Print VersionStay Informed
Grand Forks City Council Service/Safety Standby Committee
Tuesday, November 6, 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, November 6, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. Present at roll call were Council Members Kreun, chair; Bakken, McNamara; and Gershman.

Others present were representatives of the Hospitality Industry, and of the Mayor's Task Force; Todd Feland, Brad Gengler, Don Shields, Officer Braaten, Chief Packett, John Schmisek, Byron Sieber, Earl Haugen, Al Grasser, Pete Haga, LeahRae Amundson, Melanie Biby-Parvey, Kim Greendahl.

Chair Kreun called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m., there were 4 items on the agenda.

1. Federal Funding for Streets and Highways.
Al Grasser, city engineer, gave the committee a head's up on transportation system, that they have seen some previous information from Mr. Haugen relating to transportation funding, that now at the federal level some of that money is being spent faster than it is coming in and are generating it on the gas tax, that they have had some recent discussions with several of the DOT officials and they are also getting pressure on the federal side that they want to focus more of the federal dollars towards the interstate and primary type transportation leaning towards decreasing some of the funds that we rely upon on the local level, and wanted the committee to have some awareness of these situations developing as they consider long term planning for the city, transportation has always been difficult as to where we get the money and how avoid special assessments, probably going to be a bigger challenge than it is now. Bakken stated that for future budget planning, might want to plan accordingly.

2. Landfill Services Update.
Todd Feland, public works director, reported that they put piezometers in on various areas - 3 in Section 19, 1 at south end of 24, 1 in Section 36 in Brenna Twp. and 3 in Section 7 and deep one in Section 18, that property owners allowed them on their property, and thanked the Omlid family, Johnson Farms, Mulligan family and Drees family. He noted his goal is in January to have pre-application approvals in hand for the north and south end sites and also to have a USDA Wildlife recommendation on the north end, that he has talked to people in the south end who don't want this landfill, and would be very difficult to go south and is trying to have the ability for the committee to go to the north within 3 to 3.5 miles of the airport - and wants committee to have the option to go either south or north. He stated his goal is to get the pre-applications done at the end of November with the consultant, to have the Dept. of Health review in December and to come back to committee in January with a final decision to get the permitting. He asked Mr. Pugh of ND Wildlife if he could get us info. by the end of November, and that he will follow up in the next week via telephone; and that when they talked about Sec. 18 in Falconer and part of Sec. 19 and a little about 13 and that he didn't say no to those sites, and that he talked about mitigation in his letter about what the City is willing to do, and thinks he will say he has concerns and is trying to make it a judgment call for the city council to make for the long term for the city of Grand Forks, won't be easy decision to go south nor will it be an easy decision to go north, but is trying to open ability to do both. He stated as they discussed the wastewater master planning, we need a landfill no matter what we do and goal is make positive quick decisions that are well informed. He noted that FAA has told him that they are going to rely upon the opinion of the USDA Wildlife Service study and that is why only went to their study. Bakken stated that a study has been done and the information has not been released by the FAA and that it pertained to bird hits and also near collisions and that the data was higher - numbers more than what had been reported over the last 10 years, and questioned whether after the report comes out that may change everybody's viewpoint on bird situation, etc., and that should watch for that report - that may not help our cause.

Mr. Feland reported he had scheduled meetings with the Falconer and Rye Twps. on Wednesday, November 14 at 7:00 p.m. at the Manvel Satellite Rural Fire Dept. building; and the following Tuesday, November 20, with the Walle and Brenna Twps. at the catholic church in Thompson at 7:00 p.m. to give them an update of what we are doing

Kreun noted that the City is still working on additional options - co-composting situation and working with the Health Dept, and looking at some futuristic types of garbage management, but in reality are still going to need a landfill along with any other type of garbage disposal; that once we get into the landfill, there has been discussion in working with Waste Mgmt. to enhance their recyclables; and also research "pay as you throw" - haven't stopped looking at other alternatives, meet with people on co-composting.

Mr. Feland stated we need a landfill because that is a $6 million job and if get into other things $60 million, but to get first things first, and in the waste management plan have to have an integrated waste management plan and as part of the plan is to have a landfill. He stated he wants to make the interim period when have to haul as short as possible because it is going to be very expensive. He stated timeline that we are under and get something to Service/Safety the first week in January, then to COW and finally to city council, and then off to permitting.

Kreun also noted that our customers have to realize that we have all the components in place to handle garbage, that we have our bids in place, a contractor to haul garbage and situation is under contract; people are concerned that they don't know where their garbage is going to go - that the City will take their garbage and not going to discontinue taking garbage from our existing customers. Gershman noted that originally Fargo was willing to accept only Grand Forks garbage, but Feland noted with a follow-up conversation with their administration because they understand the difficulty of separating ours from the rest and that they would take half of it, and after last conversation is that we would get Gwinner set up so that would have 100% of it and use Fargo as a backup for half of it if issues came up but there is a feeling out there that we are going to let people go but has stated that we are together. Gershman stated that Grand Forks is not going to abandon its customers.

The committee stated they would continue to explore all avenues but focus is to bring forth a landfill; that they would keep an open mind whether north or south - that it would be science and economics that dictate where it is going to go - to leave personalities and politics out of it. Feland stated he would be back in January with a plan of action.

3. Greenway/Environmental Project Review.
Mr. Feland stated it is time to put closures on the greenway project, that there was a greenway subcommittee to work on issues and if issues come up will bring it to this committee for review and if committee thinks it needs to go to committee of the whole, they will bring it forth, and that is administration set up of the greenway; listing that was provided to the committee is a laundry listing of things that are left with the subcommittee for review. The Street Dept. has done some emergency work on most of the projects except Lincoln Drive rehabbing and engineering is going to be doing small project to make the street drain so can be functioned year around, and there is the Riverside pool; those are the two big projects and all other small project that can be handled within the greenway, and the Betterment Fund of $1.2 million back or do a Riverside pool. The first two projects, one is a street and one is the pool and the remaining projects are for your review and if want to proceed forward will use Greenway O & M monies to add to the greenway as part of the amenities.

Melanie Biby-Parvey stated that one of the smaller projects they are working on is with Xcel Energy and have put in a grant application with them to do some plantings along the south end of the trail in the greenway, during the design phase they eliminated some of the plantings to help reduce cost but now looking at ways to partner and bring those back in to provide aesthetically pleasing area for the users as well as work with the Mayor's green initiative and help produce our CO2 omissions for the city and if receive grant will do a large scale planting next spring. Another project they are currently working on is with JLG Architects and AE2S on developing a rain garden in the greenway (rain garden is an area that allows them to naturally filter storm water that can run off from areas like a parking lot that may carry pollutants, naturally filters this water before it enters into our river or local water bodies, and is a pilot project that they want to show how it can function in the greenway and show how people can incorporate it into other areas. Those are the projects she is focusing on for next year that have smaller dollar amount but larger impact on the bettering of the greenway.

Kim Greendahl stated she basically focuses on getting information about the greenway out to visitors and residents telling them of the things that are out there, and are learning that they don't know where to find things, esp. if not from town and don't know where major parks are and a way of finding them. Second project is a trail mile marking system, that they were approached by a health system agency in town that has an idea that melds very well with an idea that the Greenway Tech. Comm. was working on and that we want to provide emergency response with an opportunity to locate anyone that needs assistance in the greenway, have some street extension signs up on the Grand Forks side but also looking at from the visitors perspective as a trail user, and are working with the committee and local sponsor to put some kind of signage along the trail in the greenway and sponsor would also like to expand it out into the whole community along all of the trails.

Kim stated when they have approached a sponsor, they have been very willing to do so, and keep working on grant applications for larger projects. Melanie stated with the rain garden, wanted to be involved in that project and able to work with them because new title project for the city, and have been fortunate to have partners come to us with ideas.

Kreun stated one of the things that would help is the difference between the greenway and the flood protection project, lot of times people get funding mechanism mixed up and think that our flood protection maintenance is incorporated with the greenway portion, and didn't think that was correct. Mr. Feland stated they will come out of the greenway and the residential fee for the greenway/flood protection fee is $1.15 per household unit and of that separate the flood component and in the stormwater fund there are the flood sub-departments - the greenway sub-departments and separate those out into different expense categories. Kreun asked that they give them a copy of how the expenditures work, so don't get those two blended together - that there are 2 separate entities and how that money is handled. Feland stated in the stormwater fund have that fee and flood protection/greenway fee and break apart the flood and the greenway operation maintenance and almost 3 different pots where derive and provide services.

Kreun stated that one of the things they may be able to finish is that the northend is basically completed with the flood protection project and all of our agreements made with the Park District and who is going to maintain what, who owns what and transfer the right and leases that we have put off for quite awhile and should get that in place. Melanie stated they should be seeing another agreement with the Park District, temp. agreement for the dog park because that is complete and in talking with the attorney's office is have all these smaller agreements and now that the project is complete, put them all together but as this is ready to open and they are operating and managing it.

Gershman stated that every time he rides his bike down there, 80% of the dogs are off the leash in the greenway, knows of somebody who has been attacked; and doesn't know if dog park will help. Chief Packett stated it looks like they are starting to use the dog park and hopes will improve quite a bit.

Mr. Feland stated they are on schedule to come back in January with decision. He stated he will bring back info. re. Fargo and/or Gwinner on the landfill because doesn't know if need a one-year agreement, two year agreement, and will be important to whomever they contract with; and has been trying to hold off as long as he can to bring it back to you, and will bring back in January with everything in one, but has to talk to transport hauler to see how long he can hold off. He is trying to make everything synchronized and to make interim period as short as possible. Kreun asked if he would suggest that any of the council members come to the Twp. meetings; and Feland stated they always like to see people, and with the interim plan of what working on. He stated he will e-mail committee members re. particulars and is planning a short presentation and hand out letters to USDA about what working on and give them charts.

4. Server Training.
Pete Haga, mayor's office, stated the issue of Server Training was brought up several years ago from Task Force on Alcohol, and reviewed prior action of the committee/council, that an ordinance had been introduced at council on June 5, 2006, and had been continued for further discussion by the committee and subcommittee. He presented info. to the committee of ordinance along with amendments to the ordinance which had been agreed to by the subcommittee, which included members of the mayor's task force and the Hospitality Industry.

He presented the amended/latest version of the ordinance (October 5, 2007); that subcommittee met recently (members of police department with members of the task force and Hospitality Industry) and came up with several additional concerns that resulted in some suggestions and are included in the one page document that deals with dates and insuring that the trainer concept was in place in the ordinance which would allow the trainer or other training programs outside of the police department program.

Officer Braaten stated since the process started, numbers have increased and brought to the forefront and has become more popular for establishments to send their employees voluntarily, and have put together numbers of establishments that have participated. He stated the training is important giving the people in that industry the knowledge to do a good job, in their compliance checks not seeing the failures that we have seen in the past, and that they have been asked by parties outside of Grand Forks to conduct server training in their communities, conducted 3 server trainings in and probably trained everyone that worked in a liquor lic. establishment and now they are asking us to come into Pembina County and Nelson County to conduct server training there for those establishments.

Gershman asked how much have citations gone down - shows 7 year average with 23% failure.

Suggested amendments: suggestion is to have the effective date of January 1, 2009 by the group, to allow police department and those providing server training to have some time to ramp up the training programs, time for the establishments to get their voice in so not such a sudden burst of employees that need it so would have to provide training for four weeks straight, 24 hours a day. Another suggested is 2) including language as there are other training programs such as the TIPS program and several people have taken that program and others that may be valid through these programs as well as the training program that is actually administered by the police department or the safe communities, and completing the Alcohol Server Training sponsored by or approved by and included under 1 c. He stated it also allows for the concept of train the trainer program where one of the trainers or somebody going through the program can be classified as a trainer and be able to provide that training to their employees at their establishment. This eases it for the establishment.

Gershman stated that he would hope that Howard Swanson sees this before it comes to council, because many times it comes to council and Howard has stated he hasn't seen that info. The committee also asked if they could get Howard's comments.

Kreun stated that if they come to an agreement on this, will recommend that this goes to the city attorney, that the attorney can bring it back with amendments if he thinks necessary; and basically this is what he has and had him write up a recommendation of council action and almost identical except for the amendments.

Mr. Haga stated he wanted it understood that the clarifications are assuring that there can be outside programs that are valid and establishments have their own trainers, and thinks those re the main amendments to the October 5 dated ordinance version, and ask chair if they would entertain any comments from Hosp. Industry representatives.

Reps. had question on penalty, 7 b, (Any person violating the provisions of Section 2 shall be subject to a fine not exceed $500.00 for each violation.) Section 2 is Employer requirements - hiring of certified employees, record keeping, and that is the license holder and not the server and are not happy with that; and asked if could change that fine; was discussed but nothing came out of it; and were wondering why it was there; and that requires them (license holder) as establishment to keep record and if were to violate this provision would have to go in front of Municipal Judge to plead and asked why this provision has to be in there because their fear is on Saturday 10:30 cops can walk in and everything stops - get paperwork - and if that is something that needs to be mandated them, just making it a convenience for the officers when and if couldn't provide it to them in a reasonable amount of time.

Rep. stated he thinks that is nuisance clause, because if officers come in at night, and has to go back through files. Chief Packett stated he didn't think it was unreasonable that establishments have required record keeping for their employees and for license, etc. and thinks can over-regulate enforcement protocol to the point where you can get lot of minutia in ordinances, but intent should the council decide to pass the ordinance and establishments have their employees gone through this training and have a record of that and in the event the police are called and ask for a person's name and if they are a registered server, there should be some ability for them to prove that. He stated they could take names and file reports and check later but at some point in time the business should be able to produce that, had random calls but now puts more responsibility on them.

Kreun asked if they had gone through that process, it isn't in the ordinance yet. Rep. stated not yet, but if gets thrown in there. Bakken stated he's not sure that is a valid point, part of doing business but major point is how we are going to do this, if intent is to make sure that everybody does the schooling, and doesn't think that walking in at 10:30 at night and checking somebody is the way you do it, that if come through and take names and compare those names into that list and something for them to work out. Chief Packett stated if the committee would look back to the original discussions at committee level and mayor's task force level, have discussed been doing compliance testing since 2000 and Community Resource Bureau has been doing the voluntary training of servers for about 4 years, and a policy decision on the part of the council whether you want it codified but argument for the industry and the meetings over the last year was that training is good and whatever can do to help them comply with the ordinances and statutes is good, but averaging a 23% failure rate over 10 year period, but want to improve upon that and thinks overall there is some good data that the agencies work well with the industry and industry complying with high level and comes down to a policy decision whether you codify this or not; and as far as hear of concerns of enforcement but thinks have good track record of working with the industry.

Byron Sieber - stated they are under their own time retain and can't be there at 10:30 waiting for them to provide paperwork and they go on follow up a day or two later to see if that employee had certification,

Kreun stated the reason he thinks they would want that in there is having a problem with somebody and they are not complying and trying to beat the system, then gives them an extra tool to help compliance, doesn't see them standing around until 10:30 when busy to say stop what you are doing and give us some information, and doesn't know if that is a harsh concern and doesn't know if want to remove it because if having a problem, would want the ability to be more harsh on that establishment if they weren't following through and doing what they are supposed to.

The question was asked where the zero to $500.00 penalty comes from - not exceeding and is consistent with City Code.

Kreun stated a lot of discussion was about minors and to have a penalty for violation for possession and consuming, attempting to purchase and is in conjunction with what this discussion would be and want people who are actually trying to purchase and consume and punish them as much as a deterrent and not just these individuals and keep that in mind; those people trying to buy and purchase are the ones breaking the law and sometimes coercing them into breaking the law unknowingly and that is still in place, and this is tool to work with police department and hopefully reduce some of the problems that we have had. Kreun stated he doesn't have any problems with adding that, and to send it to Mr. Swanson.

Bakken moved to send suggested amendments to the ordinance to the city attorney. seconded by McNamara.

Rep. stated the way it is now, voluntary and seems to be working according to the numbers.
Haga stated this is recommendation for the ordinance as it stands and the issue before committee is whether or not you adopt the mandatory server training, and these are the recommendations and number one question is if adopt the mandatory server training or allow it to continue to be voluntary.

Kreun stated that Bill's group and couple other citizens groups have gone to parents and some of the establishments at some point in time, few years ago, but not with much success and had no teeth, only saying have problem in the community involving our kids, etc. and would like you to help us, got some response, but the ones that say I'll run my business, etc. zero response.

Kreun stated it is not uncommon to have records on your premises to show what your employees have - and that he would feel good about bringing this forward to city council with those amendments.
Haga stated that this isn't going to cure everything or address the whole problem and the percentage that actually minors that obtain their alcohol this way is fairly small considering some other methods, and would like to encourage groups to continue to work together and do some other target areas they need to hit.

Kreun stated they have a motion and second on the floor to bring it to the city council after it goes through city attorney's office for review. McNamara asked if it would come back to the committee after the city attorney's review, and Kreun stated they can do that if Mr. Haga would make sure of that - bring it back here and then forward it onto the council.

Upon call for the question, the motion carried.

ADJOURN

Moved by McNamara and seconded by Bakken to adjourn. Motion carried. The committee adjourned at 5:25 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk