Council Minutes

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 7:00 p.m.

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 10; absent: Council Members Lunak, Klave, Bakken, Martinson - 4.

Mayor Brown announced that when addressing the committee to please come forward to use the microphone for the record, and advised that the meeting is being televised live and taped for later broadcast.

Mayor Brown reported that leaf collection crews are working to complete the final pass through the city, and will complete this pass of leaf collection this week; that after this week there will be no more berm pickup of loose raked leaves; residents are reminded to loosely pile the leaves on the berm and to keep grass clippings, garden waste and branches out of the piles because they can cause equipment breakdowns and result in delays. Residents may also bring leaves to nearby compost sites if do not want to wait for the vacuum pickup, and that the compost sites will also be removed from their current locations on Monday, November 19, 2001.

SUSPEND AGENDA TO CONSIDER SEVERAL ITEMS

Council Member Gershman moved to suspend the agenda to consider items 2.15, 2.7, 2.5 and 2.14, seconded by Council Member Kreun, and to hear administrative coordinator comments, and mayor/council member comments prior to item 2.23 (attorney/client consultation on pending litigation). Carried 10 votes affirmative.

2.15 The structure of the council.
Council Member Gershman reported that the council had discussion on this matter a week ago, that several council members were not present and perhaps they might wish to make their comments.

Council Member Kerian stated her concern is that sometimes standing committees aren’t the right way to bring the right mix of citizens, the citizens need to be informed and would like to have more citizen input, and might be more in favor of other changes that might allow when broader issues need to be discussed and to make sure to publicize opportunities for hearings, focus groups and bring additional people into the process; would like to see some discussion of change and that there are some other committee issues that need to be to be brought forward and asked how they make sure that they get a sense of community.

Council Member Brooks stated he had reviewed Council Member Glassheim’s thoughts, and he didn’t agree, but need to put a committee together to look at the structure of the council, that we are a body of 14 and have gone from 4 committees plus budget framework committee and now have 14 council members and two officers; need committee that can sit down and fine-tune what we have. Council Member Gershman stated he likes the format that we have but need to sit down with the city attorney and start to decide what is this body going to look like when it becomes a 7-member council, and doesn’t make a lot of sense to restructure and then transfer over to the 7; and compromise would be not to look at a re-structuring of this but to start to think about how we look with 7 members.

Council Member Christensen suggested that we spend the balance of the term of this council,
MINUTES/GROWTH FUND AUTHORITY - 11/13/01 - Page 2

picking 5 issues; that he has been asking the Mayor and Mr. Duquette - re. beginning the budget process, had discussion about recycling and we have some serious issues approaching us as a council as far as budget for 2003, that we have big issues re. taxation and troubled that we are talking about reorganizing this council at this time and aren’t addressing the bigger issues, which is a $1.4 million problem that we’re going to lay on the next council - let’s focus on what we can get done.

Council Member Glassheim stated there are 8 months before the next council, and one of the reasons we haven’t focused on what Council Member Christensen wants is because there’s no structure to allow him to get done what he wants to do because there is no structure with the committee of the whole, that he finds that the work they do through the committee of the whole rather sloppy - there is little deep investigation of anything, lot of statements of opinions and all have good opinions but to get the work done takes more focus and smaller group focus; the problem with the committee of the whole meeting is that most people don’t want to come before a large body to testify and is really anti-public; without any assignments a lot of council people have no standing, no task, that we need rules by which we live and work and organization - we don’t have an organizational chart, no job descriptions and that he finds many weaknesses with this system.

Council Member Gershman stated he is proud of what we are doing and have done some substantial work in the past year - that the assertion that people cannot get things done is false, that Mr. Glassheim is an example and after taking a couple issues, one is the structure of the council, and is on the agenda and have a major discussion; that he was concerned about youth in Grand Forks, said form a task force and he did that and they have a report tonight, and the fact to say that people don’t know what to do, that’s not the council’s fault, that if there are people who are creative on the council they will go and get some things done. He stated if go back to the committee system, won’t have the television and not have the reporting because there’s not enough resources in the media to cover those meetings, and asked the question of the public, are you better informed today than you were one year ago; and that he is told by the public that they like what’s happening and they understand it and all of the issues; if it’s in committee and it’s buried and nobody knows what’s going on, no agendas published and that’s why he believes there was an amount of cynicism prior to the restructuring. He stated he has not had complaints, people have interests and when task forces and other committees meet, sees other council members present at those meetings because they are interested. He stated there are some major issues in the city that we should be addressing and this is not one of them.

Council Member Brooks that we are getting past the motion and into the actual discussion and whether we should have the committees, continue to have committee of the whole, and should be discussed in a committee of about 4 or 5, we have made some progress and shouldn’t be afraid to sit down in a committee and do some fine-tuning, not reorganizing and good to do a little self-
analysis and that’s what we should look at, have discusson and bring back to council - will need a
structure at 7 members and if we fine-tune this it will work with 7 also.

2.7 Population Growth Task Force recommendations.
Council Member Glassheim stated they have had a couple weeks to look at the recom-mendations and asked if there are questions or comments, reactions to them and will come forward for vote next week sand if need amending or further discussion that would be helpful to know.

Council Member Gershman stated there are a few things that already exist that we could look at to
MINUTES/GROWTH FUND AUTHORITY - 11/13/01 - Page 3

assist in putting some things in place without increasing our budget: 1) better marketing of events and arts that take place in Grand Forks, that we set aside $100,000 for the arts and $100,000 for special events - there may be a way within that fund itself that a percent of that money go for addi-tional promotion; 2) increase the amount of risk and seed capital available, we have the Growth Fund in place and would not want to see us create another institution, that the young entrepreneurs can go to the Growth Fund and have money set aside for seed money, venture capital and many of the items can be addressed by directing people in the right area, maybe a lack of communication on certain things - that the Economic Development Corp. probably does create 100 jobs per year and need to find that out to see if that should be 250.

Council Member Bjerke asked when voting on the recommendations if go item by item or all; Council Member Glassheim stated he broke them down so have five separate motions for con-sideration independent of each other. Council Member Bjerke stated he sees a lot of money going out the door, - that we spend a ton of money every year on bikepaths - that we have a park district and why not have a park department in the city because we spend a lot of money and time on recreational things, and doing things in someone else’s turf, and if want to go to year round maintenance on every bikepath, not practical to maintain a bikepath system throughout the greenway and entire city and have it all open the whole year - not feasible. He stated they are talking about betterments that are affordable; marketing - have a Chamber and CVB and why don’t these recommendations go to them and they should be marketing the city and represent the businesses who will benefit and finds it’s odd that it’s the government’s role to advertise for free enterprise systems. Economic Development - should have more communication and input with economic development. UND - and why doesn’t this go to UND rather than city council, not our job to tell UND what to do, let them make this presentation at UND and this is what youth recommends . Internships: agrees that the city could work with interns but spend more money for interns, why tell the Chamber of Commerce that they should support internship programs, and don’t know if we need to tell these people what to do - this is something they should be doing themselves and this information should go to them and not have official government document telling them what to do.

Council Member Kreun stated he didn’t think they want every bikepath in the whole city kept open all year long, probably some of the major ones is what intent was, and asked under Economic Development, secure 15 out of 100 statewide new economic initiative businesses in the next three years, who would determine that, how come about. Council Member Glassheim stated the new economic initiative is essentially a statewide chamber of commerce initiative and they have staked out 100 jobs in the businesses that they have selected statewide, and this was an attempt to give some specificity to it and Grand Forks is 10-12% of the state’s population and we should tag onto the state effort and contribute to the state’s effort for these businesses, but this whole economic development plank is an attempt to not tell those people what to do or if they could come back and tell us how you might accomplish it - we have a group with economic ability and would like these as goals and if they can or how they can meet them.

Youth Input and Outreach - Council Member Kreun stated that every item pertains to UND, and asked who is the contact person at UND to help accomplish this partnership with City or Park District, etc. Council Member Glassheim stated government bodies send resolutions to other people, but if we pass these he would guess the mayor’s office would send a letter to Pres. Kupchella saying that the council urges you to consider the following things, it’s an attempt to get some focus attention and energy on retention of young people - we would send our urging or recommendation
asking them if they would look at doing the things suggested. He noted the UND student body
MINUTES/GROWTH FUND AUTHORITY - 11/13/01 - Page 4

president - committee on student activities, or to chief officer in the area recommending.

Council Member Kerian stated there are some positive things, that students and young people are not connected with the city, not aware of a lot of what the city offers to them and that is not to our advantage if we are looking to keep them here or have them come back one day, the more positive they view the city the better off we are and better chance that we would see them again. She stated it’s real important that not be seen as just tokens, that we do some actions; that on youth input and outreach, approve the last recommendation that the City urge the UND Student Body to establish a volunteer advisory board whose purpose would be to connect young adults with local entertainment venues. Council Member Glassheim stated that is just urging the Student Activities people to be in touch with local places where entertainment is and make sure that their interests and activities they want to see in town are communicated - advisories to businesses.

Council Member Brooks stated he thought this was needed to get input but there are number of things that are not budget related; that youth doesn’t know what city has to offer and we don’t know what they have to offer - we need to open our minds and listen and see what they have to say - good recommendations and need to look at point by point.

Council Member Glassheim stated they tried to bring back recommendations which would not cost new money and most do not - that they understood that in terms of betterments we can’t have everything we want and that the council better define affordable betterments - it was a call for having some youth involved in defining the kinds of activities in the greenway that would be useful and might not cost much at all, talking about maintenance and should delete year around - amend out things we don’t want - that planning and asking the mayor to do these things and on some items have expenditures - any expenditures which come from the mayor would come back to us if new expenditures, and would like to accomplish without huge expenditure.

Council Member Hamerlik stated hiss concern is that this was a task force approved by the city council and the report should come back to them but that it should be worded in such a way that the committee urges the council to do certain kinds of things and that we not necessarily vote on what to tell the student body at UND or the UND to do and should go directly to them from the committee under the guise that the committee was appointed by the mayor and approved by the city council and the following items that were discussed pertains directly to them (UND or Economic Development) and having difficulty that the city council shouldn’t be involved and telling different agencies what to do.

Council Member Christensen asked the members of the council when they review these recommendations to ask themselves what is the purpose of and what is the city council supposed to be doing - do we not have enough important issues before us to worry about. He asked how far this council should get into other people’s business and would support the economic development recommendations, but it’s a good report and good attempt, shows youth we’re listening and have to be careful that we don’t lose sight of what supposed to be doing - to take care of the needs of the citizens who pay the taxes.

Several individuals/members of the task force spoke.

Heath Kopp, president of Paragon Enterprises, and part of the task force, stated that the Growth Fund already exists to provide the risk money and seed capital that was discussed and need to be

MINUTES/GROWTH FUND AUTHORITY - 11/13/01 - Page 5

increased, there is a need outside of the Growth Fund for more of a focus on economic development’s part to create a risk capital pool. He stated that as a government body and its part of their job to promote the city to allow for the city’s increased growth and health, these are things that are partnered with free enterprise but also need to be championed. The marketing issue came up a couple times, the intent of the recommendation could be appointing someone who is in charge of marketing on the city level, the CVB does market, the Alerus Commission does, but they each have their own motivation and own favorite projects, and idea would be for the city to put in place some kind of an effort on a city-wide basis that would coordinate these groups more effectively. In reference to job creation and economic development, had a chance to visit with EDC and they indicated they supported the recommendations and that the recommendations were reaffirmation of what they are already doing; however, in reference to the jobs, they intended that there be more focus on high risk young entrepreneur ventures on local basis in conjunction with the efforts they already have, the spirit and intent of these recommendations was not to tell UND or anyone what to do, but as a task force felt these were important issues and to put the official sanction of the city council on these recommendations, and then to forward them to these groups would have more impact than if simply sent a letter themselves. Council Member Glassheim stated that the article in the Herald talked about the School District beginning to hold meetings about what to do with the declining school population, our school age population has been declining for over a decade and that means some not so pleasant things for this community, and if don’t have a replenishment of people in the 18 to 35 year bracket, it’s not good and there may be things we should or shouldn’t do, etc. but to not pay attention to what’s actually happening and respond is not really very good leadership activity.

Wayne Westling, 519 North 7th Street, stated that most of the people in Grand Forks are below middle class and on a low income, and if have low income have problems paying bills, and having problems with credit - simple solution would be home ownership, get these people into homes and knows there’s a lot of programs in the city, maybe a three-step program to get these people into homes because focusing on the people that are here now and not the high paying jobs that might be here in the future, if focus on people here now, they will live here and stay here, etc.

Council Member Christensen stated that young man said a lot, that’s what we’re here for, to focus on the people that are here, and making their lives easier in trying to use the money we collect in taxes to provide them a good place to live, safety, services, etc. then they’ll be walking advertisements and stay here and encourage their kids to go to school here. He stated that the enrollment in the schools has been going down, and have been advocating zero population growth for 15-20+ years and finally taking effect and know as a community that if we don’t do something, have to focus on making this the best place to live, as affordable as possible and wants to focus on good recommendations to try to keep the people here rather than things that institutions and other committees are doing in this community.

Dave from Fargo, originally a Grand Forks resident, that he went back to Fargo because there are more things that they provide than here; that he is low income and cannot afford a home and no programs or anything here to help him buy a home so he can stay here; many other programs out there too and more art culture in Fargo, more businesses; that the Empire Theatre is failing and in Fargo have the same thing but redid a historical theatre and are booming in business; and before they pass this bill to look at more things and different areas; and asked who wants to stay here when there’s no growth. Council Member Gershman stated that the Empire has been in trouble, formed a task force and starting to pay the bills and developing their plan now, and more optimistic about it - the big difference between Empire and the Fargo theatre is that the Fargo theatre is
MINUTES/GROWTH FUND AUTHORITY - 11/13/01 - Page 6

primarily a movie house and we’re primarily a performing arts center, and hope to develop movies which should increase their revenues, but have a different mission but a beautiful facility.

2.5 Approval of the administrative coordinator contract.
Council Member Bjerke asked if they will have the job description in their packet next week when they vote on the contract. Daryl Hovland, Human Resources, stated that the job description was tabled in September, and will be send copies of contract and job description before Monday.

Council Member Burke suggested putting this off until the next committee when they have both the contract and the job description together and deal with in a proper fashion.

Mr. Hovland stated the job description they had in place is the one that the former administrative coordinator was working under and the one brought forward to the mayor had some minor changes in it, as to direct supervision, who answers to whom. Council Member Brooks stated he would like to look at the job description, look at salary administration and doesn’t have all the salaries for the next line and organizational chart, have next level down getting paid at least that or more, and from salary administration standpoint if pull it may want to look at that.

Council Member Kreun stated they received a preliminary draft of the job description and then was taken back for the minor changes, and doesn’t see any reason to drag this out any farther, can look at the minor changes in our next packet for next week and be able to vote on it at that time.

COUNCIL MEMBER GERSHMAN EXCUSED

2.14 Reconsideration of elimination of night bus and complementary night Dial-A-Ride service.
Todd Feland, director of public works, stated he was asked by the task force chairperson to provide a brief summary of task force; that the task force met three times in the last few weeks, they looked at the current service that we are providing, one being the fixed route service with the Dial-a-Ride component; looked at a senior rider service which would an on-demand service; and also looked at a taxi provided service; and under both the senior rider and the taxi provided service all individuals would be open to ride on the service, would be on a reservation based system; talked with senior rider system and could have a fixed route, multiple ride van, drive around the city and then divert when receive a call but that was found to be more difficult to do because only have one route covering the whole city and to divert from the fixed route would be more difficult. They looked at the ridership from September to November, ridership is static, 15 on average in October and also the first week in November was 15, September was 16, ridership has stayed relatively the
same. The task force looked at is having the same service, one being the dial-a-ride component with the fixed route and reasons why they wanted that the bus riders wanted the freedom of the fixed route service, where get on the bus at any given point and did not have to rely upon a demand response. They also opened up variety of transportation, one being the fixed route service for passengers and the demand response with the paratransit; as an alternative for saving some money, they would prefer to reduce the service level and cost for the 5-day per week service and also for the 4-day per week service, and that was the alternative that they wanted the city council to look at as opposed to providing an only demand response system whether it be a taxi driven service or a senior rider service and if the council is looking at reducing it from there, they prefer to reduce that current service level.

Council Member Hamerlik reported that the committee recommendation vote was 3 to 1, there were discussions on the various kinds of options that we had, that he is concerned about the Bremer
MINUTES/GROWTH FUND AUTHORITY - 11/13/01 - Page 7

Foundation grant, application has been submitted for $10,000, NDAD has assured us that the $5,000 would be granted and they would do whatever they could to continue it, that night
transportation is a must in Grand Forks; however, we are not sure of the $10,000 grant and that he is going to make a motion for an amendment on Monday, that if we don’t get the Bremer Foundation grant this year or next year that we reduce the bus service by one day each week, which is approx. $8,000, and if we should lose the NDAD grant there would be another $5,000 and would be a total of $15,000, and the reason for doing that is not necessarily to save money but to make sure we have some night service for at least 4 nights a week, but also that year after year we don’t get back into this, that it settles our discussions that we’re going to have night bus service and that if we don’t receive the grants that we are anticipating, that this is what the alternative will be.

Several individuals spoke for continuation of the night bus service: Frank Harlow, 110 Cherry Street, #102, and Bobby Vogel, 2500 14th Avenue South

Mary Weaver, 509 Cherry Street, read a letter from Jane Brown, Family Services and Advocacy Coordinator from ARC Upper Valley, urging the City to continue night bus service. Ms. Weaver, member of the Night Bus Task Force, also asked for continuation of the night bus service and reported that the assistance of grant funding would be helpful to their efforts, She stated she feels as member of the task force that regardless of any outside funding or subsidies that the cost is approx. $6.00 per ride for night service, day ride about $5.25 per person. She reported they have got new route maps spread over the city, including key sites at UND, Chamber of Commerce, meeting places for the disabled; that development of poster and advertising materials which will be used throughout the city and in local publications; material being developed at no cost to the City; that the task force believes with good advertising and promotion ridership will increase; and
that it is a valuable and necessary part of the public transit system, one that we need to keep.

Mr. Feland stated cost for ridership for night bus $6.10. (does not include on-going costs nor depreciation).

Council Member Christensen stated it seems to be more efficient through taxicab or shuttle service such as senior busing, and would appreciate on Monday if Mr. Feland could give some recom-mendations as to what would be an appropriate alternative service so that the less fortunate
in our community have ability to get from point A to point B, rather than on big buses. Mr. Feland stated that they did solicit “proposals” from the two taxi companies, Nodak and Grand Forks Taxi, and informal proposals ranged from $13.00 or $14.00/hour to $30.00/hour, and was not the option that was considered as part of the task force, it is an option for people who need night service, and task force chose the alternative of reducing the level of service as opposed to on-demand service all the time.

Blair Sondreal, 2482 Huntington Park Drive, stated he sat in on some discussions of the task force, and one thing brought up re. senior and dial-a-ride issue, that people have to call ahead for door to door service as buses can only handle so many people; there might be an overwhelming number of people who call in and cost escalate higher than what we run now.

Council Member Burke stated there has to be a better way to serve 15 rides per night than what we have right now, whether provided for by grants or not, it’s hard to fathom a system that you run on a city-wide basis for 15 people per day.

Council Member Brooks stated as looking at revenues of $42,000 in revenues, $3600 will be raised
MINUTES/GROWTH FUND AUTHORITY - 11/13/01 - Page 8

from fares, $5,000 pledge from NDAD, and $10,000 from Bremer, not a given, and the $23,525 represents a federal portion from the operating grant, and if these dollars are dedicated night or
from the operating grant, and if didn’t have the night bus would go into general operation of the bus. Mr. Feland stated that’s a pool of money that we have to use and because money coming in for RFTA grant and local money, and comes out of the same pool. Council Member Brooks stated we could maintain those services if more cost effective, but not seeing that concern for the dollar signs of the cost factors in some of these decisions, we need to have a public transportation system and in future used more and more, but can’t afford a night bus service the way it is now.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTENSEN EXCUSED

Petra Clemens, 222 North 9th Street, urged the council to continue the bus service.
Nan Willot, 110 Cherry Street, #324, spoke for continuation of service.

Council Member Kerian asked what status was of UND night transportation; Mr. Westling, GF Taxi, stated that as of the 17th he will be pulling out of it, Nodak will continue it but not sure for how long, because not affordable because too much expenses to go with it, so could be more bus ridership coming. It was noted that the number of seats on the Senior bus is 16. Federal portion of the operating funds would be used within the bus system or go into the cash carryover savings or be applied somewhere else, that night bus service was added with a grant and is beyond basic core service level. Mr. Feland stated if they go ahead with a taxi provided service, they would provide one multiple load van on a reservation base system, and that would be a way to check our costs because have one unit and can only pick up so many people as opposed to having the whole taxicab fleet available to anyone who want a ride, we need to be cautious and if define that we want to do the senior or taxicab so the City doesn’t subsidize taxi rides on a continual basis (by eliminating the
service level would have to allow it for anybody to ride the service, could subsidize the people that are ADA compliant or meet those requirements and people not pay full fare). Council Member Hamerlik stated one of the services is limited to people over 62 or ADA eligible.

Council Member Glassheim stated he understood the carryover money, that in fact we get more money each year than we use, and to use it for the night bus service is a legitimate use of it
otherwise put in carryover with no particular plan for it, and now sounds different. Mr. Feland stated they did budget for the service next year, and we get certain allocation each year and next year raises up to $700,000+ and for federal grant we have to match that; have to match our federal funds. He stated we draw down our federal grant first and as long as show financial capability to match the grant, but if don’t spend x amount of dollars in a given year, it goes to our cash carryover. He stated they set aside cash carryover for capital matching, T21 bill is up in another year and not knowing what the federal fiscal picture will look like, that if our federal funding did decrease would have reserves set aside.

Council Member Glassheim asked about the taxicab service which was rejected by the committee because it doesn’t provide good service to the people using it - having to wait and not know when coming, it might increase the cost to the city. Mr. Feland stated that was why they recommended either to restrict the number of vehicles you’re seeing as dedicated night service or only going to subsidize the ADA and the 60 and over and everyone else has to pay the full taxi fare, if left it wide open where anyone could get a ride but it was noted that everyone could get a ride on the night bus. Council Member Glassheim stated what he wanted to keep in mind, is that the people of Grand Forks would want to have night bus service and that’s based on moral tenor of this community, and for the amount we’re talking about is small, when we set aside $600,000 to subsidize the Alerus
MINUTES/GROWTH FUND AUTHORITY - 11/13/01 - Page 9

Center’s losses and didn’t spend any time on it and didn’t ask for any detail of anything, and is little out of shape as to what we find acceptable to subsidize without any questions.

2.1 Resolution authorizing the issuance and awarding the sale of 2001-D $13,000,000 Sales Tax Reserve Revenue Bonds (Dike Improvement)._______________________________________
There were no comments.

2.2 Bid specifications for fire department clothing.
Council Member Brooks stated that in the specs. for clothing was that it be made in the USA, but on item 2.3 do not have that included in the specs. for the smoke detectors. It was noted that there is not a smoke detector made in the United States.

2.3 Bid specifications for smoke detectors.
There were no comments.

2.4 $25,000 budget amendment and approval of specs. for fire safety house.
There were no comments.

2.6 Holiday bonus hours.
Council Member Hamerlik reported that in the past a bonus of $15 was given to city employees and since that time worked out a procedure where gave employees a 4-hour holiday bonus for leave time, and it gives the department heads the opportunity to schedule a skeleton crew during the period of time in which we need services - that in the past some offices of the city were closed and not fair to those in the water plant, police, fire and this equalizes everybody
and gives the people an opportunity to have 4 hours from the 1st of December to the 1st of February, and hears many positive statements.

2.8 Approve City of Grand Forks sponsorship of a Merrifield Road/I-29 Interchange, add the Merrifield Road/I-29 Interchange to the City’s capital improvement program in the year 2003 and place the Merrifield Road/I-29 Interchange, in the year 2003, in the City’s Transportation Improvement Plan 2003-2005 (TIP) Submission Document to the Metropolitan Planning Organization._____________________________________________________________________
Dennis Potter, city planner, reported that this is the first of a series of requests that either he or the city engineering department will bring to you this evening related to the City’s annual preparation of its Transportation Improvement Plan submission to the MPO and then to the State of North Dakota, that TIP is a document that sets in place our request for federal funding and in this case for the years 2003, 2004 and 2005. He stated his part is to place before you a request that has 3 parts and it relates to the development of an interstate interchange at Merrifield Road and I-29, and the 3 parts are 1) that we sponsor as a city the development of an interchange at Merrifield Road and I-29, 2) that we place a Merrifield Road/I-29 interchange in the City’s capital improvement program in the year 2003 and finally that the City then forward to the MPO the interchange for inclusion in our total submission of our 2003, 2-004 and 2005 TIP submission.

2.9 Urban and Regional Program Project request to NDDOT.
Council Member Bjerke asked for explanation on intersection improvements and special event signage on Columbia Road and Gateway Drive, Gateway and Cambridge the cost for 2004 is $2,375,000 and funding sources; and looks at old CIP for the year 2002 and it has intersection improvements and special event signage for that area and was $330,000 and was privately funded sources, and questioned change in scope, cost and private source. Mr. Grasser stated original plan
MINUTES/GROWTH FUND AUTHORITY - 11/13/01 - Page 10

was to put in turn lanes, etc. through private dollars and that actually occurred this year and the scope of that project is not the same and the privately funded sources no longer there.

Mr. Grasser stated that we have to submit the City’s request for federal dollars through the MPO that the process has to go through city council for approval and on to the MPO and deadline is within the next couple weeks. The part of the CIP going to ask for approval on are only those requests for federal dollars, not the entire CIP before you, but given in a draft form for informa-tion. He stated they have two sources of funds that we receive through the federal government for roadway system: 1) Urban Roads Program, which is an allocation based on city population, we receive approx. $2 million each year and have wide discretion in how the money is spent as long as on a classified street; 2) Regional funds which we get from the State, but those are allocated based on a state-wide need, we submit a request, State evaluates the request and they determine where they want to spend that money for any particular year, we may or may not get project we are asking for, compete state-wide for those funds, and on approved projects get 80% federal, 20% local share to match. The Regional System is on a primary road system (ie., Gateway Drive) 80% federal, 20% State; and the secondary road system (Washington Street) are 80% federal, 10% State and 10% local. He stated they are asking for authorization tonight and under the recom-mended council action they would reword that, to say “approve the federal aid projects for construction years 2003 to 2007” and take away the other language.

Mr. Grasser reported that the Point Bridge was approved for construction in 2002 and submited a request for funding to the State to repaint the bridge for approx. $1 million (cost split on was 50% from City of Grand Forks and 50% from City of East Grand Forks), and each were planning to access State dollars, East Grand Forks was unable to obtain their federal dollars for their half of the project for 2002, and our choices are either fund it 100% from Grand Forks local side and do painting and repair in 2002 or slip it farther back on the CIP, and their recommendation is to move it back to 2005 in an attempt to acquire matching funding from the East Side; there is a danger to that as farther we go, there is a report as to what needs to be done and cost ests. and as bridge continues to deteriorate that report will become out of date and will have to be updated and cost will probably rise, also a danger if repairs don’t happen within some time frame, may have to restrict loads on the bridge, or close it down because of safety concerns.

Cindy Voigt, asst. city engineer, stated that the special event signs are signs where change the through line to left, where limit the lanes to go when special event. Intersection of Columbia Road and Gateway Drive: Ms. Voigt stated that includes a new signal at Cambridge and Gateway (turn lanes were put in this year), closing the frontage road on Columbia Road north of Gateway and putting a slip ramp in over to Happy Harry’s and upgrading the signals and geometric improve-ents in the area; part of the project regionally funded but not what wanted, and may see shift in funding. Mr. Grasser stated they are finding out that at the inter-section of Columbia and Gateway, there’s a lot more vehicle traffic and more truck traffic than when the intersection was designed and a lot of accidents and close calls with car/truck interface because basic road geometry isn’t wide enough to accommodate some of the trucks using that intersection, that frontage road too close to the intersection and people short circuiting through there causing problems, and those are problems and issues trying to correct, and that’s what generated the intersection project. He stated with the Engelstad Arena and the potential build out of the University Village in that area, we also need a signal at the intersection of Cambridge, both for that and to allow access into the businesses if frontage road is cut off, as frontage road is one of the primary roads for traffic to get in and out of that business.

MINUTES/GROWTH FUND AUTHORITY - 11/13/01 - Page 11

2.10 Sewer Lift Stations Nos. 6 and 20 - City Projects Nos. 5317 and 5318.
There were no comments.

2.11 Change Order 4 for Project No. 5104, 2000 Concrete Street Repairs.
There were no comments.

2.12 Elimination of the Phase IV/IA Flood Response Rental Program.
There were no comments.

2.13 Affordable Housing Programs.
Council Member Bjerke stated he didn’t believe it’s correct expenditure of money, not role of government; that in the Planning & Zoning minutes it states there’s an explosion of affordable housing outside the city limits because they can move in a manufactured or module home or build a home for $40-50,000, that they need to look at all types of housing and would hope in the future this council would consider an attitude change on manu-factured or module homes because they have a role to play in any city that’s looking at affordable housing.

Council Member Kreun stated the Home funds that they are approving are designated by the federal government, have to go back to your people in Washington and have them take that out - this money will be spent in ND and if not spent and utilized here, it will be given to Fargo or Bismarck, etc.; this is designated for our particular use and if utilize that to the best of our ability, it’ll be a positive for us. He stated that the building explosion can be defined differently by different people, that he has been out there, there is some building out there and have met with some of these people on affordable housing and bringing housing into Grand Forks, so the thought is still there and not eliminated totally, and those are taken into consideration.

2.16 Petition from Lavonne K. Adams to vacate a 30-foot wide drainage easement, 15 feet on each side of the lot line common to Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Shadyridge Estates Second Addition, city of Grand Forks, North Dakota (located east of Adams Drive midway between Shadyridge Court.___________________________________________________________________________
There were no comments.