Committee Minutes

Minutes of the Grand Forks City Council/Finance-Development
Committee - Monday, September 27, 2010 - 5:30 p.m. _______________

The Finance/Development Committee met on Monday, September 27, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Council Member Glassheim presiding. Present at roll call: Christensen, Glassheim, Sande (teleconference), Gershman.

Also present were. Todd Feland, Hazel Sletten, Greg Hoover, Meredith Richards, Howard Swanson, Don Shields, Rick Duquette, Chief O'Neill, Chief Packett, Roxanne Fiala, Saroj Jerath, Candice Stjern, Maureen Storstad, Bev Collings, Al Grasser, Terry Hanson, Steve Burian, Council Members Bjerke and Grandstrand.

Agenda items were rearranged with Urban Development items placed at the beginning of the agenda.

9. Redevelopment of City-owned lot at 1423 Walnut Street.
Meredith Richards, urban development, reported they have a proposal submitted by Blair and Charlene Nelson for redevelopment of city-owned lot at 1423 Walnut Street; their proposal is very strong, have run this through review committee and they recommended approval of the proposal, and to move forward to council. There were no other proposals pending at this time. This proposal went through formal advertising with a deadline and this is the first proposal received for this property. Motion by Sande and Glassheim to approve recommendation and move to council. Motion carried.

10. CDBG Administration Funding requests.
Richards reported that the staff report includes information that had been discussed re. the CDBG allocation process with unanticipated program income from the sale of properties to Simplot and LM Glasfiber, administration percentage that they are able to take per HUD requirements is dependent on when that money is received, have received the money from the sale of Simplot but won't be receiving the LM proceeds until next year and is a revised budget in the staff report, no major changes but it reflects how the money will come in and what the budget will be. She stated they have requests from Terry Hanson with the Grand Forks Housing Authority and Dave Sena from Shelter for Homeless to use some of our administrative dollars for planning activities.

Richards stated that the issue is does the City want to spend admin. on planning activates - $330,000 of admin. dollars - and is broken out as $225,000 for standard administrative activities which is on line with what our admin. budget was last year and $75,000 for the studies. Funding projection for 2011 is lower than initially thought at the beginning of allocation process and that the 2010 CDBG Program was budgeted at $1.12 million and with the Simplot sale funds coming in, will be $1.245 million. She stated as part of the annual action plan that is submitted to HUD, that if you choose to fund the studies would put those studies in the Annual Action Plan. Christensen stated they could just wait for other things that could be studied in 2011 and study those - Richards stated they would have to go through amendment process.

Terry Hanson, GFHA, reported he had made an application for the for the CDBG funding for this round using public service dollars for the Grand Forks Housing Authority to do a housing study, no studies have been done including the whole city with all types of housing since 1997-98, study would be very beneficial to the Housing Authority and to the city itself, that they receive a number of requests every year from developers on what type of housing is needed in the community and where should limited resources be put (HOME funds, CDBG dollars, low income housing, tax credit funding, etc.) . When do low income housing tax credit projects, have to have a study done on respective projects and project specific studies and all come back that there is a need for that type of housing, and would be better for the City to know which type of housing is in most need within community, whether senior housing, family housing, special needs housing or first time home buyers funding - the study he is proposing is done by a number of agencies throughout the region and gave committee a copy of the 2004 update (the executive summary port of the study - first 10 pages of a 140+ page report) that was done for the Fargo housing study, they do study every two years. Included in the report is the findings and recommendations and will give you an idea of the type of results that come from a study. He stated that the study that they are proposing would provide good resource for the city and Housing Authority to determine the type of housing they should be pursuing; but that this would have to be an amendment to Addendum 2 of the Consolidated Plan.; that the Consolidated Plan is due in a short time period and this would come out after that and would have to be an addendum. Currently they are using 2000 census data, using housing study data from the 1997-98, that there are annual updates to that data but relatively old information. Est. cost of the study would be $45,000.

Hanson stated that this would be a public document and would make it available on their website and on city website - send out the executive summary and if want further information could come in. Motion by Glassheim/Sande to approve $45,000 for this study. Motion carried.

Dave Sena, Shelter for the Homeless, presented information relative to his request for funding, stated that they have seen tremendous growth to the needs of the services that they provide for the community, tremendous increase in the number of people that come to the Mission, have seen 10% growth over the past 7 years except for last year, 20% growth, in 2008 had 500 people that were homeless in our city that sought shelter at the Mission and the past year in 2009 saw over 600 people that were homeless looking for shelter - seen increase and peaked at 126 this fall and anticipate that to go up as we get into the cold winter months.

He stated their #1 goal is to provide safer community members, and to rehabilitate and to get people back on their feet; next goal is to have a support structure for them as they get out on their own, and ultimately reduce emergency services and expenses.


Ned to make sure that people are coming to our community are legitimate and not getting people that shouldn't be coming to our community and doing as much as can but problem very complex, talking about mental health issues, people that have low skill issues more than disabilities, addiction issues, debt issues, etc. and complex situation, the Mission alone is not able to do all that any one individual needs, need approach to all the different services that we have in our community, and as look into the future for our community that they think would be very beneficial, have one solid space where have satellite offices of different people in different services, someone from clinic, someone from Job Service, someone from Northeast Human Services, dental clinic, have specific agencies that would see the benefit of coming in on a
satellite basis, and have this office every day, once week - those are things they are looking at
- idea is to have one particular front door access to services to not only homeless but near homeless individuals - and to do that need physical space and even for their present operation and are using their conference room for housing individuals, no common area except for dining room and small lobby - have community members as task force who met last fall, including people from the City as well as Terry Hanson and others and benefit from their knowledge to look at that, and everybody agreed the thing that we should try and develop to do space big enough where it will benefit the community -
Christensen stated you can give us all of this but that you want $30,000 for a study and once you get the study, then where go to increase shelter from 120 to 150 beds - don't have the space; that we went through this whole drill with Prairie Harvest but couldn't get consent from the people that owned the land. That they are asking the City of Grand Forks to use CDBG funds to fund study, and hearing office space again where all the non-profits have their own office space but an office in the Northlands Rescue Mission but you don't know the occupancy or how long people come, etc. He stated lot of people paid by the City or County to deal with those issues and in this study is redundancy and is concern. Sena stated they need to develop their own support system for individuals and want to have full time program, re-entry or rehabilitation program and not replace what Northeast doing but make sure they get to Northeast as well as get into these other resources -

Gershman stated that he has brought up previously the matter of consolidation of services and is going to bring it up again - that now looking at a study and perhaps study should be more encompassing - how would we bring some of these organizations together - there is incredible lack of resources and incredible needs. That everybody has different needs and some can't be co-mingled but some could, have about 14 agencies in town all competing for resources and some overlap and will put that out there again - threatening to needs of clients rather than to agency.

Christensen stated te Northlands Rescue Mission has limited focus, housing for temporary housing until they get back on their feet - that he doesn't believe the city of Grand Forks should use our tax dollars or the monies we receive for the community to deal with this institution when you have within 2 blocks of the County Office bldg. where can meet and develop some plan as the State funds the things that you are suggesting - the State of ND does that, the Human Service agencies do that, and way beyond our mission. This study won't get you very far -

Sena stated that the plan that they have been working on - know that that this is a multi-year project - is a 10-year project, have to get building space, looking at Deaconess Hospital building which is up for sale currently and don't have the funding for that but to answer all the questions that people have - know that its bigger than the city of Grand Forks or County or State and with the Northeast Region - but has most effect on the Grand Forks city and Grand Forks county as people living in this city - are looking for seed money to get them started and not looking at the city for building, etc. but helping with CDBG applications and know is much broader and bigger than the city but need some working capital to start this - do have a grant sent over to Bremmer Foundation and meeting with donors across the region and in order for them to get this particular amount of money to do these things, will help to do those other activities which will come back to benefit the city. Christensen stated this amount of money not enough to get what you want done and about trying to expand the Mission and build additional housing downtown - that if looking for additional money and that we will match what you raise - that if you can raises $30,000, will match up to 2 for 1 - and then have enough money to fund a credible site.

Christensen stated we don't have to commit this money at this point, is in our budget and don't have to commit it and might be extra work for staff to amend the budget. Sena stated their issue is that they are maxed out but if don't move forward on this and continue whether they get $30,000 for not but would be helpful for them to get the City on board because it makes it easier for them that the City is behind them and will affect the City - if don't have any more room will go back onto the street.

Sande stated City has been doing good job - but not sure he has enough information - but to come back with a better plan - a more detailed plan and working with other organizations within the community.
Christensen stated he would like more information and more collaborative effort with other institutions in the community and also ask that you approach the County because the County houses all those social services. Sena stated they have contract with the County that they have been supporting for about 4 years.

Motion by Glassheim and Sande to authorize $75,000 for studies, including $45,000 to GFHA for housing needs assessment, hold request from Shelter for Homeless pending more information. Motion carried.

8. Review and ranking process for residential lot redevelopment.
Richards stated that the staff report outlines they ran into number of issues that raised some concerns from both citizens and staff on the sale of property at 1815 N. 3rd Street, and as a result of that process staff has tried to revamp the review process that was used for redevelopment and resale of city-owned lots. The process was hung up on the number of concerns that are listed in the staff report, lack of clear time lines, conflict of interest, subjectivity of the process of lack of a formal ranking and review sheet - and in trying to consolidate comments from people who have been involved in this process and in review committee and at staffing end have developed recommendations -and summarized them - have revision to include definite deadline for all advertisements; in terms of market value believe that the least subjective part of the processing that we should continue to have a min. bid that is based upon the city assessor's estimate of current market value; review committee membership suggested eliminating staff as voting member and having both city council members whose wards are affected by the list (Gershman and Glassheim) and continuing to have neighborhood rep. and rep. from historic Preservation Commission and if need additional neighborhood reps could let them appoint someone; and adding non-voting rep. to review committee from the assessor's office; and have proposed use a standardized form for financial capacity; and proposed use of ranking/scoring sheet.

Sande reported he had reviewed the proposal provided by staff and after review to re-establish our do so without destructing the neighborhoods and allowing people to build homes that don't fit - that we are adding bureaucracy to something that should be simple process - that staff worked hard to put together this revised plan but in his opinion all the steps going through aren't necessary - that want to sell the lots and should open up all the lots for sale, try to make them available sooner than later, make the process easy, having fixed price on the lots, citizens would know what the lots are valued at and what the bid should be - having the assessor's department doing an assessment of the proposed home to provide an estimated value of completion of that home is much more fair than taking a builder's word or a bank's word for it or the people that are building it -the only unbiased way to do that is to have one person evaluate all the proposed homes and put a value on them - in general diverse neighborhoods and his opinion if write RFP that gives value of the lot, can't build split level, have to have proof of financing from your bank and in reviewing proposal will put an estimate using the assessor's office of value and if we agree with it or if it meets the criteria, should go directly to the city council or approval or denial.

Gershman stated he had some concerns about allowing anything to be built other than split level - compatibility of the neighborhood who feel very strongly about it because it affects their property values.

Gershman stated that neighbors prefer to maintain integrity of the neighborhood that they originally moved into - but system has worked relatively well. Richards stated the process has always been based on input from the neighborhood affected and the proposal progress and prior to issuing a request for proposal, have a neighborhood meeting, some are very well attended, and as staff try to craft proposal process that reflects the desires of that neighborhood, may think unnecessarily complicated but this is based on the wishes of the neighborhood, if remove that, can, but the criteria comes from neighborhood input. One side does not fill all - diverse neighborhood within reason but the neighbors have very definite ideas of what is appropriate and what isn't - you may disagree and neighborhood not always unanimous consensus but majority rules and that is how these proposal documents evolve to try to reflect as best can, the wishes of the majority of the people living in those neighborhoods.

Glassheim stated that he thinks the staff proposal addresses all the problems that we may have had, there was confusion about once you have proposal, they have taken staff out, have done financial form that is not subjective, included ranking sheet but forced you to focus on certain elements, the ranking should have been turned numerical so that there can be justification and that what has been proposed is fine, and that we seem to be getting down to is there is free enterprises against the government people and that as free enterprise can build what they want with the land they own and risk their money; but we have a broader charge and acting on behalf of the City as the City owns it and don't do it to make the most money nor the first one we make deal with, have an obligation to the whole city and to the neighborhood and that is what we are trying to balance, and thinks the process we have is very good and the improvements are responsive to what has been raised before and can easily go ahead with those

Sande stated that Mr. Glassheim neglected two important parts of the proposal process, architectural compatibility in the value of the completed project, and in both of them as it sits right now are still completely subjective and/or value of the completed project is 100% ambiguous; and seems like we are going after trying to make the most money rather than what is right for the neighborhood and/or just selling the home.

Hoover stated this has been very illuminating discussion and shows there are different opinions and his suggestion would be that we do come back at the next committee meeting and have some discussions with Mr. Sande, Mr. Glassheim and Mr. Gershman to see if we can come to some sort of consensus. He would like to see if staff can get with the individuals between now and next meeting to see if can come with some consensus and move this forward. Christensen stated to receive and file and bring it back when they have had an opportunity to develop additional planning.

1. Authorize call for bids and set sale date for $4,210,000 Refunding Improvement Bonds, Series 2010-B (Dike Improvements).
2. Authorize call for bids and set sale date for $4,805,000 Refunding Improvement Bonds, Series 2010-C.
Saroj Jerath, city auditor, reported that these are to authorize call for bids and set sale date for the two bond issues, and will adopt the resolutions for both issues and set the sale date for November 1, 2010. Motion by Glassheim and Sande to approve recommendation and move to council.

Bjerke asked for verification of the $4.2 million on the first sale, if lowered by whatever is received by 10/31; Ms. Jerath stated it would. He presented list of questions to the finance department that he would like given to him (or if included in the packet up to the finance committee chair), the cost of Riverside pool, cost of dog park plus paving and any other betterment projects include in this - wants copy of the betterment list, list of projects and money spent on the projects for the whole dike project, a copy of the Riverside pool ballot and if the betterment fund going to be closed out. Christensen stated that will come to the city council as part of this and will be there for the record. Upon call for the question of the motion along with the additional information that the finance department will provide the council. Motion carried.

3. Resolution - 2011 Fee Schedule.
Saroj Jerath, city auditor, reported that the fee schedule was included as part of the budget, and fees need to be approved by resolution, that they were asked to review the fee schedule every year. Gershman stated that the fees in the schedule seemed to be inconsistent, some had zero or small % changes, and some with raises that were quite high (14%). It was noted by the city auditor that the council had requested that the fee schedule be reviewed and changes, or not, were recommended by the department heads based on inflation and/or cost of service. Gershman stated that if having index of taking fees up based upon the CPI then should be consistent and very confused when he reviewed listing; that inconsistencies in the whole report - fees should be incremental and based on CPI - have process that is predictable and is fair and gets job done every year.

There was discussion relative to landfill charges, tipping fees, and utility rates which were increased. Christensen stated he was concerned about the tipping fee and can't image that didn't go up because of the landfill, and that they should charge more for that. It was noted that the council has agreed to changes in utility rates.

It just merits comment but doesn't seem to be any resolution, and to approve the resolution or do we approve subject to future adjustments - that next time not let staff do these things, and if going to pay and increase the general fund, and this goes into the general fund, expect that its going to be funded from all sources, including this source. Grasser reported that the building fees were mentioned, that the rate per 1,000 may not be changing but the cost of building a house, construction costs are going up and deriving greater revenue and getting more income based on that. Gershman stated that the value of the house is going up, but that is not the point, the point is that if you're going to raise a fee - that the alcohol tax goes up, that is a given and it should but why wouldn't other permits go up to do business and that is the consistency he is talking about.

Christensen stated we can move this forward to the council and the council will make a decision, if want to increase or decrease the fees line by line.

Howard Swanson, city attorney, stated he understood that the fees were actually included in the budget book, unfortunately over the last few years the council has changed the ordinances for the fees, where fees used to be set by ordinance, to say that the fees were removed from the ordinance books and were to be approved annually by resolution - that resolution was not adopted when the budget book was approved by ordinance, and procedure ally his advice to the auditor was need to go forward now with whatever fees you're going to charge. The question is if you can increase the fees after you have adopted your budget, the answer is yes, you will accordingly have to make an appropriate amendment to your budget but there are some fees that you do not have the authority to raise because they are capped by State law. To answer directly your question can you go across the board with a percentage, probably not - majority can but not all - what is necessary is that some form or fashion, whatever level of fees you are going to impose for 2011 needs to be adopted by resolution. Gershman stated that if committee chooses to adopt this to go forward, staff could go back with some time ands readjust these with a resolution.- Swanson stated must adopt the resolution before the end of the year, your fees will not increase - have to take some action before the end of the year. The adoption of the budget did not change your fees. but allowed to change the fees after the adoption of the budget. Swanson stated that if not acting on this tonight to just hold it but will need to act on the resolution to set fees before the end of the year.

Swanson stated his understanding is that you have adopted a budget with certain levels of revenue and if those levels of revenue are predicated on fee structure you would have to be at least at that level. He stated what you would be doing is amending your budget because you are going to have unanticipated revenues for income in the future. It is inconsistent with the plan that the council set forth a number of years ago where we used to adopt the fees whenever it came up, some in November, some in March, and council wanted it all part of the budget process, and finance dept. included it in the budget book, what didn't happen was a separate motion to approve the fees, that should have been concurrent with the adoption of the budget but didn't happen - so pointed out to finance that your fees have not been properly established by resolution.

Glassheim asked if the committee wishes to review each item because some of them can't be raised because of State law, others have particular circumstances like we raised it before but was too much and now don't want to raise it again, do you want to go item by item on this committee to the council to evaluate each one and be explained by staff why it's this and not that - that he doesn't want to go see them all. Gershman stated he thought we had policy procedure on it, and when he read this saw that it wasn't. Christensen stated we can move this forward at council and discuss it and/or send it back to us or decide it at council. - that can hold this for another 2 weeks or move it forward to council and let council decide what they want to do. Glassheim stated need to accept staff or explain each one.

Motion by Glassheim to approve recommendation and move it forward to city council, Sande seconded the motion but thinks should adopt some sort of policy. Motion carried.

4. Flood insurance on City owned property.
Jerath reported they were asked by council to bring the flood insurance on city property forward, that summary attached with the staff report and that the flood insurance premium on all city-owned buildings and contents is $187,548, there is extra flood insurance required by FEMA on 3 of our properties, water treatment plant, civic auditorium and Senior Citizens Center and have deleted the civic auditorium and also received money from FEMA after the flood to repair those buildings and are required to have insurance on those properties for approx. 10 years, some 15 and some 25 years - Optional flood insurance $21,676 but rest required by FEMA for specific number of years.

There were questions by committee whether all buildings need coverage. Bjerke questioned why pay premium for 25 years for water treatment plant with coverage of $3.5 million, and ask government for waiver, majority of money not going back to government but to Lloyds of London; and some of the buildings insured are west of the Interstate and didn't flood the last time. the Public Works building is insured for flood and that if that goes under water, we have more to worry about than the $1500 premium. Jerath stated couldn't get excess insurance except from Lloyds of London and were required to have that.

Grasser stated that if lift stations flooded wouldn't affect pipe and concrete but is electrical and control systems, etc. It was noted that would have to insure our flood protection system so in case it fails and can get money to repair. Feland reported that the City received $8-9 million from FEMA to renovate water treatment plant and that was contingent part of that - we do have building where we didn't receive FEMA money and don't necessarily need to insure but is policy item - that we could get a significant rain event in the city where could have flooding from within the city where our storm pump stations can't handle it.

Motion by Glassheim that we continue to insure fully and request the Mayor's Office to contact FEMA to see if we can be released from insuring the water treatment plant. Sande seconded the motion.

Christensen asked if there were any areas that they would recommend that we not insure. Feland stated he would go through all these properties and come back with a better list. Christensen asked that staff tell them what they want to insure and what have insured and move forward. Motion carried. Christensen stated at council he would move that the recommendation be that staff authorized to spend $21,676 optional insurance as think necessary.

5. Potential sale of property described as Lot 3, Block 1, Perkins's Sixth Resubdivision with no assigned address.
Jerath reported this is small piece of property and was purchased from delinquent tax lots from the County and wanted council to declare as surplus property so that property can be sold. Motion by Glassheim and Sand to approve and move forward to council. Motion carried.

6. Matter of real estate property negotiations near the new solid waste landfill update
Todd Feland, director of public works, stated the issue is that they set a date certain on amending the negotiations and has talked with Mr. Swanson and they are in concurrence, that whether that be 30 days from now and whatever that time frame might be and are proponent of picking a number of days or an end date. Christensen asked if 30 days from council's action on Monday if move this forward. Swanson stated that would be appropriate, and what they would be doing is looking for a signed purchase agreement - would like to get a timeline to tell people if interested, here's the timeline to proceed in - that in the update from his office on one property there have been some productive discussions but little bit slow and other property have had little or no response. Christensen asked if should move it forward and if his recommendation (Mr. Feland) that we close negotiations within 30 days from Monday, October 4. Motion by Glassheim and seconded by Sande for approval. Motion carried. Mr. Swanson asked that the motion include that they need a signed purchase agreement by that
deadline.

7. Wastewater/Water Enterprise Fund analysis overview and update.
Feland stated they are doing a lot of water and wastewater master planning but three issues that are the drivers on this: upcoming changes to Simplot wastewater operations, potential GF/EGF wastewater interconnect and new water treatment facility. He reviewed background information from 2008 and 2009 on the projects and where we are at the present time.

Feland presented overview or summary of important points and study that was completed
and how raised rates the study called for. He reported they have completed cost of service (COS) study and implemented that in 2004, and the things that have come up is J.R. Simplot treatment process which is changing and will mean stable revenue from where they are now and we are going to have to change our rate making re. Simplot, how their treatment process is changing and how we are going to bill them on the industrial side. East Grand Forks came to the City of Grand Forks about year ago and asked if they could come together with the City and look at ways to interconnecting the two systems; within the last month or so they have came back to the City and they decided not to look at it - but about month ago came back and asked if they could re-examine that issue and look at ways that we could interconnect the systems; and met with EGF.

He noted what they want to do because of all the changes that are happening in both water and wastewater, are going to ask to move ahead with the re-rating of the wastewater treatment plant - currently the plant is rated on flow, BOD (biochemical oxygen demand), total suspended solids and nitrogen, that with the proposed loading which includes EGF, Simplot changes, and also looked at our future growth and have issues on flow and on nitrogen - and would like to do is demonstrate through modeling and other anaerobic ways that our treatment plant can treat at least 11.5mgd on average and can also meet the nitrogen issue. - and would like to go back to provide a new model to the Department of Health with our new analysis and basically we can change or re-rate these number from original when plant first designed so that we can meet the current expectations of Simplot and EGF if choose to go with EGF but primarily doing this because of J.R.Simplot and their changes and to bill them from future capacity.
First thing asking for is that we need to re-rate the plant so that we can accommodate future growth and the changes J.R. Simplot is making as part of their process.

Christensen stated we can accommodate future growth without going back to the State of ND, but we don't have EGF so nothing changes except for nitrogen. Feland stated we need to change our model and asking to change the model, now have current model, and since Simplot has changed to modify the model, demonstrate that we have enough current treatment capacity to accommodate their new treatment process which we can do - rerunning our model, sending memorandum to Department of Health stating our analysis and then go by that. Christensen stated that is time sensitive so we should authorize that and should engage in continuing conversation as to what will be necessary re. the East Grand Forks connect because we have already gone through that, that they chose not to do it, and important going forward if we choose to entertain that, we define the costs and parameters in which the conversations would go forward; and with Mr. Burian's group can better handle on this and we can sit down with them and tell them what some of the policy considerations we feel would be appropriate to be addressed as part of their modeling so we know costs to add that capacity to our systems. He stated we would much rather have a very good plan from AE2S on that and costs pros and cons so that the policymakers have good plan to do it or not. Feland stated what they are asking is that they would like to bring back re-rating the treatment plant, doing cost allocation study - Christensen stated for Simplot and wants better study from pros and for them to analyze it so policymakers can give you some direction as to what to expect if we authorize you to move forward with the conversation.

Feland stated what we would like to do is bring back information and last thing is that Mr. Christensen has asked about the rate analysis, cost of service rate making with AE and implemented that in 2004 and the estimate is based and is cost of service rate analysis that they conducted, and see the actual and that was how much rates went up - and caveat to this is in the water because we knew the water treatment facility was coming - did that through 2012 and carried this through 2010 - and if look at every part of the utility bill - water, refuse or sanitation, wastewater and in stormwater have projections of what we should raise the rates and that the City has raised those less than was projected. He believes the City is under very good job, has increased reimbursable, done the pilot and have delayed the water treatment plant and invested $2 million to keep operating very well for 10 to 15 years longer, incorporated a new solid waste landfill, incorporated greenway into those things and at the same time are charging less than what was originally projected. That it is a good story of the city council managing these things, and also shows flexibility moving forward, that have held off on raising some of these rates, and with 2000 were an age of inflation of people's homes and concern about trying to keep things as low as possible; and had cash reserves in water and other funds - and is reflection and when come back, would like to do is look at the costs of service rate analysis, update that and work with finance and AE to get some new projections; and that is where we are at.

Christensen asked if same briefing to Service/Safety Comm. tomorrow and look at Simplot, and get that done because they expect something - but the other part, EGF, because wouldn't be prudent to authorize you to do something until such time as explore all our costs and intended costs and enhance the appreciation, utilization and funding for that before you start talking. He stated reason he asked to get this was that we are significantly behind raising rates they suggested had to be raised as planned for a water treatment facility - they can look at this to see what was estimated they should have done but what we did do and how far we are behind, and should get something from AE2 and staff as to how and when we should begin raising the rates to fund the plant so the citizens are not totally caught off guard when this plant is built and bill goes up; and for the next 18-24 months to get this planned out and done with it.

Glassheim asked what is the difference between the estimate and the actual - Feland stated the estimate came from the study, projected out 5 years and 10 years in water and was part of the cost of service analysis; the actual is what you did year to year; projects have come to fruition, been developed well and spent less money than what was projected as part of the model, and savings were involved in that. That now would like to update where we are at and bring back studies to start updating things that you know where coming from, and next 5 years involve a lot of planning and implementing.

The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk