Council Minutes

Minutes/Committee of the Whole
Monday, September 12, 2005 – 7:00 p.m.
The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, September 12, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were: Council Members Glassheim, Gershman, Hamerlik, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 6; absent: Brooks – 1.

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 commented on various events held during the past week and upcoming events:

Thanked Congressman Pomeroy and the Council Members that met this afternoon to work on ways that we can help the victims of Hurricane Katrina and for their support in working on ways that we can assist them. He noted that already our City Attorney has been contacted for his expertise in this area.

Informed the public that on September 27 from 4-11 p.m. there will be a community event held at the Alerus Center called the Mardis Gras Rally for Relief: to benefit Hurrican Katrina victims. And encouraged everyone to watch for more information on this event and to consider participating by hosting a booth. Thank you to all the organizers and this is our opportunity to give back for all we got after the 1997 flood.

Commented that there was a good showing of community spirit at the annual Cushman Classic held this past Friday and that regardless of who won or lost it was a great event.

2.1 Authorize call for bids and set sale date for $2,195,000 Refunding Improvement Bonds, Series 2005B.
2.2 Advance Refunding of GO Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1994A and 1995B.
Schmisek introduced Brenda Krueger, Springsted Inc., who was here to make comments on item 2.1 and 2.2. Ms. Krueger stated that she has been working with our account for a number of years and has just recently taken over as our account manager. She reviewed with the Council the terms of the sale and the savings from lower interest rates and a shorter repayment term that the City would recognize by completing this transaction.

Krueger continued that this sale will occur just before Moody’s makes their annual visit which typically includes meetings with various staff members and a community tour.

2.3 Project Concept Report (PCR) for Project No. 5671, Point Bridge Rehab.
Al Grasser, City Engineer, stated that the staff report outlines the 4 alternatives have been outlined for this project ranging from preservation, improvement, replacement, and doing nothing. He continued that the staff recommendation at this time is to choose alternative #1 which includes minor repairs to the bridge and painting. He stated that the action requested at this time is approval of the PCR so that it can be forwarded to the City of East Grand Forks for their input. If they concur with our plans, he continued that there may also be a plan to upgrade the lighting so that the fixtures are consistent across the entire span of the bridge, continued monitoring of the slide area with a plan to address and repair that in the future, and a decision on whether or not to connect the sidewalks, with our consensus at this time being to disconnect them, as they are very narrow and as such currently pose a safety hazard with both pedestrian and bicycle traffic allowed. He stated that a final decision on the sidewalks would not be made without input from East Grand Forks, as it would not make sense to have them connected on one side and disconnected on the other side.

Hamerlik asked for a breakdown of the $1.8 million cost for the project. Grasser stated it is NDDOT $745,000, MN DOT $375,000, EGF $325,000, and GF $417,000.

Kerian commented that on the sidewalks, if EGF consensus is to keep the sidewalks connected, then perhaps there should be a change and say no bikes allowed on the sidewalk to improve safety.

2.4 Various code changes to amend license and permit fees.
Hamerlik stated that one of the concerns that is not addressed is when people do not get the permit they should have and not sure if that should be included here or handled separately and maybe should be a fine included even for those permits that would be below $5,000.

Swanson stated that any penalty for not obtaining a required permit could be handled either in the building code section of the code or in Chapter 9 where criminal and noncriminal penalties are addressed and would not need to be addressed with this ordinance.

Kerian inquired whether the deleted section was replaced with a different class or if it was no longer needed. Swanson stated that we currently have no one licensed under that section so it was deleted.

Glassheim made a motion to suspend the agenda and hear item 2.15 as the next agenda item as there are a number of individuals here in the audience for that item that would like to speak. Kerian seconded. Aye: Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 5. Nay: Hamerlik - 1. Motion Carried.

Hamerlik stated that he wanted to explain why he voted against the motion. He continued that he feels any time the agenda is altered is may impact some who have previously viewed it or are watching at home with a plan to come to the meeting when the item they are concerned with is nearing discussion and then these people may not have an opportunity to get to the meeting once the agenda has been altered.

Glassheim responded that he can agree to a point, however there are already a number of speakers here for the event and in this case, if someone is watching they should have ample time to leave now and arrive in time to still comment on the item.

2.15 Consideration of bid proposal regarding combined senior rider and ADA paratransit
service for the cities of Grand Forks and East Grand Forks.
Feland reviewed the information included in the staff report. He informed the Council that the senior rider program used to operate only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Dial-A-Ride (DAR) program operated from 6:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday at a cost of $3 per ride. He continued that the seniors had expressed a need for more service hours and that they would be open to paying more for that expanded service and the new transportation plan does this. He explained that the RFP was released in July and that two vendors responded. In evaluating the two proposals there were particular goals that were kept in mind, including bringing equity between the two systems, striving for fiscal savings, and improving the service that was available to users. In reviewing the system consultations were held with the FTA, who advised them that the program should be competitively bid. The two proposals received were distinct and staff recommendation is to accept the proposal of Grand Forks Taxi – a cost of $4.35 per ride to the City and $2.50 per ride to the rider. He continued that the potential provider was interviewed and staff feels comfortable that they can provide the service. He reviewed the capacity and that Grand Forks Taxi currently has 6 taxis and 3 wheelchair accessible vans and Nodak Cab has 8 taxis and 4 wheelchair accessible vans. Feland continued that both providers have provided good service on these programs thus far, that Nodak had been a provider for a longer period of time, due to the fact that Grand Forks Taxi was closed for a number of years after the flood.

Feland stated that the Grand Forks Taxi proposal will present an increase for the senior riders which the Senior Citizen Association has already begun to address. They will have a scholarship program available with an initial $10,000 set aside to assist seniors with a hardship in affording the increased fare. The new proposal will result in a savings of $7,200 for the City while offering double the service hours. Feland stated that for the Dial A Ride program there will be a fare decrease of $0.50 per ride with no change in hours available.

Feland commented that in evaluating the proposals they looked at the prices bid and even factoring in the increased fuel prices the providers should still be able to operate with a profit margin.

Feland stated that the issue of service level was also evaluated and that since this is primarily an ADA program, the ADA riders will have priority and there should be no decrease in the service available to them and if we see a problem develop it will be addressed. He added that the provider selected will also have two more vans which will be transferred to them from the City by next year to augment their current vehicles.

Feland continued that Mark Humble, owner of Grand Forks Taxi, is present this evening. He added that he also wanted Council to be aware that Mr. Humble is a city employee with the Police Department and that the City Attorney is reviewing any concerns that might exist with that, if there are any, so that we are in compliance with federal regulations.

Gershman stated that there was a stipulation for no price increases over the next five years and concerned that we may want to have at least a COLA increase annually so that there is not a steep jump after the five years is up. Feland stated that they could look at that and work with the vendor so that the $2.50 price would be the end price at the contract end.

Kruen commented that finding a way to offer both services independently on a fair and equitable manner was a desire for a long time and that the current proposal seems to meet those needs, while actually resulting in a decrease in cost to those on the Dial A Ride side. He inquired whether Swanson had a thoughts on the ownership area. Swanson replied that he has just begun reviewing the matter and is not in a position yet to advise the Council, but on the local levels he sees no issues, he is still exploring the state and federal regulations.

Glassheim inquired whether there was a federal regulation that Dial-A-Ride and Senior Rider be the same. Feland stated that there is not. He added that the only stipulation is that Dial-A-Ride fares can not be more than double the price of a regular ride and we have always tried to be a little under that.

Christensen commented that any change in these programs has always generated an enormous amount of comment and that we have always tried to be mindful of these comments in any changes that are proposed in the program and the fact that the proposal before the Council has a decreased cost to the City and some users and an increased level of service is encouraging. Christensen commented that this type of responsive thinking from staff is what Council is looking for.

Glassheim asked how much the actual saving for the City is and whether there is any deficit funding in the 2006 budget that will be offset. Feland commented that the City will save $32,000. He continued that the budget for this fund has always been balanced and commented that the savings numbers are based on fiscal year 2004 actual expense numbers as that is the most recent full year of numbers available and actual savings numbers may be greater when compared with actual years revenue. Christensen reminded the Council that there will be increased revenue from the increase in senior rider fares and maybe that could be used to address the concern that Gershman had brought up of a jump at the end of the contract. Hamerlik inquired whether this was reflected in the 2006 budget or if there was an amendment needed. Feland stated that the budget assumes business as usual and will not need an amendment.

Mayor Brown stated that there are a number of citizens in attendance to comment and opened the floor.

Helen Bechtold, 615 1st Avenue South, inquired whether the fee changes will hurt those on fixed incomes. Feland responded that for those on Dial-A-Ride there is actually a decreased cost and for the senior riders there is a scholarship program available. He stated that he knows some users have grown used to using a certain provider or having a certain driver and there may be adjustment needed in the switch, but that the level of service should be just as good.

Petra Clemens, 1206 14th Ave South #4, stated that she likes the decrease in cost and that the two systems are now equal but that she is concerned with the level of service and the fact that now with two providers there is a choice. Feland stated that the proposal states that the same service level should be maintained and that it will be the selected provider’s job to meet those levels. He continued that both providers now have strived to provide service on demand, and that we will be monitoring the service as the change in the system is made to ensure that there is a commitment to provide quality service. He added that the selected provider will have three months to prepare to take over the service and should use that time to educate the users on his business and become aware of concerns of the users.

Gershman stated that he is hearing that the main concern seems to be whether the service level will stay the same and if we have a way to gauge that. Feland stated that the current system tries to guarantee a ride to all who call with a 24 hour notice to get on the schedule. He continued that most times people can call and get immediate service and they will be making every effort to try and maintain a ride as soon as possible for all users. Feland stated that they will be at a heightened level on monitoring as the new system begins operating. Glassheim asked for a review of the number of units that will be available. Feland explained that the provider currently has 1 van, will get the 2 current senior rider units, and that there are 2 new vans coming, which will lead to 1 more in the system than currently exists.

Eva Houston, 110 State Street, stated that she has two concerns: 1) that this system serves the most vulnerable population who may be used to one provider and most have a limited cognitive ability and may not have an easy time transitioning to a new provider and/or driver and 2) the time element and that for many 24 hours is too long to plan ahead and now there is the ability to just call and usually get a ride but if there is a monopoly if that will still be the case and if not who will be help accountable, as since they are a monopoly some may not want to complain for fear of retaliation. Feland responded to the first concern that he believes there will be a transition time during the next three months when the selected provider can set up open houses and meetings so that the users can become familiar with him and his staff, as well as share concerns and comments so that the transition can be a smooth one. In regards to the second concern, Feland stated that any time there is a sole source there could be a concern. He continued that in most cities in our region there is only one provider, with Fargo and Bismarck being examples, but all the providers have made a commitment to giving quality service to their users and cited that Grand Forks Taxi currently reports 40% of their business from Dial-A-Ride. Bechtold responded that the ability to get out is very important to the users of the system and that sometimes 24 hour notice is not possible and extreme situations come up and with two providers it has been nice because there is more flexibility in that if one can’t come then can check with the other and has a concern that now with the decreased fare there may be more demand on the system making it harder to get scheduled in and also fear of complaining for fear of retribution may increase. Feland stated that with the change in the system one company will be forced to grow to accommodate the needs of the users. Bechtold stated that with that growth there is an added concern over whether they will be hiring employees who are trained in transporting people with disabilities and the special needs that they have. Feland stated that finding good employees is always a challenge and that all providers now have qualified people and with the monitoring that is required by federal regulations all drivers must be safe, courteous and drug and alcohol-free. Glassheim inquired how complaints would be handled. Feland responded that the RFP does specify that the City can terminate a contract for cause with notice and that would be a last resort for us and noted that any complaints will be addressed in a timely manner and the City would be working with the provider to correct any issues before that would occur.

Nancy Scherer, 23 N 3rd St. #202, stated that she also has a concern on the new service and that besides the 24 hour notice, how things like return trips from appointments would be handled and if that would also need to be scheduled or if you would need to call for a pickup when done and if so how long that wait would be. Feland stated that the providers are committed to having the most units available during peak hours and that there will be a commitment to responding in a reasonable time and that these details should be worked out as the transition is accomplished. Gershman commented that the comments made so far are all good and that he hopes the provider is making notes and can be ready to address those concerns.

Kelly Halvorson, 1639 24th Avenue South, does not like going to a single provider, as that takes away the ability to choose who to use. He stated that he has been treated poorly in the past by Grand Forks Taxi and now he will have no choice but to use them.

Frank Harlow, 110 Cherry St #102, stated that he has already called and made ride appointments for many dates in advance to make sure that he can get them and now is concerned that he may not be o.k. He stated that he also has a concern because Nodak Cab allows you to charge, whereas Grand Forks Taxi only takes cash and if you are out of money then you can’t get a ride.

John W. Johnson, advocate from Options, 318 3rd St NW, EGF, states that he wanted to express a concern on availability during peak hours and also had a concern on the priority for ADA riders, but that has been addressed. Feland stated that there will be just as many vehicles available, and maybe enhanced, as some of those that need a ride now will not be limited to having to go in the van, but if able, could also be picked up in the car and may find get better service. He noted that EGF Council is now considering participating in the Senior Rider program and if they do this change will also increase the options for East Grand Forks seniors.

Lea Mayer, 1015 N 39th St #H32, stated that she is currently a driver for Nodak and that each company now has an established client list and that she has a concern over whether clients now being serviced by Nodak will be given a lower priority than those that are current GF Taxi clients. Feland stated that there should be no prioritization and that he has already addressed that there is a loyalty among clients and that he realizes this may be a difficult transition for some, and that to meet the service requirements, GF Taxi will need to increase their staffing to be able to accommodate this increased demand and that it will be their responsibility to fill those positions with quality individuals. Mayer inquired how he will be able to provide that at the rates bid. Feland stated that the RFP requested that the proposal be bid on a per ride basis and that GF Taxi will be paid as bid. Mayer inquired as to a council report that cited a survey and they were not able to find any of their clients who recalled completing a survey. Feland stated that there was not a survey completed recently, but that it may have referred to one that was commissioned as part of the Project Concept Report a year or two ago.

Clyde Varnson, 1005 12th Avenue North, expressed thanks to the Council for the 24 years of service that Nodak Cab has provided to the City in the Dial-A-Ride program.

Bobby Vogel, 2500 14th Avenue South, stated that he wanted to echo concerns about the transportation issue and that he believes that even with 5 vans not all may be wheelchair accessible and that the Dial-A-Ride users are very busy in the community and are concerned that they may not be able to get the service they need and he doesn’t like the thought of having to cancel appointments because he can’t get a ride. He continued that he does not think it is fair to have only 1 company providing service in the community as people should be able to make a choice as to whom they use. He challenged the Council to spend one day in a wheelchair so they could see the challenges that it presents.

Nancy Wiloth, 1800 Continental Dr. #105, stated that she is a self-advocate for some users that were not able to attend this evening and that there is sometimes already a problem with peak usage times and that she sees it getting worse with the change to only one provider.

Kerian stated that she appreciated hearing the comments form the users and assured them that they would be taken into consideration. She stated that in regards to the choice issue, she does not believe that comes from 1 vendor or 2 vendors, but rather that the City makes sure that whomever is providing the service ensures quality for the users and is responsive in addressing any complaints or concerns that arise. In regards to the current service level, she inquired if there is any current data on length of time to a pick up, etc. Feland stated that the present system there are no denials on the Dial-A-Ride side, but there have been some turn aways on the senior rider side and that may be due to the fact that there are only two vans available for that service and that combining the two may actually improve service as it increases the potential number of vehicles available to meet the needs, as those not requiring a van can be serviced with a car. Nancy Scherer commented that she would like this, as she does not need the van, but has to ride in it to get service and that she does not feel secure due to the type of seat in the van and will like the van better. She added that there have been sometimes that she has had to pay full fare since there is only one van at night and sometimes its full so has to take a regular ride. Feland stated that now that would not happen as the Dial-A-Ride rates would also pertain to rides in the cars.

Kerian inquired whether we measure any response times besides denials. Roger Foster, Bus Superintendent, stated that currently the providers give the city a list of denials, but no other information on length of wait for a pickup. Kerian stated that she would recommend asking the providers to give us that additional information, possibly with the monthly reports, so that we have a basis for comparison and to point out things that may need to be fixed. She commented that it seems that perhaps with one dispatch center there is an opportunity to fine tune the scheduling and make it run more smoothly, as you may now have two units in the same area when with central dispatching could actually use one unit to make two stops. Kerian asked if the 24 request was a guarantee of pickup. Feland stated that currently we do guarantee with at least a 24 request, but we also strive to meet all requests for pick-up on demand. Kerian commented that it may be hard to measure whether service is staying the same, since we have never monitored length of time to a pick up on demand now.

Hamerlik inquired whether any input has been solicited in the last two weeks from users. Feland stated that there has not been, they have received and done an internal review of the bids, but have not gotten user input since a couple of years ago.

Gershman commented that there is a level of service now and some have expressed concerns on the level going forward and it appears that at least some of those same concerns may still be there even if there was no change in the system. He continued that there will be a cost saving in the program and an increase in service to the users, and that validates the reason to make a change and that he wanted to assure those with concerns that they will be addressed and we will work with the provider to resolve them and expressed that he hopes all users give the new system a chance to work.

Larry Kennedy, 1624 South 14th St #13, asked if there was a public hearing on this matter. Feland stated that there was a public hearing as a part of the MPO transportation plan both in Grand Forks and East Grand Forks and this is now in the implementation level and that there have been no changes since then. Kreun commented that the transit development plan addressed many of the concerns that were brought up tonight and actually led to some of the changes that were made. He continued that many were worried about the cost, service, and getting additional hours of service and that has all been accomplished with the proposed changes.

Christensen stated that the main concern he hears is with change and he wants to caution that if people go in with the attitude that it can’t work it won’t and he restated that the City will be working on reviewing the system as implementation occurs and will be working hard to monitor and ensure that all concerns are addressed and take that into consideration to bid the next time around.

Kerian requested that some information be provided to council by the next meeting on the expectations for how complaints will be addresses and steps that will be taken to monitor the service level, as well as any options for the fee levels that were talked about earlier in the discussion.

2.5 Amend travel expense and policy and procedures.
Hamerlik inquired whether this will affect the department budget’s prepared for 2006. Schmisek stated that there will be no changes made to the budgets submitted and departments will need to work within their budget with the new amounts.

2.6 Application for Class 3 – Off and/or On Sale Beer and Wine License by Wen Yu Jiang dba Great Wall Buffet, 3555 Gateway Drive.
There were no comments.

2.7 Ordinance to amend and re-enact Section 21-0205, 21-0210 and 21-0215.
Christensen stated that the group has in the packet two different versions of an ordinance to address changes in this section to bring into code a winery license at the request of Vintner’s Cellar. He stated that the first two components of the ordinance are the same, between his draft and Swanson’s. The third which is in the ordinance that is used in Fargo, but Christensen did not include it in his draft and has no opinion on whether it should or should not be included. The other difference is bullet number 5 which deals with samplings and is not included in Christensen’s draft. Christensen stated that the major difference that he sees is if could right in so that the 300’ requirement won’t apply. Gershman stated that he usually doesn’t comment on alcohol related items, but in this case he believes that consistency in the ordinances is important and the tasting should be included so that it matches what pertains to other classes. He added that if sampling is allowed in Class 14 for beer then that should be added to the other off-sale classes as well. Swanson commented that Class 14 allows for no on-sale and he inquired whether the Council wants to keep this class in the code if the Class 15 is added.

Swanson stated that there is no mention in the ordinance to deal with the setbacks and he has two concerns on that issue : 1) in regards to the 09/12/05 memo, to use B2 uses in PUD. And 2) that if a difference is made between the classes then there needs to be a valid reason given to differentiate the uses between B2 and B3 and perhaps the Council should rather look at repealing it for all B areas.

Kerian noted that Class 14 was also underlined and inquired what changes were being proposed for that class. Swanson responded that this section is just being moved in code to its proper place. Swanson continued that in regards to bullet three, he included this since it is listed under each of our other classes of license and did not use the word wholesale, as we do not license that. Under bullet #4, he states that you must have a permanent location here in the city in order to get a special event catering license. He continued that is this is not included, under state law, they could come in and serve here even without a city license and by including this wording we will know who, where, and when businesses are operating.

Kerian stated that it had been discussed in committee that there may be some concern in if B zoning was applied across the City and she would like to know whether there are any other nonconforming businesses. Swanson stated that so far two locations have been identified and his recommendation would be to handle correction on a policy basis. He stated that these should have been caught as they went through the licensing process, but they were not and now we won’t do anything about them. Christensen stated that perhaps we should review all B areas in the city.

2.8 Project Concept Report for Project No. 5702 – Paving 40th Avenue South (South 20th
Street to Reummele Road).
There were no comments.

2.9 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5890, District No. 287, watermain on 40th Avenue South (2500-2700 blocks)
There were no comments.

2.10 Consideration of bids for Project No. 5774 – Trunk Sanitary Sewer along 40th Avenue South
Kerian asked if this was the same area as the others. Grasser commented that it was and went not quite to Washington St.

(Gershman and Christensen excused.)

2.11 Engineering Department recommendation to MPO for 2005-2006 Annual Work Program Supplemental Update.
There were no comments.

2.12 Matter of access and traffic signal at 11th Avenue South and South 42nd Street.
Kreun stated that at the public hearing on this matter there were no attendees, however following that he had about 10 individuals contact him with concerns about adding a street light at that intersection and in particular, that they had concerns about increasing speeds that may occur in their neighborhood as a result.

Clarence Peterson, 1201 Russet Circle, distributed to the Council a copy of a letter that was sent out to residents in this neighborhood in January of 2001, just prior to the opening of the Alerus Center.

(Gershman and Christensen rejoin meeting.)

Peterson continued that the letter states there were specific things that would be done on an event day to ensure that the neighborhood did not have excess parking and traffic through their neighborhood, including putting down the arms to close off 11th Avenue South which is not being done, and he is asking that the City live up to its promises.

Hamerlik asked who has the authority to make commitments on behalf of the Council. Swanson stated that one Council person can not bind the entire Council, and in fact, any decision made by this Council can be changed by the next Council.

Kreun stated that the letter Mr. Peterson was referring to came out of a committee that worked on this area at that time. He stated that, while there were a number of neighborhood residents that were against the stoplight, there were probably just as many that had contacted him in support of the stoplight and feel that it may increase safety in the neighborhood and that this stoplight is not meant to address all the traffic concerns the neighborhood has after Alerus events.

Kent Braaten, 1225 Russet Circle, stated that he also feels that putting in the stoplight will increase the traffic in the neighborhood and that he has children that cross the road often to go to friends homes on the other side of 11th and that he is concerned with their safety. He stated that he can think of only one time when the cross arms on 11th were used after Alerus events.

Christensen responded that there was no one in attendance at the public hearing on this item and that if another was held there would likely not have anyone come then either and he is interested in hearing any ideas they have for improving these concerns. He continued that there may be increased usage, but that could be expected as it was always planned for development on 42nd to continue and it would be normal to expect that would lead to an increase in traffic. He added that with or without arms, 11th Avenue South is a corridor street and should be used to relieve the bottleneck of traffic flow out of the Alerus Center. Petereson responded that even if traffic is flowed down that it still can only get to DeMers and 17th.

(Kerian excused from meeting.)

Kreun stated that perhaps the City can look at regulating speed more closely, as he has noticed after the last game there was some fast traffic at times before and after the game and he wanted the residents to know that they are willing to work with the concerns.

(Kerian rejoined the meeting.)

Gershman stated that sometimes plans have to change as you see the actual way things are working and the city has reviewed the traffic report and we need to do what’s best to keep traffic flowing before and after events, while still trying to protect the neighborhood as much as possible. He suggested that the police may need to direct traffic at some of the intersections away from the Alerus, such as at DeMers and 32nd Ave South so that we can get traffic flowing better. Hamerlik concurred that there should at the minimum be some at the intersection of South 34th Street and 17th Avenue South, as that is another common bottleneck. He stated that he Alerus Commission is very concerned with parking and traffic concerns and that he also wanted to express that the police presence on the Alerus lot is paid for by the Alerus, while the cost for those further out would need to be covered by the City. He cited that there are a lot of individuals that also do not want to follow the traffic direction and drive in the middle lane to move things along.

Hamerlik stated that he would also like to comment on the wording of “full” access to 42nd Street from the parking lot, as this had been discussed previously and curb cuts had been denied on the west of 42nd Street even for the Canad and should we now be proposing one.

Christensen stated that there needs to be proper traffic flow and we need to get the police there and positioned in the correct place to make that happen and if it is a funding question make appropriate transfers to get it done. As far as the curb cut, he stated that perhaps this is an area where we need to make the exception to the rule for ourselves and do what is needed to make the traffic flow work so our biggest asset becomes more user friendly.

Braaten inquired as to the parking situation once the Canad complex gets up and running. Hamerlik stated that more parking was bought and paved 2 years ago and that the Commission is continuing to watch this to see if more is needed. Hamerlik continued that the commission is continuing to work with the traffic engineer and Sgt. Nelson from the police department and while a light will help, he does not believe that will totally fix the problem. Gershman commented that with the added activity in the area 11th can be seen as also justifying a stoplight even without the Alerus. Hamerlik disagreed and stated that day to day traffic there is not a problem with traffic at the intersection and there is no pedestrian traffic unless there is an event. Gershman added that there also needs to get traffic assistance to the extremities to help traffic flows. Christensen commented that solving the problem is easy give to Chief Packett, tell him what’s expected and let him get the job done. He continued that 11th Avenue South by design is a collector street and we should begin using it as such. He commented that the neighborhood may have concerns, but over time it has to be assumed that plans will change and we have tried without using 11th and it is not working so we need to revise the plan. Braaten inquired about the possibility of an entrance onto 17th Avenue South from the parking lot. Christensen stated that may occur in the future, but frankly, then those on 17th will oppose it as they have the overpass/interchange at 17th, as there is a school on the street.

Kreun added that there is an overpass planned on 17th Avenue for the future, but it will not have Interstate access as the highway department does not feel there is enough room for I-29 to handle it. He continued that the Council has mitigated effects to this neighborhood from Alerus events, but if the paid parking is implemented then parking in the neighborhood may become a problem and the Council may need to research ordinances for prohibiting parking during events. The group discussed that this has been pointed out as a problem not only in this neighborhood, but others as well and that the City may need to look at options for addressing this. Glassheim commented that he has been to other similar venues and had longer waits than we have, notably the Fargodome and an hour and 20 minute wait to exit.

2.13 Budget Amendment – Fire Department.
There were no comments.

2.14 Recycling Service Agreement.
There were no comments.

2.16 City-owned parking lot in Industrial Park.
There were no comments.

2.17 Budget amendment for Fund 2199 116, Urban Development.
There were no comments.

2.18 Proposed Amendment #2 to the 2005 CDBG Annual Action Plan for the Affordable Housing Program.
There were no comments.

2.19 Sale of City-owned properties: 2726, 2732, 2738 and 2744 17th Avenue South.
There were no comments.

2.20 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Allen Eide for approval of Replat of Lot A, Blk. 1, Perkins 2nd Addition (loc. at 3251 32nd Ave. S.)
There were no comments.

2.21 Request from City of Grand Forks for approval of petition to vacate dedicated street R/W adj. to Lots 1 and 2, Blk. 4, Great Northern First Addn. (loc. at Alpha Avenue and N. 6th St.)
There were no comments.

2.22 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Deacon’s Development, LLP for preliminary approval of ordinance to amend zoning map to include within Kannowski’s PUD (Planned Urban Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment 2, all of Kannowski’s First Addn., Ulland Park First Addn., Deacon’s Gardens Addn., Fountain Vista Park Resubdiv. and Zavoral’s First Addn. (loc. in Section 28, T51N, R50W of 5th P.M.)
Christensen requested that staff provide information at the next meeting on the amount of B2 and B3 property in the city.

2.23 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Crary Development, Inc. for preliminary approval of plat of Meadow Ridge First Addn., Loc. in southeast quadrant of 47th Ave S and S Washington St.)
There were no comments.

2.24 Request from Tim Crary on behalf of Crary Development, Inc. for preliminary approcal of an ordinance to amend the zoning map to include within the Meadow Ridge PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, all of Meadow Ridge First Addn. and to include unplatted lands lying between 47th Ave S and 51st Ave S and between S Washington St and the westerly platted boundaries of North Pines Resubdiv. and South Pines Addn.
There were no comments.

2.25 Petition from Tim Crary on behalf of Crary Development, Inc. for approval of ordinance to annex the south 512 ft. of the north 702 ft. of the east 420 feet of the west 690 feet of the NW Quarter of the NW Quarter of Section 27, T151N, R50W of the 5th P.M. (containing 215,040 sq. ft. or 4.93 acres).
There were no comments.

2.26 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Arthur Greenberg for preliminary approval of an ordinance to rezone and include within Columbia Park West PUD (planned Unit South Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 3, including Columbia Park 28th Resubdiv. (loc. in 4300 blk. of 36th Ave. S.)
Christensen commented that he has read the planning and zoning minutes concerning this project and wants everyone to realize that if this passes there is a possibility of the developer coming in with storage units surrounded by chain link on those lots. He continued that the group should think about if that is the type of development that we want to have on the southern edge of the city where that is the first thing you see coming into town or if this is a development that we want to direct to the northend where similar types of developments already exist. He stated that this may be the time to start looking at areas of our community and how we want them to develop so that we don’t loose the ability to control the development.

Kreun commented that this action is only for the platting of the land and will bring it into the City and that the issue of use can still be controlled in the planning and zoning process. He continued that he is not saying whether a storage type facility should or should not be placed in this area at this point, but that the development will still have to meet PUD standards and the City still can look at that as the process continues.