Committee Minutes

Grand Forks City Council Service/Safety Standby Committee
Tuesday, December 4, 2007 - 4:00 p.m.__________________________________

The city council of the city of Grand Forks sitting as the Service/Safety Standby Committee met in the council chambers in City Hall on Tuesday, December 4, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. Present at roll call were Council Members Kreun, chair; Bakken, McNamara. Council Member Gershman unable to attend.

Others present were Todd Feland, Brad Gengler, Chief Packett, Al Grasser, Mark Walker, Jane Williams, Rick Duquette, Bev Collings.

Chair Kreun called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m., there were 4 items on the agenda with the addition of the following items: 1) LOMR assistance to southend neighborhoods, unintended impacts from our city LOMR; 2) Riverside pool update; 3) towing issue; 4) update to snowmobile route; and 5) gathering of information for waste management.

1. 2006 Safe Routes to School PCR approval.
Jane Williams, traffic engineer, presented info. on two projects, grants that went to the State and now asking for approval; one is for school signing and striping and pavement markings for $84,100, Project No. 6177; and Project No. 6178 for $43,018 for accessible ramps; this is from the 2007 submission. It was moved by Bakken and McNamara to approve the reports, which will go to city council and then to the State. Motion carried.

2. Downtown diagonal parking update.
Ms. Williams reported that first diagonal parking in front of the Herald in June, then diagonal parking on Riverboat Road, once Brownstones done, striped 3rd; did observation and test, went out several different times and people didn't seem to have difficult time getting in and out of the places, and the 6-month testing period will be up next week. She stated that letter was sent to the State asking them to eliminate in our maintenance and operations contract agreement the part that says we cannot do diagonal parking; we will keep that stipulation for DeMers and 5th Street which are State highways. During this winter will get everything together to continue doing the remainder of the striping in the spring when weather permits and maybe some minor adjustments to the consultant's report. Mr. Grasser reported they will bring the actual approvals back once the DOT revises the contracts and will then look for council approval but now informational update.

Bakken stated the speed on these streets is 25 mph and with diagonal parking and backing out of parking space and suggested that maybe want to slow traffic. Ms. Williams stated they would look at that, but one thing about angle parking is that it takes wider area of the streets and does narrow the streets and people get perception that they need to slow down. Mr. Grasser also suggested that they contact DOT because they have to agree to speed change reduction.

Kreun stated conversation he has heard has been positive except from Street Dept. re. street maintenance and asked what is downtown parking ordinance re. snow removal, etc. It was also noted that bars open until 2:00 a.m. and what are hours for street cleaning. There is some off-street parking for residents, and those areas where no off-street parking, pay into municipal parking and have assigned parking in ramps. Street maint. 1:00 to 7:00 a.m. Monday, Wednesday and Friday on streets; and 2:00 to 7:00 a.m. on avenues on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday and with angle parking towing of vehicles more difficult because towing backwards. Ms. Williams stated that handicapped parking areas will be accessible for all of downtown and have located accessible parking on both streets and avenues. Kreun stated because of new residents and business downtown if able to notify them re. parking regulations; Grasser stated everybody gets warning the first time. Gengler stated that Info Center has complete data base so first time callers do not have to pay but tracks their name, id's them re. parking ticket. Williams stated that the streets are all signed with the notification of when they are supposed to be off the street and that will not change with the diagonal parking goes in, signs remain. Kreun asked if they would be able to expand the diagonal parking in front of Chamber going north; Williams stated they asked when sent letter to the State was to remove restriction on all of the streets that were in the project limits except DeMers and 5th. Kreun stated they need to get parking regulations enforced so can get streets cleaned.

3. Informational item regarding communications with landowners adjacent to flood
protection project._____________________________________________________
Mark Walker, asst. city engineer, reviewed 3 letters they will be sending out to property owners and wanted to make committee aware of them; letters notify property owners of city-owned property and markers i.d.ing property lines, and advising property owners not to encumber that property and if do so will be required to move obstruction and any damage done to the property would be repaired at their expense. Letters will be sent out this week (copies will be sent to other council members), and in addition to that, sometime ago they brought the city council an issue of reseeding some land along the English Coulee and those letters along with the bill for repair will also be going out this week. It was also stated that there are some encroachments in the Southend drainway and need to keep those clear for inspection of dikes.

There was some discussion as to deadline for removal of obstruction/situation or damage to property as this is safety issue and City's responsibility to maintain; dikes can become eroded if not properly maintained and if we don't have access. Engineering noted they will send letter and follow through with phone call or personal meeting and encourage them to take care of the matter, and if doesn't work will become more forceful. Kreun stated that when we find the problem, it should be rectified in 30 days. It was also noted that City Code not specific re. timeline because is something that is not supposed to occur; that the City owns the property and that it is illegal to drive on flood protection property.

4. Towing issue.
Kreun stated that he put the towing issue on the agenda, that there are potential towing amendments that were mailed to them and that if there was anything that the committee members would like to add or discuss, bring info. to Chief Packett and he will work with attorney and bring back to committee to accomplish our goal. Bakken stated he reviewed the ordinance there were several sections (3, 4 and 7) that should be included in the ordinance, that there shouldn't be any automatic tow without property owner authorization. McNamara stated that in the City Code can't automatically tow - that they can't make towing company their agent; and when talking property manager not talking towing company; and after last time they met, had to call the 911 Center that something was being towed - that need a license to tow and if tow do so under ND law. Bakken suggested that we should have an annual license fee; under section 4 - payment - should have some alternative method for payment other than cash, take credit cards, perhaps not personal check. The question was raised as to how long before a vehicle becomes abandoned and they have ability to dispose of it - info in Code.

This item will be placed on the agenda for the next meeting and have city attorney present.

5. Update to snowmobile route.
Chief Packett reviewed snowmobile route - that the traffic engineer does have an agreement with the contractor in the Riverside area as that had been in question. Walker stated that they worked with the contractor and that we would work with them on repairing any damage created by snowmobile traffic, and they agreed to that. Grasser questioned if there was something outstanding by RDO, and it was noted that the trail goes across part of their property and need some approval; Walker stated it was suggested that the Snowmobile Club obtain written approval from RDO, and would ask Kim Greendahl if that was done.

Chief Packett reported that Kim Greendahl, Officer Rowan and Officer Remer did some follow-up on some complaints they received, followed tracks back to homes and made contact there and shouldn't have any repeat offenders. The Snowmobile Club actually maintains the trail, signage, etc. and route basically good to go. Packett stated they would send some reminders out to neighborhoods re. Code regulations and also have Public Info put something out city-wide as reminder. Information will go out when route posted and in place so snowmobilers know where they can go and where can't.

6. Riverside pool update.
Mark Walker reported that they have hired EAPC to take the design that consultant had put together and get some opinions from contractors of cost, that they have developed some ideas of potentially saving some money - elimination of the water tower structure that was going to house the surge tank in the basement, chemical additives in the main room and electrical on the second floor. He stated they will have to work with the electrical inspections department as to where can mount electrical equipment and pool manufacturing equipment suppliers as to what will fit and work; have had some meetings with the Historical Commission and thinks that is positive; and his intention is that they would come back with opinions of probable cost for what they are suggesting pursuing sometime in February or early March. He stated that the price tag of Water Technology's design is more than we could afford, and if took that design and had contractors provide a price tag, would still be a large amount. That if really looking at finding a way to open the pool, have to think of different way of reducing the work to reduce the cost. Grasser stated they are trying to keep everybody informed, work is going on and will bring something in February/March.

7. Lomar assistance to neighborhoods.
Grasser presented map showing area of the flood insurance rate map in the Shadyridge area, the map that FEMA produced that the insurance carriers and determination companies use to determine flood rates. He stated what happened was that when the City did the LOMR (Letter of Map Revision) we tried to get the LOMR cutoff far enough north so that it didn't take in these properties outside the flood protection project south of Grand Forks, though were successful but got caught up in bureaucratic detail process in that the map panel that catches very south tip was redone by FEMA, and by updating this panel all the LOMR's that were in place became invalid; have had conference calls with FEMA but practical application is that we have properties in the Shadyridge area that are caught as the determination companies when doing periodic mortgage reviews, are saying that those properties now have to have flood insurance - even though we didn't change the flood elevations, the panel makes those properties invalid. These properties are outside the flood protection project - determination companies have stated new LOMR supercedes the old one. He stated they are dealing with the Shadyridge properties (I through VI - 26 homes constructed - papers handed out showing properties in these areas) and properties are outside the city limits; and that what elevations are today doesn't matter to the map determination companies, only looking at the map and saying those LOMR's are invalid and are now in the floodplain.

He stated they talked to FEMA to try to figure out the best way to resolve these, and most immediate focus are properties that actually have homes built on them, and the process that FEMA described that should be the quickest process is that if come in and give them the information that these areas are out of the 100-year floodplain, but they are looking at topographic information and if we wish to pursue that, have to follow-up with CPS to re-establish these topographic maps and that the City could in turn send to FEMA to help document that these homes are above the 100-year floodplain. He stated they are talking about homes along Adams, Desiree and those on the loop, which are outside the city limits (will be in the city limits in 2014), and question to the committee/council is should the City assist these property owners in mitigating the impacts of what the flood determination companies are coming up with because the panel changed - the panel changed because of our project and our LOMR because the City even though we had no control, didn't realize that this was going to take place.

Grasser stated they can try to document those properties that are above the 100-year floodplain, not going to move dirt, only do those that are good to go; and that if want to proceed with that, would take that out of flood protection project under non-participating core that is part of the remapping of that whole project, stay away from betterments category. He stated he didn't feel this needs to go to council, dollars aren't that substantial but would like affirmation that this is right way to go, may end up spending few more dollars than this because still trying to flush out the scope, but want to move expeditiously because people are receiving these letters. Moved by Bakken and McNamara to proceed with assisting property owners in mitigating the impacts. Motion carried. (Comm. action)

7. Wastewater management plan - info.
Kreun stated that McNamara brought up situation that in our waste management information gathering process and waste management landfill, how to include our township friends and county friends so they don't feel left out; that they had a short discussion on it and as Planning and Zoning meeting tomorrow, would invite Mr. Matejcek, Mr. Drees and Mr. Malm to come to this body when we discuss landfill issues, specifically if they have something within our ET zoning area to help us with - something of that nature if they are so inclined. McNamara stated his discussion was based on meetings we have had, and would be more comfortable to have those people there, but if not interested, so be it. Kreun stated that he would extend that olive branch tomorrow night at P & Z meeting to those people, that we would give them the information that we would get and invite them to this meeting anytime that discussion takes place and could voice their concerns, give us any information that they want, then when get closer to the siting process to locating a site, and work directly with them like we said we would because there are going to be impacted people in that township and want to make sure concerns are heard.

McNamara stated he was most interested from the county perspective is what is their opinion as to siting the landfill, if there is something we ought to look at, doesn't want to see it opened up to re-examine how we got to where we are now in terms of the north end or the south end and his concern was mostly relative to the county commission to make sure that, as much as nobody attended the meetings that we were at, to make sure that we sat down and spoke with them and get their input, and that inviting them to a meeting with an agenda item here and asking them to come and talk to us, but maybe they don't want to participate and if that is, so be it, or say that maybe ought to take another look either this site or something in this area because they think that would be productive. Bakken stated he didn't have a problem with doing that. Christensen stated that it is in their zoning rules, they don't want a landfill in the county. McNamara stated that he thinks they should say that.

There was considerable discussion with McNamara stating that this is a 100-year decision, and owe due diligence to make sure we make a final attempt and that the record reflects that, that parameters of the discussion would be within our timeline. Kreun stated preferably within the 4 mile ET; that we have asked these people for input and have asked more than township people and county people, other townships and other counties, if there is anything they wanted, and they basically said no or held us off to that extent because they don't want to be a part of it; that saying one last attempt, doesn't have a problem with that but get nervous just opening it up and asking where can we put this; but can't be an issue that they are going to throw this out and go study something else, etc., time to make the decision and if can help us in that timeframe and get it done. We are losing our customers, every customer we lose only increases the utility bill of our customers, we have fixed costs that will continue no matter how many people we serve.

McNamara stated he wanted to narrow this down -pkg. that has to come is landowner, twp., everybody is lined up and would like to do this as we see this as a benefit and if they can't do that based on our timeline, opening fairly narrow. He stated that in his opinion it belongs outside of the 4-mile ET and because of the magnitude of the decision what we owe the people that, having that discussion again, but trying to be good partners, trying to live up to all the things we said in those meetings and that this somewhat demonstrates our willingness to listen, and if they don't have anything to say - but if say they are interested, they have to deliver, the landowner, township and county all have to sign up, has to be a tight package.

Kreun stated that tomorrow night have Planning & Zoning Commission and Mr. Matejcek is on the agenda to discuss why Planning and Zoning doesn't have much input on siting of a landfill - Mr. Matejcek is concerned because we changed the ET zoning to the 4-mile jurisdiction and he is concerned that they don't have any input in that 4 mile jurisdiction He stated that he would invite that group at tomorrow's Planning & Zoning Commission meeting and that this be placed on the next committee agenda.

ADJOURN

It was moved by McNamara and Bakken to adjourn; motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.

Alice Fontaine, City Clerk