence with the owner on 50 foot drives with 80 foot flares.

2.5 2010-2013 Urban and Regional Program Project request to NDDOT.

Dean Rau, Assistant City Engineer, stated that there was a revision to the information to what was submitted in the packet and that was placed on Council desks this evening. The change was in the projected cost for the Cherry Street Reconstruction from $1.8 million to $2 million. He continued that also distributed to Council was a copy of a letter sent to ND DOT in regards to the potential economic stimulus package and the addition of a project that would address the train whistle noise at signalized intersections.

The Council discussed the process that was used to move this project on to the list versus some other future projects that have been discussed. Grasser provided Council with a brief description of the project criteria that were given by the state for projects that could be included that the project needed to be one that had already had initial work completed, would be able to obtain environmental approval in a short period of time, and also that targeted projects that could be done in 2009. Kreun noted that there were a number of overall projects on our list totaling approximately $11 million, all of which are ready to go.

Gershman encouraged staff to work with other cities, as if we found the criteria restrictive, they probably did too and it is likely there will be modifications to help cities make the most of these funds once they get approved.

Bjerke added that as to some potential objections some see with the train whistle project, had suggested at committee that could also try it at one intersection and see how worked if there is not support to do all at once. Mayor Brown added that he would like to see all along DeMers done to get maximum impact.

Grasser commented that currently not looking for approval for projects to be completed, rather just wanted to bring as information for Council at this time and once have approval of funds and know what is available to us will bring a definite list to Council for approval and that will keep in mind any local match etc. that would be associated with the stimulus funds.

Gershman commended staff for jumping on this opportunity and getting our potential list compiled and submitted.

2.6 Agreement of Intent to enter into a water service contract for a supplemental water supply with Garrison Diversion Conservancy District.

Kreun commented that this is a nonbinding agreement to continue research on the project and will help determine cost and scope of the project.

2.7 Mosquito Control 2009 bid recommendations.

There were no comments.

2.8 Matter of sole source purchase of custom imaging scanner equipment.

This item was pulled and will be rescheduled for a meeting in January.

2.9 Request from Planning and Engineering Departments for approval of the priority list for submittal to the MPO for inclusion in the 2009-2010 MPO Work Program.

Jane Williams, Traffic Engineer, informed Council that will be a revised staff report for next week and will be adding a fifth ranked item, which is aerial photos of the City, which are typically revised every few years. Glassheim stated that he would like to see the Railroad Crossing Study moved up and ranked as well. The group discussed that the rankings are usually meant to include studies for which funding will be available and could include more, but still won’t get done unless additional funding becomes available. Earl Haugen, Exec. Dir. of MPO, stated that did do a quiet zone study before and that there may be more looked into including consolidating some crossings and other factors, but limited to what the MPO has finance.

Grasser stated that Council could move to add the railroad study as 6 or move it to 5 and make photos 6 and that he is hearing that the Council would like both on the list in case additional funding becomes available to complete them.

Bjerke commented in reference to item 2 on the list, that if a private developer is doing a project that they should pay for the infrastructure improvements and not in favor of even special assessing the costs to surrounding properties if just for purpose of one business development. Christensen inquired as to the cost of that study. Haugen stated that he has been trying to gather information from Park District but not sure at this time. Christensen questioned why it would be on the list when we are not even certain that there will be a wellness center developed there as all still in the fundraising stage and maybe wait until we know it will happen. Grasser stated that he would assume that an approximate cost would be $50,000 and part of it would be to show traffic origination, direction and source and determine what would be needed should development occur, also address the drainage issue, as there is a pond on that property currently and have had drainage problems in the Target area so need to make sure any development addresses that, also is talk of a development further down 38^th St. and make sure plan for access for that. He noted that this data would also help to leverage federal dollars to assist with funding depending on outcome of the study.

Christensen stated that if purpose was solely due to Wellness Center development doesn’t feel need to complete it until the Center is a certainty, but if there are other reasons connected with that park, general area traffic, pond issues, etc. then does want to see that the we plan that area well and not end up with problems like near the Alerus Center and traffic issues that we have been trying to address after the fact. Kreun noted that there is also talk of some development on Kiwanis Park besides the Wellness Center and need to consider access and parking for that in addition to addressing the drainage issues.

2.10 Minnesota – Fourth Corridor Study document (Cherry St. to 3^rd Street).

Nancy Ellis, MPO, gave a brief overview of the study which addressed the improvement of roads in the area, preservation of and replacement of granitoid in the area, and other aesthetic improvements to improve the corridor. She stated that currently there is an average of 5,000 cars per day and that is projected to stay between 4,000 and 5,000. She noted that there are some sections that need to be repaired and the study consensus was to replace those sections with stamped concrete that would have the look that the granitoid did. She reviewed the various improvements that were recommended in the study including areas where granitoid would be preserved as is on the streets, salvage of sandstone curb where possible, alley entrances, reuse of granitoid in greenspace within the corridor in greenspace monuments, changes in pedestrian lighting, traffic signals, and signage, median installation, redesign of intersection of Minnesota Avenue and South Fourth Street, landscaping, and preservation of trees along the corridor. Overall project cost for the base project would be $3,029,900, with additional cost for historic mitigation items of $709,000 and context sensitive solutions of $340,000; for a total project cost estimated at $4,100,000. She reviewed with Council potential funding sources for the project which included Urban Roads dollars, TE, Historical TE, and local share, as well as potential earmarks or CDBG for the portion of the corridor in the LMI area.

Christensen complimented Ellis, Haugen and others involved with the study on the work they did putting this together and stated that it is important to address this as there are some other bridge related issues that will also effect traffic flow.

Haugen stated that there has been a meeting of ND and MN DOT have met and began schedule for rehab of both Kennedy and Sorlie Bridges, with replacement of pier on Kennedy slated for 2010 and work on Sorlie beginning 2016, both of which will close those bridges for a time thereby rerouting traffic to other bridges and increasing the need to have good ride and calm traffic on this corridor. Christensen added that gives us 4-6 years to get project done and that EGF feels that if corridor was in better shape would have more traffic and ease flow through downtown and lessen the need for a southend bridge.

Bjerke inquired whether approval by historic group is mandated. Ellis stated that it is due to historic designation. Bjerke replied that is reason to strongly consider whether you want to get that designation and concern that not everything old is historic and should be able to repair road when needed, but not have to pay for all the extras and not in favor of specials, as many other “historic” places are maintained without tax payer dollars and should have to get other funding for those elements and cited Mt. Vernon as example as they run through all private funding.

Glassheim commented that the Steering Committee did a great job and have worked on this for 10-15 years and exciting to see recommendation that seems to balance modern needs with historic needs and noted that important to get buy in from State Historical Society, as they control the funding and inquired whether has been approved at the State yet and what the process is to move the study along. The group discussed that the next step will be approving the study and then can start on the PCR and meet with local and state historical societies. Haugen stated that the state is already looking at all granitoid and there may be some sections that have deteriorated so badly they will be removed from the historic list and seems that once approved the project is something that could be worked on next year. Glassheim commented that seems to be great project for neighborhood and enhancement to the community.

Bakken also commented on the great job done in working out this initial agreement on how to proceed in getting the corridor rehabbed and that maybe now that have that could explore other potential funding sources so wouldn’t have to use up urban road funds for this.

Gershman noted that if we would choose to do this project without meeting historical requirements would have to fund solely by the City and therefore seems to be much better to do mitigation and also enhance neighborhood. Bjerke expressed concern with continuing on as we have been and prefers solutions with less government involvement. Christensen noted that can’t do without the historic society involved, so need to look at options and explore other avenues and will do that as continue the process with the study.

2.11 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)

Kreun commented that have been having some routes that are full and had to change out some to accommodate more riders on some routes and overall ridership up 11% over last year. Bjerke inquired about funding. Todd Feland, Director of Public Works, stated that funding is from Federal Transportation Administration, gas tax dollars.

2.12 Redevelopment of 1502 Belmont Road.

There were no comments.

3.1 Informational presentation on the Downtown Design Review Board (DDRB).

Jim Galloway stated that he was a member of the DDRB when it was initially established and was asked to give a brief history of the group and its purpose. He stated that it started in 1998 as a mandate from the federal level since federal funds were used in the historic district to rehab after the flood. The main purpose of the group is to help ensure that the character of the downtown is maintained, membership and guidelines for review are part of the by-laws created under the mandate. The group also must hold regular meeting and does meet on a monthly basis. Any time a project requiring a building permit is undertaken in the downtown, the Inspections Department notifies the DDRB and they review the project. He stressed that the guidelines are very loose and about 80-90% of the reviews they do concern signage and that they do not review items such as paint colors, etc. He stated that there have been very few new buildings that have come in since the group was established – The Current, Brownstones, Gate City Bank.

Kreun asked whether the group functions well with downtown business owners or if there had been any difficulties. Galloway stated that the membership is set is City Code and did not know the exact full membership but that it does include representative of Historic Society, business owners, etc. In regard to the workings of the group, most business owners are aware of the group and seem to work well with it. Brad Gengler, City Planner, echoed that sentiment and stated that he has staffed the group for a number of years and has not seen any large issues. Gallloway reiterated that the group was mandated due to federal funds that were used to rehab the downtown and not sure the length of that mandate, but as a downtown business person is in favor of the group continuing. Gershman stated that he is also in favor of the group continuing and that they have done great job. He inquired whether they have any control over paper signs that are posted in windows as some locations seem to be getting excessive. Gengler stated that the ordinance currently in place does not address that and would need to refine the ordinance to get that included.

Bjerke stated that after a time people do get used to regulation, but he still prefers to see less government involvement in matters like this and prefer to not have it. Gershman noted that it was a mandate so must be in place and does provide consistency in the downtown.

3.2 Statement of Changes in Cash Balances of September 30, 2008.

There were no comments.

4. Citizen Requests

There were none.

5. City Administrator Comments.

There were none.

6. Mayor and Council Member Comments

Bjerke thanked staff for their assistance with the Town Hall meeting held recently, that even though not best turnout, has talked with Pete Haga about ways to potentially improve that for next one.

Bjerke inquired where the contract between the Alerus Center and UND is at. Kreun stated that it has been approved by athletics and legal departments at the University and is awaiting signature by President Kelly. The contract term is 10 years.

Gershman commented that the new holiday decorations are going up and look great and thanked the city staff for their hard work on this.

Gershman noted that recently had discussed recycling at Council and ran across an article that stated that nationwide recycling average percent is 32% and we are at 38% so actually above average for our community.

7. Adjournment.

Motion by Council Member Kreun, Second by Council Member Christensen to adjourn meeting at 7:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,


Maureen Storstad, CPA
Budget Officer

SLL