Print VersionStay Informed
Minutes of the Grand Forks City Council/Finance-Development
Standby Committee Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 4:00 p.m. ___

The Finance/Development Standby Committee met on Wednesday, April 9, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. in Room 102 in City Hall with Vice Chair Glassheim presiding. Present at roll call: Glassheim, Hutchison, Gershman.

Also present were Rick Duquette, Council Member Kreun, Greg Hoover, John Schmisek, Daryl Hovland, Todd Feland, Mel Carsen,

Chairman Christensen reported present.

1. Discussion on development of 500 block of University Avenue.
Kevin Ritterman stated they had discussion in September and they struggled with the economy and looked at drawing board with J LG and currently are working elevations and floorplans for the 500 block of University and hopefully will have those done in short order so he can bring something back to committee. Christensen stated this has been in committee for 18 months and would like to be up or down in the next 30 days, either go or no go, and if not going to do it then start over again with someone else, that it has to move forward. Ritterman stated that the owner of corner lot/building wants $150,000 for it, and that was part of the problem, market in general, and that 30 days was enough time, and also working on another project (civic auditorium). Christensen stated they have other issues of Brownstones and also talking about expanding Ren Zone, and this property is located in the Ren Zone. Ritterman stated financing - were trying to get units $130-140,000 range and that is not going to happen because of cost of development - and probably $150-160,000; would be 6 units. This item will come back to committee on May 7, 2008.

2. Discussion on municipal parking system.
Greg Hoover stated information from December 2006 report that there is no shortage of parking spaces, have slightly more then 2700 public spaces, 700 on the street, 945 in surface lots and 1100 in ramps; the national standards for use of off-street parking is 85% full and in Grand Forks during survey they came up with 57% during the day and 28% in the evening and that seems to indicate there is a surplus available. Spaces according to the study are generally within accepted walking distances, one of the issues they have been dealing with and at urging of Mr. Gershman is having ramps safe and aesthetically pleasing and will go over some of the capital improvements and plan for this year. The issue is the cost of the parking - somebody has to pay for it; and on use of revenue bonds Central ramp was retired in 1997 and corporate ramp is to be paid off in 2018, both ramps used the same assessment district and the same formula factors but different weight assigned to those and slight difference between the two projects. With respect to the Corporate ramp was a little over $1.1 million and that has been reduced by 55% by the City through using surplus funds from prior parking and payment of 100% of their assessment in the first 5 years and 60% in the following 3 years, 2 of which were authorized by the council, and the third that working with finance made administrative decision because we didn't get into the assessment process and picked up a third and that is approx. $22,000/year and they will be recommending during the assessment process that the balance that is owing will be 100% assessed to the private properties, and if look at this in totality the ramp cost about $4.4 million and with the money the City put in through block grants and excess parking revenue, etc. that at the end the private property assessments would only be 10% of that total cost of the ramp. He presented map showing district boundaries for both ramps.

Special Assessments for Operation and Maintenance: that sometime back the city council put an operation/maintenance district in to pay for costs of maintaining surface lots and the ramps and those costs were assessed to benefiting businesses, the formula that was used was to equitably distribute the cost and that was the final annual operating and maintenance budget less any revenue from leases or businesses or individuals who are reserving lots in the ramp. District is University on the north, Gertrude on the south and 5th St. The question was raised as to why the operation/maintenance district was not the same district as the parking ramp; Hoover stated it is what it is at this juncture. The operating budget between 2003 and 2007 expenses exceeded revenues and the median amount during that period was revenues of $228,000 and expenses of $275,000, shortfall of $47,000; and the currently approved 2008 projects $194,000 deficit and will talk about a revised budget that will reduce that significantly. Revenues generated from parking assessments approx. 24%, funds from reserved spaces 36% and management fee paid by the County of 40%. Christensen stated we should look at proposals from Urban Development for downtown parking, analyze requests to see what the costs are as opposed to what we have of revenue coming in and see if we should adjust anything upwards to cover it.

Hoover stated that in his opinion the current way to whom they assess various fees should be property owners and not the businesses and that the formula we have now is convoluted, and finds it difficult to understand. He stated they have about $103,000 in repair that was done in 2007, the painting in the Central ramp will be done in July at the request of the school. He stated they have to repair the Central ramp and want to remodel and equip the maintenance office because that is where they would house their enforcement people, $27,000 to install lighting in the Central ramp and test lights were put up on the 5th Street side this winter and made great difference. He stated that if Urban is going to take over enforcement of on-street parking as recommended in the 2006 study they will have to purchase hand held ticketing equipment which Police Department was going to do, and install way finding signage. He stated that he would like to remove the existing panels on the Central ramp as they are old and antiquated and don't fit the motif downtown, est. cost $625,000, no estimate for removal or installation but that is a future item and perhaps setting up a reserve or sinking fund to handle that. It was noted that panels not structurally bad, only ugly; it was suggested putting a cap on them as that is a lot of money. Hoover stated it is making it consistent with the Corporate center buildings and ramp but is off in the future and doesn't need to be dealt with now.

There is some of the maintenance equipment that they are going to lease and do for couple reasons, the equipment they have been using no longer usable and if do the on-street enforcement that the vehicle that the P.D. currently has is on its last wheels and would use this as ticketing vehicle and also use this for maintenance in community green and mowing fire, police which they are doing for them through Housing Auth. maintenance and those funds would be charged back on a time and materials type of situation, budgeting $13-14,000/year but some of that will be recouped and put back in the budget to reduce future expenditures.

Way-finding signage: That as pointed out the 2006 report wouldn't know there is any public parking downtown and have worked with Jane Williams, traffic engineer, who has been helping them with this, sign that would be affixed to the outside where entrances are and attempt to dress up parking ramps and make them appear more attractive and the signage would be out on the street direction. Bottom line is that using the 2006 report the traffic engineer and others came together and came up with the streets that would have the diagonal parking and would see 50 space increase for that and that when added them closer to the businesses and allow then to park in front of business they are patronizing.

Actions: His recommendations are to amend the 2008 budget for parking and add 2 parking enforcement positions that would give them coverage for 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. and second parking enforcement position would also do maintenance so cutting down on maintained costs; that the lease/purchase of maintenance equipment at est. cost of $49,000, financing is very good and is zero percent for 4 years, and they would ask for $3l8,600 from excess sales tax for the improvements, and would like to recommend to the council that they be authorized to proceed with the capital improvements doing the procurement, etc. and would also if agree to adding those two positions would have to be included in the 2008 salary plan. He stated if we go forward and Urban Development does enforcement on-street will have to find a way to include that so that it goes into Fund 5997 but don't have good fix right on what that is, that based on some information from P.D. that might be $50,000/lyear in fines.

He stated we need to look at what rates we should be charging for reserved parking in lots and ramps and wanted to get the focus on the staffing and capital improvements before we get into this; look at a formula that would more appropriately assess the property owners and not the businesses. A survey in late '07, with just a walk around compared to information, found that 86 businesses in the downtown that weren't being assessed, found some property owners that were being assessed and not the businesses as Code calls for, that we don't have an efficient way to gather that information, and their suggestion is take the businesses and use the same sort of formula that you add for the revenue bonds, apply that and it can also help with collections. He stated they have a report that indicated some of the problems we have had in collecting and the average assessment amount per quarter of the businesses downtown is $54.00, they range from $6.00/quarter to $1100/quarter and that the ones we don't collect is $6.00/quarter - could send to collection but what would you get and that we have one business that owes $16,000 but that they are not going to be downtown any longer.

There was some discussion as to balance on bonding - Hoover stated none on the Central ramp and $1.2 million on Corporate ramp and that is being satisfied because we have a special assessment district, and retires in 2018. He stated we have the long term lots on the old parking ramp and that is going to require $318,000 and have some capital improvements that we could probably roll into another bond; and it appears that we have to revamp how we derive revenue from the various sources of revenue generation attributed to downtown parking. It was noted that they found a machine similar to the one you want to lease and would guess that we probably could use that machine this summer to see how it works as we share it before we buy one, and if scheduling is difficult that we might proceed to lease one and that would be his preference rather than buying something that isn't being used all the time. The police have delayed buying the $5200 ticketing machine waiting to see if Urban is going to take over parking enforcement and if so would shift the cost to them. Schmisek stated that if the downtown parking revenue is going to shift from the General Funds to this, there are CSO's and not sure how they are allocated and supposedly have somebody out there full time doing control, and if that is the case what is happening with that position and does the expense transfer from the General Fund the same time the revenue does and that has to track each other.

There was discussion re. downtown parking and issue around Central High - have two hours rather than one hour and have some policy decisions to address because no sense in getting two people and another vehicle if going to be precluded from issuing tickets, and it was noted that they have tried to get the students within the ramp and if went to one hour parking as most people do their business in one hour, that would force students to use the ramp. Hoover stated that based on the study from 2006 if you would limit parking 8:00 to 5:00 would push the students to parking lot or to the top of the ramp - parking would get much worse if do something with the civic auditorium lot.
Hoover stated re. personnel, that they are already incurring those costs through contract with firm in Fargo and doesn't believe we get the level of service that we need and the budget takes those people out of the budget and puts our personnel in, paying the Fargo firm and what paying the Housing Authority for maintenance, $75,000. He also noted that the equipment would also be used for other uses, doing the fire and police department and public safety campus maintaining their properties and would also charge that back and that the $13-14,000/year will be reduced somewhat and if want the ability to do things effectively and efficiently he would strongly urge going ahead with the equipment - that in past situation where they have had to work with other departments, can't get the equipment when you need it. It was noted that the School District does pay an assessment and also pay to lease the spots across from the Civic and that revenue source would be down and other concerns during the school year and how that may affect traffic going to and from the East side because of exit and entrance one way and no left turn lanes.

Christensen stated he didn't see sense of urgency in getting resolved and would like more time to review, concern with personnel and equipment and whether lease to local contractor - and concern about transfer of money from the General Fund to parking - some issues that need to be addressed. Hoover stated he wasn't predisposed to taking on the on-street parking, parking in ramps and lots is a pain, and on-street even more difficult. He stated they will put together a consolidated report re. budget showing what they actually do and reduces deficit - that the capital improvements for the maintenance equipment is something they should go forward with using excess sales tax. Gershman stated he would also like to see how many spots are leased; Hoover stated lease should be increased $5.00 each way and that maybe too little, for if gets too costly, nobody will use it and very few use it now. Gershman stated he sent an e-mail out and unless there is some regulation he doesn't know about thinks that the striping in diagonal should be yellow as shows through the snow - Jane Williams stated that striping has to be white, yellow is used for two-direction traffic.

Schmisek stated they have two issues - and if these two issues be separated and make a determination on whether you want to proceed with the capital items exclusive of those that would implement the switch of the parking - will have to decide if you are going to take revenue from General Fund there has to be an expense, or whether want to leave P.D. in charge of the on-street parking, have to work those things out in committee to see how best operate the system.

Hoover stated in the past that weren't going to do the lighting separate from the painting, and are going ahead with the Central painting and would like $30,00 for the lights in the Central ramp and need the $235, 000 for the deck. Christensen stated he drives the ramp every day and doesn't see the urgency to replace the deck; Hoover stated that engineers will tell you that you need to replace that, and that he would ask you to push forward with the deck repair for $235,000, the new lighting for $27,400 and the way-finding signage for $36,000. There was some discussion re. signage and Hoover stated that they should go back to the report, if downtown don't know there is a ramp. It was asked if they couldn't get a less expensive public parking sign; Hoover asked that they put the money in and they will go back and ask for a design at lesser cost.

Hutchison moved to amend 2008 budget for Fund 5997 to transfer $27,400 from excess sales tax to install new lighting in the Central Parking Ramp; seconded by Christensen. Motion carried.

Adjourn

Moved by Hutchison and Christensen to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.

Alice Fontaine, City Clerk