Council Minutes

Minutes of Grand Forks City Council/Committee of the Whole
Monday, March 17, 2008 - 5:30 p.m._________________ __

The City Council met as the Committee of the Whole in special meeting on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Hutchison, McNamara, Glassheim, Gershman, Bakken, Kreun - 6.

2.1 Riverside Pool.
The city auditor read the motion from the Finance/Development Committee, to approve $1.1 million for capital renovation of the Riverside pool, contingent upon the Park District agreeing to operate the pool; and the motion carried unanimously out of the committee.

Deb Hanson, 115 Seward Avenue, spoke in favor of opening Riverside pool and believes there is support for the Riverside pool in Greater Grand Forks area, not just the northend; that the Park District does have some issues with reopening and paying for that and knows they want to be responsive to the needs of the community and that if the pool has a heating option it will be more attractive along with the greenway and offers alternative to the remodeled pool at the Elks site which is more suitable for younger population, and if those things were done would be a more viable option for the city and the neighborhood.

John Staley, Park District, stated concerns of the Park District about reopening the pool are flooding and financing, that their mill levies are capped and do not have another source, and biggest concern with Riverside pool is that it floods, that if there were a levee protecting it, would not have advocated closing the pool. He stated that when it floods expense of cleanup is fairly significant and difficult to look at the benefit and cost ratio favoring this. He compared costs of participants in Elks pool and Riverside pool and cost for Riverside much higher; and also showed slide presentation of mega-playground for the Riverside area in place of the pool, which could serve children and families throughout the whole community with cost of $10-12,000 to maintain per year and if put splash park in the cost for cleanup was $2,000 after flood; and could also renovate pool building into a picnic shelter or area for people to gather for celebrations, this would be much less expensive to maintain and built to endure the floods and would attract many people. He stated he didn't know that this was the answer but is an option to do something very positive for the community and within realm of taxpayers. He stated they get a lot of pressure to cut and keep taxes in line and have to do projects that are as efficient as possible.

Council Member Gershman stated that there will still be expenses for renovating the bathhouse and that there will also be expenses with it if it floods and for on-going expenses.

Council Member Glassheim stated there are two major reasons why the Park District hasn't wanted to operate Riverside, one is that it is on the wrong side of the dike and the other is financial cost because constrained by property taxes, asked what if the City provides significant amount for those losses to the Park District and relieves them of that burden, and if that would change the equation. Mr. Staley stated he cannot speak for the Park Board and that is something they are going to address, but personally as director and administrator it doesn't change his mind because the tax dollars all come from the same group of people, that it is difficult to see this kind of waste happening, and sees something that can be lot more beneficial for the dollars and will be used more than the pool and more for the neighborhood. Mr. Glassheim stated that if the City put money into this it would not be out of property tax, but would be out of a fund which is spent regardless and would come from reprioritizing and would not be an increased cost to any taxpayer, and that he would much rather have 4 years of swimming out of 5 than no years of swimming out of 5 if it floods every 5 years.

Mr. Staley reported they put $800,000 into Elks pool and did good job with what they could, that it could be added to, and that when Canad was coming in with their splash parks, etc. and took cautious approach and didn't put diving boards in, added one slide and ordered another, numbers dropped and that they can come back and add to it on incremental approach, cost conscious approach. He stated they opened splash park in University Park and had 7,000 uses and Canad Inn got 20,000 uses, EGF pools are keeping their numbers strong, and that Elks pool did drop because of design. He stated can't compete with Canad and so idea was to go to smaller kids with splash park, and put a splash park at Elks and that is closed off and is free to the public and their plan is to take that approach for neighborhood type parks.

Mr. Staley stated that the wellness center is replacement for the present center court fitness, an approach to health and fitness, family center, and have tennis, basketball and have therapists and medical folks in combining a whole health and fitness program of which aquatics is a part but not a replacement of the pool.

Mr. Staley also stated this was one option recommended by the Corps as a replacement for the pool, several other options, and that is part of the process even if don't have the pool, that the $600,000 set aside would pay for all the playground and splash park. He also stated that he didn't think the full $600,000 would remodel the bathhouse and picnic shelter and all the aquatics, there would be money for it, and really don't know what they want to do, but study some options.

Kreun stated that this will not go away even if we don't have this pool, because the bathhouse will be remodeled and splash pool and playground area will be there, but have to make choices as to which is most economical to use and which will get the most usage; the pool has never exceeded capacity at Elks and if go down to one pool will still have ability to go swimming; and has heard that if have another pool it should be an enclosed pool so can use year around. He stated that this is a Park District decision and our role is whether we want to help with either the capital expenditure of updating the pool and/or continue to subsidize some of the losses on it, and if the pool does stay open, would like to see the Park District involved in operating it. Mr. Staley stated that if they were to take this bathhouse and look at other alternatives for it, would like greenway staff to be involved in that decision and could see mutual involvement.

Mr. Staley stated they have had a consultant work on indoor pool and they have provided a feasibility study saying that they can go ahead, but the Board has asked the consultant to go back and come up with more detailed options to look at, and expect that info. back in the next month for review. He stated they have a volunteer group that is studying and raising some donation dollars, have already received donations, and more donations they receive the more capital cost can get covered and that will tell them how feasible it is, but up to the Board to see where they go and make decision in the next 6 to 8 months. He stated their feasibility study says they can build a facility of $14 million that can be full cost recovery from the fees, not tax dollars, and that is because they have partnerships with Altru and Human Nutrition Research Center renting space in there and combination of programs that would go on makes feasible.

Council Member Christensen stated they had this before a finance committee last week and before a mayor's committee before that, and in the last 3 weeks this issue has developed and that there is a division on the council as to how we should proceed, there is part of the council that would like to renovate the pool and heat it and that will change the obvious, that we have a Park District that is studying these things; and not in favor of the City getting involved in the pool business and not in favor of the City getting involved in subsidizing of a shortfall of an operation; that we have a group of people making these decisions and know consequences of their decisions.

Council Member Gershman stated he has a number of things to say, that the wellness center has potential to be good project will be on the far side of town, that this is not a pool for Riverside but is a city-wide pool and that if the City is willing to renovate the pool and by heating the pool will have 50% increase over 2003 and that there should be a subsidy which could come from either of two areas - a Special Event Fund funded out of sales tax economic development because we feel that amenities and events in a city are important for economic development and citizens and looks at pool as a special event for the summer for boys and girls and families; the other place is from private donations and read an e-mail he received today from Arch and Mary Simonson to extend an offer of $50,000 to the City of Grand Forks for the purpose of reopening Riverside pool, this offer is conditional only in that the City of Grand Forks must come up with matching funds for the same purpose, and to keep something unique and special to this community. He stated the Simonson's do not live in Riverside area but feel commitment to that area and would suggest that the $50,000 would come $10,000/year for 5 years and the City would match that, and that if our subsidy is matched out at $30,000/year would actually be $20,000 from the City and $10,000 here. He stated he feels there are a number of people in this community that would commit to keeping that pool open and shouldn't turn our backs on that kind of an offer.

Council Member Hutchison stated that he is also on the Park Board and believes that we should not have a pool on the wet side of the dike, and because of attendance going down at the pools and because of limited number of nice days to use it, would be better served as a community to have one outdoor and one indoor pool where could use it year round. The capital cost whether they reopen Riverside pool or whether go with the plan that Mr. Staley showed them tonight of splash park and playground, capital costs same for either one. He stated they were told in 2000 by the Corps of Engineers that they could not have a pool on the wet side of the dike and they came up with other plans and if the agreement they talked about at the finance committee last week is what is brought forward, is appropriate that would go back to the Park Board to look at that agreement and make a decision on that proposal.

Council Member McNamara stated that the operational subsidy and that the City has more revenue sources than the Park District and if decide to go forward with Riverside pool and turn it over to the Park District with no operational subsidy - and because of the unique nature of this issue is that it is on the wet side of the dike, and because of it historic nature is that we have an election coming up in June, costs us nothing to allow the people of this community to vote on this and put it to rest; and that this needs to be decided on and be done with this issue.

Council Member Bakken stated every year we talk about taxes and citizens talk about taxes all year long that property taxes are too high and now have a project where we can put $500,000 into it and do another $200,000 or $300,000 to subsidize it, and that in probability the pool will be gone in 10 years, and if want to spend this money in Riverside, need park but not a pool - wellness center has nothing to do with this decision. He stated he doesn't feel comfortable committing the City to that kind of funding under economic conditions that the country is operating under and doesn't see that getting better for a few years.

Council Member Glassheim commented re. financing - dollars that are going to be spent regardless and not property tax dollars - $600,000 has already been promised and spent on park or pool and not new cost, and that $1 million flood betterment bond is going to be sold within a year and question is whether $500,000 of that will go to Riverside pool or to other projects and not a new expenditure for Riverside pool; and that the cost of this somewhere between $1.00 and $2.00 for residential property; that they are again looking at reducing some mills from city budget and that will continue. The operating deficit from the City is from a fund - special events fund - which they have been spending - spent $105,000 out of sales tax every year and no property tax involved and are going to spend that $105,000 or whether $30,000 or for first 5 years $20,000 of it will be prioritized towards the pool. The cost of renovating Riverside pool and the cost of operating the pool for the City to subsidize, not to operate, is very small and benefits great.

The city auditor stated they have $1 million left in the Greenway Betterment Funds, there is $600,000 that they would anticipate spending already, and they will issue a bond of more than $1 million because we have other costs of the flood control project to do - and in the $1 million that is all contingent of the greenway betterment money left of projects that the council may or may not approve and if we do this project, that means $500,00 will be spent, and if we don't do other projects in the greenway that is simply a budgeted amount at this time that will be saved overall in the project, and have not spent that money yet and contingent upon what we do, and if add that $500,000 talking $1 to $2 per year for the average household.

Council Member Christensen stated when adopted a flood budget 8 years ago you had $5 million for greenway betterment and of that amount $830,000 was allocated for the Riverside project and of that $500,000 still remains to be spent and that there is $1.1 million left in that $5 million budget allocation, have spent $3.5 million and have $1.1 million left, and if didn't spend any more money out of that fund, you would have to bond about $3.5 or $3.6 million for the greenway betterment and if honor our pact with the Park District we still have to give $600,000 to work toward funding the improvements Mr. Staley has shown. The city auditor stated that the $1.1 million that is left is exclusive of the $600,000 as we have already deducted that in the betterment funds.

Council Member Hutchison stated that if a decision goes out of council to the Park Board, that we have to put in there that somebody has to have authority after an appropriate length of time - 5 or 10 years whether to continue to operate the pool and that it should be the Park Board.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Glassheim and seconded by Council Member Gershman that we adjourn. Carried 7 votes affirmative.



Respectfully submitted,



John M. Schmisek
City Auditor