Council Minutes
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
May 27, 2003
The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in the council chambers in City Hall on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 at the hour of 7:00 o’clock p.m. with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 6; absent: Council Member Brooks - 1.
Mayor Brown announced that anyone wishing to speak to any item may do so by being recognized prior to a vote being taken on the matter, and that the meeting is being televised.
1) Mayor Brown announced that the community mourned the passing of Hugo Magnuson last week, he was a man of the city and accomplished more in his lifetime than most could do in many lifetimes; that he respects his commitment to service and volunteerism; and offered condolences to his family and friends.
2) Congratulations to graduates and good luck in future endeavors to all those graduates and throughout the region.
3) He stated he hoped everyone had pleasurable Memorial Day weekend, and hopes people took time to reflect on reason for the 3-day weekend and honor those who have served in our armed forces and it is because of them that we have the ability to enjoy weekends the way we do - that this is Memorial Day and a day to remember and pay tribute.
4) Meeting announcements - reminded everyone that there would be a public input meeting about developing a Grand Forks dog park tomorrow at the Park District Office at 5:15 p.m. There is also a council budget meeting rescheduled for this Thursday at 5:00 p.m. Council Member Christensen stated there is a Park Board meeting on water park on Thursday and suggested rescheduling for Wednesday.
INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND GRAND FORKS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE GRAND FORKS-
EAST GRAND FORKS 2025 TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
The staff report from the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks MPO relating to request from the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization to amend the Grand Forks Comprehensive Plan to include the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks 2025 Transportation Plan Update, (2003 Street and Highway Element) together with all maps, information, recommendations and data contained therein, with recommendation for preliminary approval to the ordinance and set a public hearing for June 16, 2003.
Council Member Hamerlik suggested having a straw vote, saving some people some time. John Warcup, asst. city attorney, stated there are two items before the council, first item is first reading of the ordinance and to set date for a public hearing should the first reading pass; that if the first reading does not pass, the matter would be completed. He stated at this point he would not recommend a straw vote be taken without first having deliberation, unless the council considers that no deliberation is necessary. Council Member Hamerlik stated that we have had a lot of discussion and deliberation, and suggested a show of hands. After some discussion it was determined by the council that they would like to hear comments of the public, that those that have spoken at last meeting to yield to those that have not addressed the council, and not have a straw vote.
The city auditor read the proposed ordinance - "An ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan, amending Chapter XVIII, Article 8, Comprehensive Plan; Section 18-0802, Elements of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, pertaining to the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks 2022 Transportation Plan Update (2001 Bikeway, 1999 Pedestrian Element; 2002 Transit Element, 2003 Street and Highway Element)".
Mayor Brown called for comments from the public, asking them to limit their comments to two minutes and for those who have spoken to yield to those who have not spoken previously.
Several individuals spoke in favor of the bridge at 32nd Avenue South:
Thomas Kuchera, 525 South 6th Street
Joan Kuchera, 525 South 6th Street
Norman T. Byers, 401 Reeves Drive
Ann Sande, 1110 Belmont Road
Several individuals spoke opposing the bridge at 32nd Avenue South:.
Julie DeMars, 3130 Belmont Road
John Lambie, 3214 Belmont Road
Lisa Simonson, 3123 Olson Drive
Dennis Herbek, 3111 West Elmwood Drive
Council Member Hamerlik stated that the decision that the council makes probably does not affect the final decision because MPO has final authority; he asked the two council members who sit on the Planning and Zoning Commission, that he is concerned about another item, the 17th Avenue west cloverleaf, that there is an overpass, and that is needed very much and asked why that has been eliminated. The city auditor reported that the ordinance referred to Group 4 and read the list of Group 4: and included is the 17th Avenue South overpass; Columbia Road widening, 42nd Street widening from 17th Avenue South to 32nd Avenue South; 2nd Avenue NE and 5th Avenue NW connections in East Grand Forks; 32nd Avenue South interchange modifications; University Avenue traffic calming; Merrifield Road river crossing; 32nd Avenue South street widening; Washington Street and DeMers single point urban interchange; grade separation at 42nd Street and DeMers Avenue; and grade separation at 2nd Avenue NE in East Grand Forks.
Council Member Kreun stated there were two projects on 17th Avenue, one was complete diamond interchange at the Interstate and the overpass, that from the Department of Transportation because of proximity between the other two interchanges on the Interstate and the cost and projected traffic, they felt the on/off ramps the interchange on Interstate was not warranted but the overpass would be, and the overpass is still in there but interchange has been taken out. Council Member Hamerlik stated that the DOT has for some years been concerned about the distance between such interchanges, however, they grant exceptions to that, and that the grade separation at 42nd Street and DeMers Avenue is in there and those two are very important to the amount of traffic on 42nd which has greatly increased, and the way 42nd was designed that when you get towards 32nd you have to go back east towards the former location of Menards and around Nodak Electric and that is a poor way to funnel traffic, and that is why he thought the 17th Avenue diamond, cloverleaf interchange is important, and disappointed that it isn't in there. Council Member Kreun stated that it didn't meet the criteria and didn't have the level of service and the cost-benefit ratio was higher than what the federal standards were, so several strikes considering those items to take that out - cost benefit wasn't even close to reaching necessity that they require.
Council Member Kerian stated that in trying to address that issue of 42nd and recommendations about where it intersects to try to straighten that out. Earl Haugen, MPO, stated the modification proposal for 32nd Avenue interchange - that one of the concerns brought up by Mr. Hamerlik was the fact that on 42nd you have to head over to 38th Street to get onto 32nd Avenue, and one of the recommended projects is to modify the interchange of 32nd Avenue and I-29 so that the northwest ramp actually is 42nd Street connected so both north/south traffic can get to 42nd Street straight into 42nd Street as it goes north towards DeMers or 17th - the other ramps are the same with the exception that loops have to be added for the southeast quadrant and the northwest quadrant. - that as part of the plan with the overpass at 17th is to modify the 32nd Avenue interchange for more direct connection to 42nd.
Council Member Hamerlik stated the Green Study which was completed 4-5 years ago specifically stated that 60% of the traffic comes from the north on 42nd to the Alerus, so people coming from the north have to be funneled down to 32nd, and upon egress they are funneled south to go north, and if on 17th and that's why different from the cost benefit ratio, and disappointed that it's not in here because to shove people going north to 32nd rather than the options of 17th, and expressed dissatisfaction with it and including not being in favor of the Planning and Zoning's recommendations.
Council Member Glassheim stated on the 32nd Avenue bridge he had five points he wanted to try to establish for the audience and for the council: 1) need to established is that no child living in the vicinity of 32nd Avenue South will be affected by this decision before any bridge is built; 2) a second thing that would need to be established is that even if 32nd Avenue South corridor was chosen for a bridge, doesn't believe that any bridge would be built before 2025 because of freeing up local funding, getting in line for state and federal funding, growth of East Grand Forks and Grand Forks and time it will take for the pressure on the intercity bridges to become unbearable, that a motion to approve a 32nd Avenue South bridge, if made should turn that belief into a formal promise so that people know when something would happen. 3) everybody in Grand Forks must understand why we're talking about this at all, is that 32nd Avenue is now the central spine of a new downtown Grand Forks, every kind of business that marked downtown 50 years ago (lumber, hardware, new and used cars, post office, office supply, restaurants, banks, movie theatres, clothing stores, etc.) all of these businesses have moved from within two or three blocks of the DeMers Bridge to the 32nd Avenue South corridor - two thirds of the distance from the Interstate to the river is five lanes and commercial real estate and only one-third is residential; those residents which front on 32nd Avenue South are no longer in the country, no longer in the suburbs, the rural character of 32nd Avenue South is going to be altered over the next 20 years. 4) that a decision to not build a 32nd Avenue bridge in 2025 will hurt people, schools, churches and residential values along existing residential corridors. Minnesota/4th , Belmont Road, Cherry Street and South 20th Street are the streets that will bear the increased burden of traffic coming to shop here from Minnesota. Our decision is not between hurting people on 32nd Avenue South, it is between sharing a load that people along Minnesota/4th corridor, the 17th Avenue South residential corridor, 24th Avenue South residential corridor already bear the magnitudes that are projected if there is a bridge in 2025 on 32nd Avenue South - those loads are shared on Mn/4th but along 17th and along 24th. 5) people who are caught in doing something that the city's development requires should be protected from financial harm as much as possible - although the city assessor says that he has no evidence that something like having a bridge built near you harm's property values - thinks should err on the side of doing what we can to insure that people are not harmed by the fear that 20 years from now there will be a bridge using the corridor they live on. The point of naming a bridge corridor 20 years ahead of when you build it is so that people are free to make informed free choices as to where they want to live. The cowardice of former councils to make a decision has only made things worse; further refusal to do what needs to be done, will hurt people nonetheless.
Council Member Christensen stated the constituency that will be affected in his ward (Ward 5), and commented on one of Mr. Glassheim's points, that if citizens are going to be affected by a decision of the City for the perceived benefit of the City, before any future councils were to act to site a bridge along 32nd, 47th, 24th, etc. and no council, including this council, has done anything to figure out how the citizens' lives who would be impacted will be compensated and when; that once a bridge is sited, if sited, and believes that any council that is responsible would have a source of funding and would know the corridor and would be prepared to buy out the homes that were impacted immediately; and if people who feel they are impacted want to get on with their lives and not run the risk of the market, that hasn't been done by this council, or other councils, and if and when the planning process convenes and recontinues with the MPO, he will urge that whomever plans for a bridge, whenever, that a source of funding be developed on both sides of the river. He stated he wants to point out that before any inner city bridge is built a bypass bridge on the Merrifield Road will be built, and that he doesn't believe the projections given as to the growth that is projected in East Grand Forks vs. Grand Forks. He stated he didn't think that a dire need has been presented, a future need has been projected and have to ask what is going to be the source of growth on the East Side vs. the source of growth on this side, and projections of growth are inflated, that traffic counts are suspect. He stated the need for bridge has not been shown and feels that the Merrifield bridge should be built first and see how and when, and if need becomes dire, then a future council may have to consider it; and that before any more planning goes into any type of bridges that a source of funding and a corridor be determined, and when determined and whoever is impacted is bought out immediately; that money will have to come from our taxes or federal dollars - impact will be from the river to the schools.
Council Member Kreun stated wanting to create better level of service, that MPO is a planning organization for the complete region around us and weren't remiss in taking a look and finding out where the best location would be if we planned to build an inner city bridge, and in looking at number, 32nd is the most logical spot by MPO Planning, but becomes our responsibility - want to look at level of service and dollar cost we can create best level of service for all the citizens in Grand Forks, stated that we are not raising the level or service for the cost benefit that we are putting out - and asked if it is good to spend the money to raise the level of service a small amount, would rather look to the Merrifield bridge crossing to see what we can obtain out of that and what traffic diversion will take place - that it is a by-pass but will take some of the local traffic and divert it around there - after putting the Merrifield bridge in place, have the numbers we would like to see and then make the projection for an intercity bridge if required. He stated he didn't believe putting a bridge at 32nd Avenue to get best value for dollar for all of Grand Forks, don't think get level of service that we expect out of it, doesn't think it will reduce the traffic amount at MN or Phoenix School and not reduce the traffic on 32nd .
Council Member Gershman stated he supports Group 4, that he compared traffic counts of 1990 to the estimated traffic counts in 2025 as provided by the Planning Department and MPO, he chose 1990 as comparatory year because his neighborhood showed a higher traffic count in 1990 than in 2000, traffic is less than 13 years ago; that selecting 32nd Avenue site for a bridge puts inordinate burden on one neighborhood to the benefit of other neighborhoods and not fair.
Council Member Gershman moved approval of the ordinance for Group 4, and to set a public hearing for June 16, 2003. Council Member Christensen seconded the motion.
Council Member Glassheim moved to amend that on Group 4, that we tentatively adopt 32nd Avenue South as a bridge location in the 2025 Transportation Plan, that we assert that the earliest construction of such a bridge begin in 2025, that staff be requested to compile a list of actions and approximate present costs that would protect children going to schools in 2025 along that corridor, that the Finance/Urban Development Committee, with help from Urban Development, Planning, Finance, city appraiser and city attorney office staff develop a formula to hold the residents of the 32nd Avenue South corridor and contiguous properties harmless because of the economic effects, if any, caused by the City building a bridge there and that final approval be contingent upon adoption of such a formula. The motion died for lack of a second.
Council Member Hamerlik moved an amendment under Group 4 that we include the 17th Avenue South overpass to include possible interchange. Council Member Christensen seconded the amendment.
Council Member Kreun stated they have done that in great detail, that elimination came on benefit and non-benefits that came across not to have that, the NDDOT was heavily opposed to it, even with the underpass at 42nd and DeMers coming in, they are extremely opposed to it and cost-benefit ratio was extremely high and why put that back in and waste our time to analyze that when it was one of the worst proposals out of the group.
After further discussion Council Members Gershman and Christensen called for the question. Carried 6 votes affirmative.
Upon call for the question on the amendment and upon voice vote, the motion failed by vote of 5 to 1, Council Member Hamerlik voted for the motion.
Upon call for the original motion and upon roll call vote, the following voted "aye": Council Members Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 4; voting "nay": Council Members Hamerlik, Glassheim - 2. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.
Council Member Gershman introduced an ordinance entitled "An ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan, amending Chapter XVIII, Article 8, Comprehensive Plan; Section 18-0802, Elements of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, pertaining to the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks 2022 Transportation Plan update (2001 Bikeway, 1999 Pedestrian Element, 2002 Transit Element, 2003 Street and Highway Element)", which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.
CONSIDERATION OF BIDS FOR PROJECT NO. 5444,
DISTRICT NO. 415, SANITARY SEWER
The city auditor read the agenda item relating to this matter, and stated that this item is also on the Committee of the Whole agenda.
Council Member Kreun stated this was an incorrect advertisement and had to be rebid; would like to move this item to go back into session of the council at the end of the committee of the whole meeting and to act on it then. Mayor Brown stated we will adjourn stating that we will rejoin as council after the committee of the whole meeting. It was so moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Christensen. Carried 5 votes affirmative.
Respectfully submitted,
John M. Schmisek
City Auditor
Approved:
___________________________________
Michael R. Brown, Mayor