Print VersionStay Informed
Minutes/Committee of the Whole
Monday, October 9, 2006 – 7:00 p.m.
Page 1 of 6
The City Council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, October 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in City Hall with President Gershman presiding. Present at roll call were: Council Members Brooks, McNamara, Glassheim(via phone), Christensen, Bakken, Kreun. Present - 7; Absent: None - 0.

President Gershman announced that when addressing the committee to please complete a speaker card and give it to the staff at the control panel and when called upon to come forward to use the microphone for the record, and advised that the meeting is being televised live and taped for later broadcast.

President Gershman stated that it was encouraging to have Glassheim available by phone this evening and expressed that everyone’s thoughts were with him and wishing him a speedy recovery and return home. Glassheim thanked everyone for all of their thought and stated that he is doing much better and expects to be out of the hospital tomorrow.

2.1 2020 Renewable Energy Ballot Measure.

Gershman stated that there were some citizen requests to comment on this item.

Amanda Lee, 141 Dakota Hall, stated that she is supportive of this measure as it would be a healthier source of power for us and the environment.

Matt Shimanek, 409 Cottonwood, stated that this measure has generated good public discourse and that the public domain is the appropriate place for this discussion to take place and requested that City Council decide to not take a position on this matter, but to rather let the public debate decide the issue.

Dexter Perkins, stated that he had a letter to the editor in today’s paper requesting that City Council not take a position on this measure and wanted to reiterate that position. He commented that he has a concern on the process around this measure and that there are interest groups that are seeking to sway the position and outcome of this measure and would encourage the Council to not succumb to that pressure and to let the political process take its course.

Betsy Perkins, 1114 Cottonwood, stated that she was one of the sponsors of the citizen generated petition and one of the circulators that went door to door and that she found that people do care about this issue and were supportive of this measure and do care about energy. She encouraged the Council to let people vote without Council interference by taking a formal position on this issue.

Kreun inquired of Swanson whether there is a responsibility of the Council to take a position on this matter, in that it is an amendment of the Home Rule Charter and asked if Swanson could explain why the Council’s ability to express an opinion on the measure would be different than its’ ability to express an opinion on other measures that may have come up in the past. Swanson stated that he is still researching this issue, but that his opinion is that since this relates to the Council’s exercise of authority they are able to take a position on the matter if they should choose to do so.

Christensen asked for clarification as to the section of the Charter that is being amended. Swanson provided that it is Article III Powers of the City, Subsection j.

Christensen inquired as to if this measure passes on the November election and it subsequently becomes known that purchasing of power for the City under the constraints of the measure is cost prohibitive what the steps would be to reverse this measure. Swanson stated that it would need to be reversed by a vote of the people and that could be placed on the ballot either by a petition of the people or by Council’s request.

Christensen stated that Swanson had recently sent correspondence to the Public Service Commission requesting answers to some issues related to this measure and inquired when an answer was anticipated. Swanson stated that he had a call earlier in the day from Tony Clark and was in another meeting at the time, but that would be talking with him tomorrow and hopes to have some information on timeline for a response after that conversation.

Christensen commented that he is not in a position comfortable with moving forward with any resolution until the answers from the Public Service Commission and other research being done by Swanson is completed, but that his initial feeling is to propose not supporting the initiative due to the unknown future effect of the measure. He requested that a work session be scheduled as soon as information is available to discuss this measure so that there would be time to get the information obtained out to the public.

McNamara stated that with all the requests for information on this matter that have occurred over the last week also has feeling that we need to balance between a prudent energy policy for the City and limiting liability to the citizens for future energy cost which could be undetermined at this time and that he would also like answers to the requests for information before proceeding on this matter and is in support of a work session to discuss this matter in more detail.

Brooks commented that the main issue to keep in mind is also that the election is set for November 7 so need to meet and get the information gathered out in a timely manner so that the public is aware of it when they go to vote and that he knows from talking with citizens that affordable energy bills are important to them.

The group consensus was to hold a work session on October 18, 2006 at 4:30 p.m. in Room A101 at City Hall to discuss this measure and encouraged all interested to attend the meeting.

2.2 Presentation – FEMA mapping updates.

Al Grasser, City Engineer, shared with the Council an update on the remapping process that FEMA began following the 1997 flood. He displayed the current flood insurance rate map, the 2003 revised flood insurance rate map, the conditional letter of map revision map which the Corps of Engineers is developing, and the digital flood insurance rate map, which is a digitized version of the original map.

Grasser continued that after the 1997 flood, FEMA decided that they were not comfortable that the existing flood insurance map was still accurate and the 2003 Flood Insurance and Rate Map was developed. This put almost every property in the City between the river and I-29 in the 100 year flood plain and required most properties to carry flood insurance. Grasser explained that this map’s implementation is currently on hold, as there is another map that the Corps of Engineers is working on developing in conjunction with the City. He continued that this is the Conditional Order of Map Revision and would revert to a map very similar to the original, and includes the protection provided by the completed flood protection project. Grasser explained that the approval process for this map is a very long and detailed process and that the optimistic approval timeline for this map is May 2007.

In regards to the last map shown, the digital flood insurance rate map, Grasser stated that the original map has been digitized and as a result of that process the public will note that the elevations of properties have been increased by about a foot throughout the City, which is not an actual change for the properties, just a result of the data from the new measurement using 1998 equipment versus the old 1929 data that is included on the current map and that all relative elevations between properties have not changed and wanted the public to be aware of this prior to their receiving information on this and being confused by the numbers being given that are different than ones they have previously seen on their properties. Grasser stated that this map is scheduled to be implemented in September 2007.

Grasser continued that both the Digital flood insurance rate map and the Conditional Order of Map Revision will require public comment and notification and he wanted to brief Council and the public on both of these so that they are aware why there are two separate but similar items that are being discussed.

Christensen stated that the map that is in development with the Corps of Engineers shows that most of the City is back to a phase b standing and inquired whether that will mean that they will be considered out of the 100 year flood plain and that the flood insurance requirement would be dropped for those. Grasser stated that yes properties that are in yellow will not be in the 100 year flood plain and so generally will not be required to carry the flood insurance. Grasser added that in general FEMA has begun remapping not only the City, but also the County and wants everyone to be aware of the full process. He added that of all the maps that are in development, the one that appears to be the best scenario for the City of Grand Forks is the one in development with the Corps of Engineers. Brooks stated that the main concern for the citizens is getting the map revised in a way that reflects our new flood protection and removes the requirement for many to have to carry flood insurance and that good to make them aware of the process as it progresses and remind them that this is a long process, but that we are working to make it better for them.

2.3 Establish polling hours, approving polling site and election officials (inspectors) for the November 7, 2006 general election.

There were no comments.

2.4 Applications for exemption of remodeling improvements to commercial and residential buildings.

There were no comments.

2.5 Application for abatement for 2005 taxes by Joseph Miller, 1924 4th Ave. N.

There were no comments.

2.6 Application for abatement for 2004 and 2005 taxes by Lee and Pauline Finstad, 2638 Cherry Lynn Drive.

There were no comments.

2.7 Special or limited license for winery.

Gershman inquired whether domestic would pertain to only wineries that are North Dakota based. Swanson stated that was correct.

2.8 Application by SRJ, Inc. dba Lucky’s Green Room, 308 DeMers Avenue, for Class 1 (General On/Off Sale) Alcoholic Beverage license.

Swanson stated that there were some factors that the Council needs to be aware of in regard to this application. The first item is that if this request is approved there would no longer be minors allowed on the premises. The second item is that whether or not smoking would be allowed on the premises would be determined under State code by whether the establishment meets the designation of a bar, which includes that 50% of its revenue must come from the sale of alcoholic beverages. Thirdly, Swanson stated that his office is still in the process of reviewing other licenses which the applicant has and should have information on this by Monday’s Council Meeting.

2.9 Bids for Project Nos. 5983, 6021, and 6022, Rehabilitate Lift Stations Nos. 8, 7.1, and 2.2.

There were no comments.

2.10 Change order #2 for Project No. 5902, 2006 City Sidewalks.

There were no comments.

2.11 2008 Transportation Enhancement Project application.

David Hampsten, 2100 South 29th Street #208, MPO Senior Planner, specializing in alternative transportation, such as for buses, bikes and pedestrian uses, stated that he wants to encourage the Council that when they receive applications for transportation enhancements that include sidewalks or bike paths that they are not substitutes for bikeways and that the federal government encourages the inclusion of bike lanes throughout the urban areas, and that some of the upcoming proposals that the Council will see may include this on the suburban fringe areas of the City, but that he would also encourage them to consider including these also on the inner core of the City where there are more users and fewer facilities.

Gershman stated that there is an existing 8’ bike path from 47th to 40th on South 20th Street, and that this project would redo the existing bike path as well as add a connection from 40th to 36th, and inquired whether it would make more sense to install an 8’ bike path from 40th to 36th which would not meet federal requirements and not be eligible for federal funding, but even without the federal funding would cost the City less than the proposed $117,000 local share on the proposed project and would have the same end result of connecting the path in an area currently without one. Hampsten stated that for the money listed as local share in the proposed application the City could put in bike lanes throughout the City that would serve a larger population as is discussed in the Alternative Transportation Plan, which the City previously signed off on and under which it was requested that 6.6 miles of bike lanes be implemented in the City, specifically on University Avenue from Columbia Road to Downtown as well as various other points in the City and that total cost would be less than $100,000 by last est. He continued that in the past it has been difficult to convince City Council that it is valid to put these in, even though the federal government and other entities have discouraged the use of bike paths in place of bike lanes, as they give riders a false sense of security in cases when crossing streets and cars and riders don’t see each other and would be much safer with bike lane.

Gershman stated that what he is asking is if we already have an 8’ path in the area why not just put in the connecting section and have Grasser provide an estimate of the cost and that it appears that even if we forego the federal money when would save local money that could be used for different projects and that is hearing that Hampsten’s concern is not on this particular project, but on using lanes instead of bike paths and in other areas of town.

Hampsten responded that was correct and that he does not view this project as a necessary connection and that it only serves as connector to greenway system which is a nice enhancement even though not complete, and that this only connects areas that people don’t ride very much to other areas that people don’t ride very much and that he would rather see Council explore putting in bike lanes where there is more population. He added that if we do forego the federal grants in the proposed project, there is no guarantee that other projects already in plan could be eligible or ineligible for those grants.

Gershman stated that in looking at the map of the South 20th St area there is potential for using the southend drainway as a connection, but that in particular students going to South Middle School will not use a jog to the east and then back west, but will continue straight south and as such he could be convinced to just construct the connection to make this a complete path for those riders. Hampsten stated that his concern is that area already has many facilities and not many people and he is appealing to get facilities for other areas of the City that have more population and less facility at this time, such as University Ave where there was a bike lane included in the plan, but it was never fully implemented, along Columbia Road, and to the high schools. He continued that some already ride on University Avenue even though there is not a designated lane and that is dangerous, but it is the only direct route to where they need to go. Gershman stated that some also use the sidewalk now and questioned whether the addition of a lane would impact parking on the street. Hampsten responded that it would not, as the road is wide enough to allow for 10’ driving lanes, a 4-5’ bike lane and still allow for parking on both sides of the street. He commented that this street is not supposed to be a high speed zone and the addition of the bike lane may help to slow traffic. Gershman summarized that Hampsten was requesting that Council look at implementing bike lanes in other areas of town, particularly on residential streets in an effort to provide slight enhancements that would encourage cycling in the community.

McNamra inquired how plans are prirotized and funding requests determined, since if we have had a plan for 10 years and not implemented it, why not getting those projects in the priority list before some of these newer needs. Hampsten stated that there have been various bike committees in existence over the years and ordinance 3480 established a permanent bike path committee, but they have not met since March of 2001 and that there is annual funding of $250,000 that is set aside for bike path projects, but since the committee has not been meeting the job of deciding how to spend the funding is not going forward. He continued that there is a similar committee for EGF, and that a couple of years ago both Mayors wanted a bikeway committee for the metropolitan community established to assist in bike friendly applications to the League of American Wheelmen, and that we have received an honorable mention last year and this year, and comments for that are that we have few bike lanes in the community and have had no new bike lanes added in 20 years. He continued that recently there was a meeting and citizens came in and gave feedback and it supported that they want bike lanes in the community and that they support his encouragement of City Council to provide those as listed in the 2004 transportation plan.

2.12 Public Works Department Surplus Property.

There were no comments.

2.13 Request from AE2s on behalf of Allen Mercil for final approval (fast track) of the Plat of Oscarville 3rd Resubdiv., being a replat of Lot 2, Block 2, Oscarville Subdiv. And Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Oscarville 2nd Subdiv. To the City of Grand Forks, ND (loc. at N. 43rd St. and 26th Ave. N.)

There were no comments.

3. Information Items.

There were none.

4. Citizen Requests.

There were none.

5. City Administrator Comments.

There were none.

6. Mayor and Council Member Comments.

Swanson stated that the Attorney’s Office, Engineering and the Coordinator’s office have been working on a draft ordinance for use of public right-of-way, which is reasonable, but not complete. He continued that in the meantime there has been a request from Dakota Carrier Network, who has a contract with UND to run some fiber optic cable, to be allowed to enter our right-of-way and install the cable under a special temporary license to operate under our specifications and that may be on the agenda for Monday. He added that the concern is that there is some boring that needs to take place before frost sets in so that the project can be completed in a timely manner. Christensen stated that he hopes that any language to be included in our new ordinance will be included in any proposed temporary license. Christensen stated that he would still like to see more information and continued conversation on an initiative for WiFi in the City of Grand Forks and that he would see this as a good fit as a new enterprise fund that the City could add. Swanson responded that the City of Minneapolis just completed a similar project in their city. Christensen added that St. Cloud and Moorhead have also undertaken similar projects and would encourage us to look into this area. Swanson stated that at this time the proposal from Dakota Carrier Network is a very limited project that will serve only a small section of the university campus.

Bakken commented that it is very good to hear Glassheim is doing better and expressed wishes for a speedy recovery. Bakken continued that some have been meeting to look at ideas to lower property tax that could be brought forward to the legislative session and encouraged staff to continue in this area.
Kreun commented that due to some misuse that has been occurring in the Greenway, there will be discussion of some ordinances to address these misuses at the Service/Safety Standby Committee to be held on Thursday, October 12, 2006 at 4:30 p.m. in Room A101 at City Hall. He encouraged anyone with interest to attend the meeting. Christensen added that when looking at the ordinances to make sure that we have proper staff and equipment already in place to enforce them.

7. Adjournment.

Motion to adjourn by Brooks, second by Kreun. Aye: All. Nay: None. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.


Respectfully Submitted,


John Schmisek, CPA
Director of Finance and Administrative Services

SLL