Ann Street Bridge Opening: Council Members Comment on the Vote

Alderman Lehner Vote: No

Alderman Lehner did not respond to a request for a statement, but he did provide rationale behind his vote at Monday’s meeting. Mr. Lehner expressed concern that the future of the bridge is uncertain and altering the engineering plans at this point may lead to a delay of the project by two, three years, or even more. View his comments here.

Alderman Straight Vote: Yes

I ran for City Council to attempt to make Minot a more dynamic and inclusive community. Minot residents deserve both flood protection and access to amenities that add to our quality of life. My family too, was heavily flooded. I proposed a smaller 24’ opening at Broadway with two 8’ openings on either side and an 8’ pedestrian opening at the Anne St. Bridge instead of the original 56’ opening to acknowledge those concerns. Seemed common sense to me, that 48’ opening would be less cost and less risk than 56’ opening. At least in my mind, and Public Works Director Jonasson reinforced my point by calling the fear of rising costs to construct an additional opening ‘a wash.’ I’m clearly disappointed. I claimed all along that we are not trying to reinvent the wheel. Grand Forks has both flood protection and multiple pedestrian access points along their floodwall to their downtown. Why can’t we? I’m not giving up on this opening or on what I feel is best for Minot! If we don’t listen to residents how can we expect them to participate in our local government or want to remain in Minot? This opening and access to the St. Ann’s Bridge would highlight a unique, historic feature in our downtown.

Alderman Withus Vote: No

Alderman Withus did not respond to a request for a statement, but he did provide comment at Monday’s meeting citing the fact that access was not being removed; it was being provided at Broadway. Mr. Withus also cited safety concerns with pedestrians crossing 4th Avenue. View his comments here.

Alderman Berg Vote: Yes

Alderman Berg did not respond to a request for a statement and did not comment at Monday’s meeting.

Alderman Frantsvog Vote: No

Alderman Frantsvog did not respond to request for a statement and did not comment at Monday’s meeting.

Alderman Podrygule Vote: Yes

Quite frankly, I was surprised — but pleased — that six Aldermen supported putting in a floodwall opening by the Anne Street bridge, as I did.

Historically, my sense is that we, as a city and Council, have not paid enough attention to preserving the history of our community and the strength (and interconnections) of its neighborhoods. The railroad tracks and river are certainly a barrier, but they are also an opportunity, giving us the chance to highlight Minot’s unique attributes and bring people together. The proposed flood control project could make things better – e.g., with greenways that people could use for transportation and recreation – or worse (e.g., if access to the river is unduly restricted). If we are trying to revitalize downtown, it only makes sense to improve access, particularly for pedestrians and bicyclists, and tie it in more closely to nearby residential neighborhoods.

With something like 22 openings in the floodwall already, I didn’t feel adding an extra one would make all that much difference (e.g., in terms of cost and safety). While I welcome the planned addition of a 10-foot-wide walkway to the new Broadway viaduct, all the traffic does not make it a particularly pleasant place to walk, and the Third Street bridge isn’t that much better. The McKinley School neighborhood, and the people who will be using the floodway on the north side of the river, deserve as much access to the south side – and, ultimately, downtown – as possible.

I appreciate Shannon Strait’s leadership on this issue, and the votes of the all of the other Aldermen who are working for a more progressive city.

Alderman Hedberg Vote: No

This was a tough issue that I put a great deal of thought into but in the end there were several points that I considered:

1. Most of the conversation during evening centered on the bridge and how valuable it is to Minot and the residents. I couldn’t agree more. If we were discussing the removal of the bridge I would’ve fought it very hard but we are not touching the bridge. The Ann Street Bridge will be there for years to come hopefully, and it will be repaired/replaced when necessary. This doesn’t stop pedestrians or bicycle riders from using it.
2. Our number one concern needs to be flood control and the integrity of the wall. Our a Public Works Director shared his concern about another opening. At what point do we cap the number of openings. What if another group approaches us for an opening? Will the staff have time to close the opening in a flood event?  Will we need to hire more staff?
3. I have some real concerns about putting a pedestrian crossing at the opening of the wall at another point on 4th Ave with extremely limited line of sight for drivers. The wall is only 15 feet from the edge of the roadway and this is a 4 or 5 lane road with a speed limit of 30 miles per hour. This doesn’t seem like a safe crossing when there is a crossing two blocks away.
4. We really don’t know the costs of another opening. It sounded like $150K but no one really knew for sure.
5. We also didn’t know for sure if it would delay the flood control project as submitted to the Corp of Engineers. Another unknown.

I agree that the council should have involvement in approving plans.  We have not had much oversight here.

Alderman Shomento Vote: No

Alderman Shomento did respond to a request for a statement, but he did provide brief comments referencing access at Broadway. View his comments here.

Alderman Schuler Vote: No

First off, I want to commend Alderman Straight on his passion and thank him for bringing this item up for additional review and discussion.  I did not vote in support though for several reasons.  The first and most important being our dire need for complete flood protection.  This section of flood protection has already been approved by the Army Corps of Engineers, and bidding is to begin shortly.  A change (minor as it may be) would require another approval and possibly delay the project.  It’s also important to note the integrity of the structure could be impacted by additional opening.  Secondly, this entire area, to include the Broadway bridge, 3rd Ave and intersection at 3rd St NE at the N end of that bridge is going to look dramatically different in the coming years and likely much more pedestrian friendly than it is today as a result of this flood protection design.  The entrance feature and park area to access the water side of the flood protection, to include both walking bridges and the trail system, is approximately 2 blocks to the West of this proposed opening and I don’t feel that is an unreasonable distance.  I also had some concerns about approving what felt like a “blank check”.  The additional cost was estimated to be $100,000-$150,000.  Lastly, I was contacted by several constituents who shared many of the same concerns.  The few that contacted me in support were understanding the bridge would no longer be accessible at all if the opening was not granted.  When presented with drawings of the proposed area and addressing the concerns as they understood them, all but a couple realized the long term goal and design will benefit our entire community.   It’s  important to realize this vote did not affect the Ann Street bridge’s future as some have implied.

Alderman Sipma Vote: Yes

I am disappointed the proposed opening failed as I firmly believe it would serve a significant part in keeping the greenway accessible to residents. Numerous other communities – not only here in the U.S. but worldwide — utilize floodwalls similar to the structure we are building and do so with strategically placed access points for the public and have continued success with them. Flood control is vital, but so too is a functional system that doesn’t close the public access to the vast greenway that will be a substantial asset to our community.

Alderman Jantzer Vote: Yes

While initially skeptical about the need for an additional opening, I was swayed by the arguments in favor, especially the neighborhood’s long history, of using the footbridge, and reassurances that the price and structural engineering issues were manageable.  I ultimately voted yes because I feel preserving direct access to the foot bridge for the neighborhood is something they deserve, and it can reasonably be done.

Alderman Pankow Vote: No

Alderman Pankow did not respond to a request for a statement and did not comment at Monday’s meeting.

Alderman Kossan Vote: Yes

Alderman Kossan did not respond to a request for a statement, but he did provide comment at Monday’s meeting. Mr. Kossan referenced the need for the Minot to be more pedestrian friendly and the need for Minot to grab more control of our own destiny in town. View his comments here.

Alderman Olson Vote: No

Alderman Olson did not respond to a request for a statement and did not provide comment. However, she did ask our Public Works Director Dan Jonasson if concerns over changing the plans at this point were valid and likely to slow the project down. Mr. Jonasson answered directly. View the question and response here.