Print VersionStay Informed
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
February 4, 2002

The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in the council chambers in City Hall on Monday, February 4, 2002 at the hour of 7:00 o’clock p.m. with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim (teleconference), Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 13; absent: Council Member Lunak – 1.

Mayor Brown announced that anyone wishing to speak to any item may do so by being recognized prior to a vote being taken on the matter, and that the meeting is being televised.

Mayor Brown congratulated Village Inn on their grand re-opening and wished them success along with their employees. He also reported that this past week Beauty & the Beast had 16,000 people attend, Stars on Ice had 7,500 attend and on January 31 in the Grand Forks Herald, Tom Dennis’ editorial talked about more on our horizon - “…that it has been said before but it is worth saying again, the Alerus Center and Ralph Engelstad Arena have changed the grand cities for good…” and ends with the “…new dinner theatre, a new hotel, new enrollment records at UND, the grand cities are at a turning point and we are living in exciting time.”, and this leads into that event scheduling coordinator that we discussed last week and are continuing to explore some way for having that special events coordinator scheduler position brought on, and if we want to succeed long term, we need to look long term and not just think about six months ahead. He thanked everyone for their constructive discussion. He stated they will have two budget planning retreats this week for the city council, have done a good job budgeting but planning is a vital function in any organization, and time to make honest decisions about often difficult subjects and look forward to more constructive discussion.

Mayor Brown stated that last week he was asked about downtown after they had the information re. vacancy rates, and that he has invited the new Downtown Leadership Group executive directive, Traie Dockter, for an update.

Traie Dockter, 1215 Cherry Street, stated she was here to talk about the downtown’s many assets, and looked forward to working with the council on issues related to the heart of our city. She stated that of all the places to shop and dine in our town, her favorite has been and continues to be the downtown. She stated our downtowns are the character of our communities, that we tend to underestimate the value of the downtown and its retailers, restaurants, professional offices, housing, parks, Town Square and more; the list of offerings downtown provide our community is long. She stated what people really want is first class service, a unique product and an experience when they shop, go out to eat and when choose bank or attorney or insurance agent – they can get all three in the downtowns. She stated they need look no further than the Farmers Market to know a re-envisioned downtown can be a magnet to retain and attract young people and enhance our regional economic development and improve the quality of life in our region. She stated the current occupancy rate concerns the DLG to some extent, but the 48% of empty retail space in downtown Grand Forks is only half the story, the 80% occupancy in office space and the 95% occupancy in housing is the other – changing the perception of downtown as a destination will take time, it takes enthusiasm, energy but when look at what the downtown already has to offer, you can’t help but realize that we’re moving down the right path. She stated on behalf of all downtown merchants, restaurants, service providers and tenants they invite the council to taste the wide breadth of offerings downtown; and if not part of your weekly routine, you will be surprised by all they have to offer.
Mayor Brown stated he has had a lot of interest expressed by the city council in the CIP committee being formed, thanked them for their interest and was appointing 7 council members to serve on the committee as follows: Council Members Bakken, Kreun, Glassheim, Gershman, Kerian, Klave and Christensen, and that he will chair that committee. He stated that the CIP Committee will be serving a very important function for the community and will be looking at upcoming capital projects for 2003 and the years beyond, making recommendations on which projects fit into the future of Grand Forks. He stated this is an exciting time for Grand Forks and looks forward to working with each of you on this very important committee.

Mayor Brown reported that President Bush’s proposed budget contains $30 million in federal appropriations for our flood protection project and we need to thank our Congressional delegation for their hard work on our behalf – Senators Conrad and Dorgan and Congressman Pomeroy.

MONTHLY FLOOD PROTECTION UPDATE

Al Grasser, city engineer, reviewed the flood protection update.
Phase II of the plans, Stanley Consultants who is the Corps’ concept contractor will be bringing in the technical plan review scheduled for February 11 in St. Paul, and is part of the review process, final comments on Phase II; Phase I is under construction now and contractor is continuing work on the pump stations in the Lincoln area on 8th Avenue and 13th Avenue – they are also working on installing interceptor storm sewers in the Olson Drive area and Spruce Court and have started some of the work downtown on the inlet manhole and lift station; they are tentative about what they do downtown because don’t want to be caught with a spring flood. He stated the English Coulee was awarded to Gowan Construction, pre-construction conference will be held in a couple weeks and get better schedule at that time. The BNSF easement documents have been executed and that has been one of the holdups on the English Coulee Diversion project.
City Staff and Consultant Updates – relocates are done for the year, and will be starting in the spring. Construction Engineers continues to work on the raw water intake caisson, they have completed the third pour of the caisson and two more to go – this is south of the water treatment plant by the Point Bridge.
Federal Financing: They received the President’s budget today with a $30 million for 2003 construction. He stated that the numbers that we need in 2003 get updated at one point in time, were looking at needing $52 million in 2003, more recent estimate to about $60 million, that is just the federal dollars and not local; and that we will be working with our Congressional people to work on the dollar amount that is allocated; that $30 million would have an impact on our construction schedule.
Acquisitions in Phase II - there are 4 houses and 4 commercial partial acquisitions needed for this phase together with 21 partial acquisitions; appraisals are being completed and will see appraisals coming in over the next 3 to 4 weeks where the property owners will start to see some offers or see the appraisals come back; lot of those on the Reeves Drive area and that’s one of the areas on Phase IV.
Historical Properties - there is Standard Mitigation Agreement for the historical properties on the flood protection plan project, and second one is CDBG wet side agreements.
Communications and Upcoming Meetings - FEMA will be in town on February 20 and meeting in the council chambers at 1:00 p.m. where they will give more information on remapping; the hydrology part of this has been completed – this is the study where they will determine volume of water coming through the city, that originally FEMA was looking at a hydrology of 114,000 cfs through some of our comments and now have that reduced to 108,000 cfs, and this is probably a difference of a half a foot to a foot through town. There is a possibility that we might see their first preliminary line on a map on the February 20 meeting, not sure what is going to be presented and invited anybody who wishes to attend. He stated the remapping may have a large impact on Grand Forks as that’s impetus for us to be accelerating the flood protection project because the potential impacts on flood insurance requirements could be multi-million dollar annually to Grand Forks.

There was some discussion relating to the cfs - Mr. Grasser stated that is the volume of water that goes past - the instantaneous discharge basically that they’re measuring at the gauge location for the 100-year event, that the remapping is based upon the 1% probability event which is called the 100-year event, and that will be changing. He stated the only other flow they have is the 500-year event and didn’t challenge that number and would have to look at the report. Council Member Burke stated he would be interested in that and perhaps share with the rest of the council, and if it makes a difference with regard to the height of the floodwalls we voted on several weeks ago and whether or not there is further indication that the height we voted on is not necessary. Mr. Grasser stated that the design for the flood protection system is based on 136,000 cfs going through town and are designing for a higher event and the council knew that when picking those flow rates, weren’t designing for the 100-year event, designed for the 1997 event. Council Member Burke stated for a given event, this would indicate that the flow would be lower if it followed through at higher year events. He stated with regard to the funding issue, if we are not able to get the level of funding in 2003, will that put us back on the remapping issue in terms of possibly getting stuck with remapping and insurance requirements for people who don’t have it right now. Mr. Grasser stated it will present a greater challenge and doesn’t know if the President’s budget is going to impact the time line from FEMA, assuming that FEMA’s time line stays on track and our project slips, it opens the window for additional – Mayor Brown stated that they met with the delegation in Washington, DC and Stockton, CA was faced with a similar situation and while they were moving earth to protect their city, they were exempt from the remapping, flood insurance increases, and there is a precedent set but doesn’t know if we will qualify for that but can’t say what will happen.

Council Member Burke stated that the Events Committee was meeting and had a lot of applications for events downtown and asked what the construction schedule is going to be and whether this construction is going to disrupt the usability of the Town Square, and if there has been any effort to contact users of the Town Square. Mr. Grasser stated they are in the process of meeting with the Corps contractor in trying to firm up a schedule as to what they expect to happen downtown this summer, they are going to get into DeMers Avenue and tie into our storm sewer system and pull that off to the lift station, that will close DeMers Avenue probably for a couple months, that they want to create a form for all the downtown businesses to be able to access and get information and keep it up on a weekly type meeting. Blockage of the street will be about half way between 3rd and Riverboat Road – about even with the back wall of the Town Square. Council Member Burke stated he would hope they would work with DLG and other people who have plans to use the Town Square as quickly as possible to see if they need to make adjustments in their plans. Mr. Grasser stated that was their intent.

Council Member Martinson asked how many houses they are waiting for appraisals to come back on; Mr. Walker stated 4 houses and 4 commercials and 21 partial acquisitions, waiting for all of those. Council Member Martinson stated they are probably delayed because of what’s happening in refinancing on residential properties.

There was some discussion relating to construction of Phase II – Mr. Grasser stated the bid schedule for Phase II would put us in the May to June timeframe of this year, would have very little money allocated for it in 2002, and may require some advance funding, that maybe one of those areas where may want to advance fund is to get more work done in 2002 as opposed to letting it dribble out into ’03 and ’04. Council Member Christensen stated that one of the reasons this group moved fast is to speed up the construction of this dike by a year so that the citizens didn’t have the added burden of the specials and the flood insurance. He stated that the leadership group as well at the council will be getting those questions shortly from our citizens as to what the status is after what they hear tonight re. funding, etc. He stated they have protected the city to 53 feet after the last flood, spent $50,000 in Sunbeam and various monies in various parts of town, but have a lot of dirt moved around and would appreciate it if someone would do some research to find out arguments we could make along the lines of the Stockton situation so that if we have to argue this for our citizens that we’re preparing now, and would like to have that put on the agenda of the senior leadership group, and maybe in two or three weeks Mr. Grasser could give a report.

Mayor Brown reported that staff will be meeting with the Congressional delegation in March to go over these issues.

Council Member Gershman stated that it is not just the leadership group, it was all of the council, all of the staff and the entire Congressional delegation have been totally committed to 2004 to finish this project, and not anything new that we need to address, that was one of the reasons that the leadership group was recommended by the Army Corps of Engineers was to keep this on a fast track and that’s been the whole motive behind all of the acceleration was to save us from the FEMA remapping and having the assessment at the same time. He stated re. funding - that he spoke to Senator Dorgan’s Office this morning and they thought it would be a good idea to go to Washington, they will let us know and the Mayor will coordinate that, and we will have to go and plead our case. He stated discussion of advance funding is something we have to have, that he is concerned that if we advance fund, if there is a chance that the federal government could sit back and say that the city funded it and drag it out for a number of years, and have to be careful about that. Mr. Grasser stated on the advance funding we’re not talking about advance funding tens of millions of dollars, wouldn’t advance fund beyond a certain point – not beyond what our local share would otherwise have been; and share their concerns and trying to figure out what dollar amount might make sense and where to put it.

Mark Walker presented greenway update – that City staff is continuing to meet on a bi-weekly basis with other city departments and the Park District to continually develop plans of how the greenway is going to be developed. The Greenway Maintenance Planning Process met with the public for input as to how the city should be maintaining the greenway and were looking for main areas of input: grass maintenance, bike path maintenance and possible restoration areas; they are in the process of compiling the information as well as some written comments, and will be bringing that information as well as some associated costs with the maintenance activities at the February 25 committee of the whole meeting.
Pedestrian Bridges in the Greenway – the pedestrian bridge is on the agenda tonight and is also on the agenda for East Grand Forks tomorrow night for discussion. They have been informed that the Federal Highway Administration has confirmed that Grand Forks will receive $1 million TCSP grant for use in their greenway, if determined tonight that the council does not wish to pursue the downtown bridge, staff will look at other possible uses for those TCSP funds and come back at a later time and inform you of the possible uses.
Grant requests for the Community Green Project – the Garrison Conservancy District has reconsidered a grant request to fund a portion of the community greens and would expect an announcement of their decision in the very near future.
Non-paved Trail Planning – the MPO has commissioned this and the plan will be reviewed by the public at an upcoming meetings.
Promotion material on the greenway – the video that will be used to promote the greenway is near its final draft format and will soon be available for public viewing and promotional uses.
Mr. Walker also reviewed upcoming meetings and events that are listed on the staff report.

Council Member Burke asked if the issue re. the $1 million for the TCSP had been cleared up if that is money for this side of the river only. Mr. Walker stated that the wording is such that it is going to the State of North Dakota for distribution to be used in the Grand Forks greenway. Mr. Walker also stated that the Park District organized the Greenway Ski Day and may be postponed for lack of snow.

APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT

The staff report from the fire department relating to the budget amendment of $107,000 for the fire department, with recommendation to approve the budget amendment in the amount of $107,000 for 2002 clothing fund.

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this recommendation be approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

APPROVE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN

The staff report from the superintendent of the water treatment plant relating to Water Conservation Plan, with recommendation for adoption of the Water Conservation Plan: Document No. 8129 – Policy.

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND SET
DATE FOR BID OPENING, SIDEWALK PROJECT NO.
5288, 2002 SIDEWALK REPAIRS

The staff report from the engineering department relating to plans and specifications for Project No. 5288, 2002 Sidewalk Repairs, with recommendation to approve plans and specifications and set bid date as February 25, 2002 for Project No. 5288, 2002 Sidewalk Repairs.

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICA-
TIONS AND SET DATE FOR OPENING BIDS, PAVING
PROJECT NO. 5322, DISTRICT NO. 583

The city engineer’s estimate of total cost of the construction of paving the alley between University Avenue and 2nd Avenue North from North 12th Street to North Washington Street in the amount of $26,260.50, was presented and read.

The staff report from the engineering department relating to the plans and specifications for Project No. 5322, District No. 583, alley paving between University Avenue and 2nd Avenue North from North 12th Street to North Washington Street, with recommendation to approve plans and specifications and set bid date as February 11, 2002 for Project No. 5322, alley paving.

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this recommendation be and is approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative.
Council Member Martinson introduced the following resolution, which was presented and read: Document No. 8130 – Resolution.

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this resolution be and is hereby adopted. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 2 FOR ENGINEERING
SERVICES FOR PROJECTS NOS. 4948.2, 4948.3, 4948.4, 4948.5,
AND 4948.6, INTERIM RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT PLAN

The staff report from the engineering department relating to the engineering services amendment for City Project Nos. 4948.2, 4948.3, 4948.4, 4948.5 and 4948.6, Interim Residuals Management Plan, with recommendation for approval of Amendment 2 to Standard Forms of Agreement between Owner and Engineer for Professional Services in accordance with the anticipated progression to construction and warranty phases and an expanded scope of work in the vicinity of the existing Grand Forks Water Treatment Plant (GFWTP) for the flood protection project.

It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Kerian that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

DEFEAT REQUEST FOR CDBG FUNDS FOR RENOVATION
OF FORMER GRIFFITH’S BUILDING

The staff report from the Office of Urban Development relating to request for CDBG funds for renovation of former Griffith’s Building, with recommendation to authorize staff to amend the 2002 Annual Action Plan to tentatively fund the referenced project in the amount of $73,188; open a 30-day public comment period; hold a public hearing on March 18, 2002, to take final action.

Council Member Burke stated they started discussion last week on the asbestos abatement and had an E-mail today from Mr. Hawley, who apparently had an interest in this building at one time and had an assessment done that indicates there was considerable asbestos that needed abating at that building, and if we have researched the records of the building or Inspections and know more about the building.

Terry Hanson, Office of Urban Development, stated that they have received a copy of the asbestos assessment that was done by Gordon L. Rosby, architect, in 1998 and according to that after the flood all of the asbestos in the basement and all but a little bit of asbestos on the main floor were removed, the asbestos on the main floor remains on the north wall, that there is asbestos on the second, third and fourth floors in the walls and ceiling plaster and in the gypsum board and gypsum board mud. If that remains in the building and is undisturbed during any renovation, it doesn’t have to be abated. Council Member Burke asked if anything needs abatement with regards to the exterior of the building; Mr. Hanson stated that their office had a test on that last fall and report back was that there was no asbestos in the exterior of that building.

Council Member Brooks stated they did discuss the abatement of the asbestos; that Mr. Sampson presented his figures – this item involves $73,000 but what really talking about is $450,000, that if we vote for this matter, we’re voting to do the complete building and Mr. Sampson said they would match it dollar for dollar, that is $450,000; and to add 40,000 more square feet to the downtown which already has a high percentage of vacancy, that if we go ahead with this motion, they will be back.
Council Member Hamerlik stated he was concerned with Council Member Brooks’ comments, that if the motion for $73,000+ passes it implies that we’re going to get involved with the $450,000, that it was clear at last meeting when this was discussed, that was a separate issue and at a later date they may come back; if LTD doesn’t come back to ask for the $450,000 or if it is turned down, they would do it on their own time; he stated his concern and would like it clear that isn’t the intent that we’re going to fund the $450,000 – that is a separate issue at a later date; but if that is the perception that we’re leaving that we should state it in the motion specifically that is not our intent.

Council Member Klave questioned if we grant LTD the $73,000 that automatically mandates that they have to follow the Historical Society’s requirements – Mr. Hanson stated that the project that the $73,000 funds is for the ground level of the exterior of the building, because of the federal funds that project will have to meet historical approval, what they do to the rest of the building if they do not use federal funds, they can do the building any way they want. They can also do the ground level any way they want if they do not use federal funds.

Council Member Klave asked if they do the ground level under this motion, if they would have to meet those requirements on the second, third and fourth floors, that once you start something in one direction, would assume the entire building would be done in that process, not part of it in one manner and rest done in another manner. Dan Sampson, LTD Properties, stated that whatever part of the project they had federal funds for, would do that in historic manner, and on first floor would have to use certain type of materials, but if they did the upper floors without any federal funds, they could do that in whatever type of materials they wanted to use and usually less expensive to do it that route. He stated he didn’t know whom he would have for renters in the upper floors – apartments or offices and leaning towards apartments as that is what is renting but more expensive to put in apartments; that the upper floors would be left the way they are right now.

Mr. Hanson reported that the storefront program was started utilizing CDBG funds in the mid-1970’s and been on-going, has been a grant program and been used in an estimation in well over 50% of the buildings downtown by owners in the past, largest has been the old Social Service building where the City put a substantial amount of money to assist the owner in putting that project back to its historic nature; that in the past funded to about $30,000 to $50,000 but has been a funded program for many years until the flood; at that time they pulled all the money that was committed to storefronts and used it for other purposes and ultimately came back in with supplemental grant money and did the same thing with CDBG supplemental grant which was storefront programs, largest program we did there was the old Metropolitan Opera House building and contributed a modified grant to the owner to renovate the exterior of that building. He stated that when they talk about the 48% vacancy of retail space and 20% vacancy of commercial space, which includes the former Griffith’s building, which contains a little over 40,000 sq.ft. - this building contributes to the vacancy level of downtown, and one of the factors contributing to that vacancy is the condition of the building. He stated in the past that if the City was willing to fund half of the program, that the owners were willing to move ahead with the program in one, two or three years to get it done on a dollar for dollar match, but as of last week the owners stated they are seeking the $73,000, the current project is actually with new estimates based on complying with historical requirements and is $190,000 and they will be putting in about $120,000 of their own money into this project, and whether they come back in future years and ask for more money to continue the renovation of the second, third and fourth floors, that is a decision they will make at a later date and bring back to council during the application process for CDBG funds and will be a decision that the council will make on whether or not they fund it.

Dennis Potter, city planner, stated they were discussing the issue of utilizing federal funds and that triggers an historic preservation review, whether you trigger the historic preservation review via the federal dollars or you don’t, there is still the City’s separate downtown design review guideline process, which Mr. Sampson is aware of, and his project would come through that no matter which way you go on this; that if you put in the federal dollars then they would be working with the Historical Society in doing all design review – that either way there will be some component of a design review on this project.

Council Member Gershman stated he would like the City not to support this project, and would like to see what the owners could do with their funds where it would not have to be on the historic registry but would go through the Downtown Design Group; would be in their interest to have the building look better to get tenants and if willing to invest up to $120,000, would like to see what they could do with that money and perhaps in the next round, we could take another look at this for some other funds.

Council Member Burke stated that at the current time the building is assessed for about $112,000 and we are being asked to earmark the better part of 60% of the assessed value to fix up the first floor of the outside of this building and over the course of the next two or three years, whether City or LTD on their own, put several hundred thousand dollars into it, may make the building worthwhile but can’t see the City putting in at what the building is valued at now, four times what it’s valued at right now into the exterior of the building.

Mr. Hanson reported if this money not spent on this project, these dollars would move into the second tier of approved projects, the first $30,000 would go to playground equipment, and remaining $43,000 would be distributed equally between the affordable housing program, which is the down payment closing cost program which the City operates, and Housing Rehab that Community Action Agency carries out.

Peggy O’Leary stated that the Historical Commission wants to save the building and would like to see it restored to what it was historically; doesn’t think that LTD Properties can do that nor can they be expected to do that on their own. She stated that this is the gateway to the city, that they talked a lot about that dike and what the gateway to the city would look like, where they would put signs, where they would put trees, etc., that this is the biggest historic building in the crossroads of the entrance into our town and it does not look good but it can; the other taxpayers downtown are also interested in having Griffith’s look like it did formerly. She stated she thinks the storefront program needs to continue, that the Commission sees it as a good use of the funds and that they would be able to work with LTD Properties to return it at street level to a very attractive storefront.

Council Member Kreun stated that last week they talked about citizen and business owners expectations of being a good business neighbor and have had some interaction with some of the city departments concerning other businesses that Mr. Sampson owns downtown and understand have come to an agreement at this meeting, but thinks that adhering to this agreement is very important as far as determining how money should be spent as well as the construction part of it; and would like to see a track record of adhering to this agreement to see how that works out prior to administering any of the grants; and thinks that some of his other businesses and some of his other actions also will relate on how people perceive this project as well as any other project and that’s a consideration he has to make too as looking at this particular project.

Council Member Klave stated that it appears there is about $190,000+ to do to the requirements of the Historic Society, the earlier figure submitted were about $146,000 was to do as they wanted to do it; and to do it historically would cost approx. $50,000 additional; Mr. Sampson agreed.
Council Member Hamerlik asked what the timeline was for commencing and finishing; Mr. Sampson stated they would start right away - would have to have approval from Historic Commission on final plans, that he has received bids on it. Council Member Hamerlik asked if the City does not put in funds, what is timeline, realizing they would be funding it all. Mr. Sampson stated they would do some fit up right away, with final fit up as they get renters; that the only reason they waited so long is they have had the building less then two years and was to get the federal funds that are designed to rehab historic buildings; that if they do not get the funds they would not fix it up in the manner that he had his first bid of $140,000, maybe less, but would be fixed up – and that some of their properties are some of the nicest in appearance in the city; and also to address the asbestos issue is that the School District was going to rehab the building and felt they could deal with it and was a worthwhile project before the flood.

Council Member Kreun moved the staff recommendation – to authorize staff to amend the 2002 Annual Action Plan to tentatively fund the referenced project in the amount of $73,188; and open a 30-day public comment period and hold a public hearing March 18, 2002 to take final action. Council Member Burke seconded the motion.

Council Member Christensen asked to be excused from voting on this issue. It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Martinson that Council Member Christensen be excused from voting on this matter. Carried 12 votes affirmative.

Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Glassheim – 1; voting “nay”: Council Members Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson, Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman – 11; Council Member Christensen excused – 1. Mayor Brown declared the motion defeated.

APPROVE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY NOT
PROCEED WITH DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

The staff recommendation from the engineering department relating to the downtown pedestrian bridge – Greenway, with recommendation to confirm previous action based on updated information.

Council Member Kreun stated the question that came up is how do we fund the downtown bridge, that he visited with East Grand Forks and went through the Metropolitan Planning Organization application grant form with them and to discuss how that was taking place; that in the grant form and in preliminary discussion in the public service committee meeting, it was decided both times that it would be a combined grant application but each particular city had to obtain their own $1 million worth of funds; that for whatever reason he did not know, and East Grand Forks does not know either, that the City was able to obtain our grant and they were not able to obtain their grant. They feel there is some misunderstanding about the grant application because they think that a portion of this probably would be used in both cities, but as it was discussed in the meetings and in the grant application, that isn’t necessarily the way that it will be distributed. He stated that East Grand Forks is also in favor of the bridge as well as most of us are, but that we each had our own matching funds that have to be obtained as well as the TCSP and the TSP monies that were available; and they are not able to come up with their portion of the money for the grant nor come up with their portion of local match dollars. He stated they will be voting on this tomorrow night but with information he received from Mayor Stauss and Mr. Sanders, engineer, and Mr. Beauchamp, council member, is that it probably would not be a viable project basically because of funding and they do understand that the way the grant was written and the way the minutes were taken in the committee meetings, is that our particular funding would be distributed among the project in Grand Forks.
Council Member Gershman stated that it is going to be very difficult for Grand Forks to build a bridge if we are alone and do not have any matching funds from East Grand Forks; that last week he brought up the question of the Sorlie Bridge and looking to see what could be done there; that he is not willing to accept that nothing can be done there and would like to study what the Sorlie Bridge could be amended to look like and asked that they consider asking the DLG to participate in that study to work with staff, to go to the State and Historical Society and try to find some options; and asked if part of the $1 million grant be used for any adaptations that might be needed for the Sorlie Bridge. Mr. Walker stated that they talked with FHWA about possible uses for the TCSP funds, they have given us some guidelines to decipher if some of these funds could be used for that purpose; that he thinks it is possible and they can ask the question if it is possible.

Council Member Brooks stated they are looking at a pedestrian bridge, that the bridge location is 375 ft. downstream from the Sorlie Bridge, behind the Chamber of Commerce building; and need to look at the Sorlie Bridge, that we’re talking about our downtown merchants and that we want those people coming across that bridge to our retail establishment, as does East Grand Forks, but want to funnel people through the downtown and thinks that the Sorlie Bridge is the answer.

Council Member Kerian stated that the last time this came up, there were some questions about timelines in using this money and matching, and asked for clarification on what they have to work with there. Mr. Walker stated they were informed they were to submit plans the end of September and not very far away in designing a project and getting it ready for submission; they are pursuing what it will take to extend that time and would like that time extended. He stated there are matching funds – 20% match.

Council Member Bakken stated that there is a $250,000 TE Transportation Enhancement fund attached to this, that if the project isn’t designed, it appears it will go back to some other project in the state and would have to come back at a later date if we don’t attach the project to the Sorlie Bridge in a timely fashion, we could also lose the $250,000.

Council Member Christensen stated it appears there isn’t money available to fund this bridge nor does it appear there’s going to be money in the near future (12 to 18 months), therefore for staff to ask to have it delayed for submission of the plans in September, that staff has enough to do rather than to prepare plans for this bridge if there is no chance for funding for this bridge; that the grant was purposely written so that the $550,000 could be used for the greenway, and that Mr. Grasser said in the flood protection update that the TCSP monies could be used for the greenway, that if we free this money up this evening and say that we’re not going to build a bridge at this juncture, then the people who want to work towards the greenway will have another $550,000 to work with in planning the trails, which is essential to the greenway and the development of those trails and other areas in that greenway. He stated that the $250,000 is City money and we could ask the State to allow us to use that money for another project that we are going to be doing this year so: 1) we don’t lose a dime, 2) enhance and continue the greenway process, and 3) save $200,000 of City money, local match, which we can use in the dike as our share of the dike; and would rather have our staff plan to get our dike done on time to save the money if we get it done in the year 2004. Mr. Walker commented on the use of the TE funds, which are controlled by the ND Department of Transportation, and have asked them about the use of the TE fund is we were not going to build the bridge, and use those funds at another location and there answer was no, that the TE funds are directed solely towards the downtown pedestrian bridge and if don’t building the bridge, funds would go back to the State of North Dakota and they would reallocate them. Council Member Christensen stated they could go back and ask them and follow up with Council Member Gershman’s comments, which is to ask if we can use some of those monies to enhance the bridge as it needs paint, screens or protection so that people feel more comfortable when walking across it so feel safer, and rather than say if we don’t try to get it, we’ll lose it – but try to get it and preserve it and give a good reason as to why we want to keep it as it is part of our downtown transportation plan.

It was moved by Council Member Bjerke and seconded by Council Member Christensen that the City not build the downtown pedestrian bridge.

Council Member Kreun stated he wanted it understood that East Grand Forks is in favor of a bridge, but without the funding it is not feasible; they indicated that they want the downtown to be viable, and to be able to transport people back and forth across the river so that both of the downtowns can survive but do understand that the feasibility probably is not there and that some type of enhancement to the Sorlie Bridge could be utilized in some way so that we can accommodate that goal in the same manner. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

Council Member Glassheim moved that we ask staff to meet with interested parties to present options to council for enhancing the Sorlie Bridge. The motion was seconded by Council Member Christensen. Carried 13 votes affirmative..

APPROVE MINUTES JANUARY 22 AND 28, 2002

Typewritten copies of the minutes of the city council meetings held on January 22, 2002 and January 28, 2002, were presented and read. It was moved by Council Member Bjerke and seconded by Council Member Martinson that these minutes be approved as read. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

APPROVE BILL LISTING AND ESTIMATES

Vendor Payment Listing No. 02-02, dated February 4, 2002 and totaling $2,176,174.39, and estimates as follows: Regular Estimates, $2,860,295.43 and Flood Estimates, $2,936.50, were presented and read.

It was moved by Council Member Bjerke and seconded by Council Member Bakken that these bills and estimates be allowed and that the city auditor be authorized to issue warrants in payment of the same. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson – 13; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried and the bills ordered paid.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS

1) Council Member Burke presented the matter of PSAP and how their administrator and employees relate to the city of Grand Forks and asked to have that issue on a future committee of the whole meeting; that Human Resources be prepared to give a brief explanation of how those employees are aligned and what their relationship is to the city, and what options we might have if we find the current alignment not for our best advantage.

2) Council Member Hamerlik stated there is a meeting scheduled for Wednesday evening re. 32nd Avenue South and Columbia Road, and if council is to be there, because there is a 5:30 p.m. retreat on budget and asked what would be taking place at the Wednesday meeting. Mr. Grasser stated that is a public informational meeting, will meet with some of the affected property owners and share some ideas on how to address some of the concerns, that they will have an official public hearing on that project at a later date, but still trying to work with the businesses and concerned citizens on that project. He stated this will be the last informational meeting and from here to a public hearing, that the DOT only requires a public hearing after the project concept report is adopted. He stated he wanted to have the public hearing before city council sanction of the concept report – that the public hearing would be more critical for council attendance where they would present some of the final alternatives.

2) Council Member Stevens thanked Mr. Duquette for information relating to the retreats for Wednesday and Thursday.

3) Council Member Bjerke stated that the Planning and Zoning agenda for Wednesday, February 6, has an item for discussion of bus fares and has concern that no elected city officials will be able to vote on that and which could affect what is going to happen with that issue; and would hope that could be pulled from the agenda and put on a different night. Council Member Christensen stated it will not make much difference what they do, that is a recommendation and council can change it; that at the last MPO meeting a member of the MPO who sits on the Planning and Zoning Commission voiced concern as to why those issues are even before the Planning and Zoning Commission, and that it is a format for public input on the fares, but the final decision for fares will be made by the city council.

4) Council Member Bjerke stated that the item relating to the CDBG money on tonight’s agenda and taking that money and putting it into playground or other areas in the event that additional program income is received, that we have not received additional program income, just voted not to do one of the projects, and would like to have further discussion to put that money under the University mill overlay project to save some Highway Users money, since our federal funding may go down.

5) Council Member Brooks presented two items for the next committee of the whole meeting: a) Growth Fund Committee ordinance that ties in with task force meeting and some changes that need to come before the council; b) Airport Authority ordinance which may also relate to that.

6) Council Member Martinson stated that the Big Lot Store is going into the former Sears building which is an addition to the Grand Cities Mall.

7) Council Member Kreun commented on the construction that is taking place on DeMers Avenue with our clearwell pipeline which is progressing and should be completed within a week or so; and thanked the police department for detour near his residence and are there quite frequently making sure speed limit is being adhered to.

8) Council Member Christensen stated that he didn’t know if storefront money is restricted to the “downtown” or if made available for the rest of the city, that if it could be made available for other areas in the city and other areas where people feel they could use that money to enhance the exterior of their buildings and asked if Urban Development staff would let them know at the next meeting if it is available, and make an effort so people know they can make applications for that money.

9) Council Member Christensen stated that if there are going to be problems with our downtown this summer with closing of DeMers Avenue for up to two months, suggested that the Information Service Office put a spot on the web page/home page so that people will get a status report as to what streets are closed – that will have a serious impact on the Farmers Market and that we should get ahead of that as quickly as we can so that the DLG gets information and plan accordingly. Mr. Duquette stated that he met with the contractors and staff working on the dike a week and half ago and they are putting together an implementation of information, maybe modifying parking with DeMers Avenue closed and getting schedule out to the businesses. Kevin Dean, Info Center, reported that they routinely do that in the Public Info. Center and put that on the web page and on radio reports, etc. to try to keep people updated as to where there are construction areas. Council Member Christensen stated the City has a mailing of the water bill and that bill can have something printed on the back of it or can include an insert but is a quick and easy way of getting information to the public.

10) Council Member Brooks reported that the Council Transition Task Force’s last meeting will be February 13 and that he put a draft in their mailboxes to look at and give them feedback.

11) The city auditor stated that for members of the city council who might be interested and for the public that there is an election on June 11, 2002, with filing deadline for that election on April 12 at 4:00 p.m. and that the finance department has the petition forms and statement of interest that have to be filed, and anyone interested in positions on the council can pick those up in his office.

12) Mayor Brown thanked Traie Dockter, Downtown Leadership Group, for addressing the council.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Brooks that we do now adjourn. Carried 13 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,



John M. Schmisek
City Auditor

Approved:
_________________________________
Michael R. Brown, Mayor