Committee Minutes

Minutes of the Grand Forks City Council/Combined
Finance/Development and Service/Safety Standby Committees
Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 5:00 p.m._________________

The city council of the city of Grand Forks sitting as the Service/Safety Standby Committee and the Finance/Development Committee met in combined session in Room A101 in City Hall on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 at 5:00 p.m. Present at roll call were Council Members Kreun, chair; Bakken, McNamara, Gershman; Christensen, chair. Others presented were John Schmisek, Rick Duquette, Mark Walker, Al Gershman, Todd Feland.

1. Greenway Betterment Financial Overview.
Al Grasser, city engineer, stated the Corps just released project update that the project costs went up about $1.5 million but from our side looks like the project decreasing, we are not giving definite numbers on it because haven't run it through finance, but our preliminary indications on project cost is about $409 million (GF and EGF), our side about $234 or $235 and federal share is $115.5 million on GF side; those are the numbers we get from the Corps. He stated when trying to break some of those number down to what our actual shares are because there are non-participating things, betterments, etc. we are netting out that our local cost share looks like it is about $232 million and now we are factoring in the State of ND at $50.5 million, as the legislation that is going through now has not passed. He stated that if the legislation currently at the state level goes to $52 million, but for our purposes we are holding it at $50.5 and that gives our net city share to about $81.5 million which is steady and a little less than the beginning of the project, which was about $82.5 - that is the quick overview and will try to get more of those dollars refined once they are able to work through the details and coordinate that with finance, but is good news for us on local side.

Christensen reported present.

Mark Walker reviewed the flood protection betterments - have made a couple adjustments since the last time we saw this, we included 45% cost share by the State of ND for both 3-ft. floodwall height increase as well as a 3-ft. levee raise and also refined the amounts the Corps is charging us on the basis of the estimates, the cost of the floodwall raise went down a little bit. He stated we will end up with more betterment monies if the State's share changes their cost sharing from 45% to 50%. The other item was the haul road restoration and shows a potential project cost at $2.66 million, and what will happen with that project is unknown, and is a topic for discussion today, but that is the cost figure that is included in these flood protection benefits. He stated with these cost estimates and the participation that we are getting back from the State, there are about $213,000 of uncommitted benefits available in the flood protection.

Note: Betterment is a term that the Corps has produced - they call any expense that is not necessary for the Corps project for flood protection and recreation is a betterment - that if the City wants a betterment, they have to pay for it at 100%.

Mr. Grasser stated that the City set up a starting balance of $6 million in the original budget for flood protection and $5 million for the greenway side. Mr. Walker stated that there is no State participation on those except that the State has later agreed to participate in the floodwall raise as well as the emergency levee stockpile; and in the greenway betterment budget they have included every project that has been approved by council for funding under that budget and the bottom line or running balance indicates that there is still about $1.2 million of funding available in that budget. There were 3 potential projects that had some interest and included them in at the bottom of the list, they are listed as question marks as far as dollar amount, that there is some interest in whether or not we would fund any of these - 1) dog park, 2) request from Park District that we consider putting up some type of removable stairway on the side of the levee in the sledding hill, and 3) a couple of existing trails that are in the greenway that were existing prior to the Corps construction of the project and might be deserving to overlay those trails and get them into new condition; but irregardless to the costs here they are all pretty much complete and that there are a couple questions of what will eventually happen with the Riverside pool payment to the Park Board, what will we do with the pool, will we rehab. it replace it, or convert it - those are potential expenses that may still come out of this budget. The other one is that we will still have one last phase of greenway cleanup that we will likely do this year, not a big expense but cost could change, and would basically include removing old infrastructure (streets, sidewalks).

Mr. Walker reported the consultants submitted him the first draft of report, that they are working on their next draft and that it would be complete next month and could do a presentation in March. There was discussion re. the $830,000 and why the City is supposed to pay that amount to the Park District - Mr. Walker stated in the beginning of the project in 2000 the City of Grand Forks entered into an agreement with the Park District where the Park District would transfer lands that were going to be in the greenway and under the levee, all lands that they owned that were necessary for the construction of the greenway and the levee, and transfer those lands to the City of Grand Forks, and there were also inclusions of payment to the Park District, one of which was $830,000 for the Riverside Pool, and it was stated that it would be reimbursement of Park District expense to rebuild a new facility on the north side of Grand Forks, and agreement states a pool and another place about splash park and is a little unclear as to exactly what type of facility (noted that one place about water park and another about splash park). Christensen asked for a copy of the agreement.

Bakken stated there was an agreement made on the pool with the anticipation that the pool was going to be taken out of there and moved to a different area on the dry side and started out to be on the north end, and also doing one in a different location depending on the study of children; agreement didn't say pool - either water park or splash park.

The question was asked why if this was a buyout did it come from Betterment Funds. Mr. Grasser stated the betterment is for the facility, not for the land, that we paid them some amount of money for the golf course around $2 million. Mr. Walker stated that the agreement states that the Park District will transfer all the land to us that we need and in exchange we will pay them up to $830,000 as reimbursements, we will pay them the cost of the golf course, $2.0+ some million, and we would lease back to the Park District the 3 parks and the golf course. Mr. Grasser stated the agreement went through and noted that we were going to be replacing a number of different facilities within those park areas, and that they were going to provide the land, decision was made that the pool was gone, and that was going to help recreate or mitigate the loss of the pool by parks/splash parks, etc. They spent $230,000 for the splash park in University Park; and It was noted that amount was deducted from the $830,000. Bakken stated the $830,000 number came up because they brought in deal as to what kind of splash park it was going to be, and showed northend people what give them in place of the pool, location was never defined. Grasser stated it was supposed to be splash park at Lincoln and other locations. Schmisek stated there was also replacement of the playground equipment and they would install the warming houses. Mr. Grasser stated they would get committee and copy of that agreement.

Christensen stated they should know how much money we have left because it was noted that we paid for the splash park, and also know that there is a splash park at Elks pool and another in southwest part of town. He stated we have some policy decisions to make and are we getting into long term lease with the Park District to operate the park, we have a couple nice parks, they have been cutting grass, taking care of bathrooms, warming house, taking care of one, other 2 are still under the contract. - there are other projects they are anticipating, which is wellness center, and want to make sure that we aren't used as a source of revenue to finance their projects. Gershman stated that there is a bit of broken faith because that $830,000 was to put a facility into the northend of Grand Forks, but got $230,000, and asked if it is used much. It was noted that it is used a lot; and that they are still waiting for Riverside Park.

Grasser stated they wouldn't be able to sort this out until you go through the Riverside pool consulting report, the consulting report and study, and find out, what if any, amount of money it is going to take to produce what we want, and assuming some of that money would come out of here. It was noted that the agreement won't say anything about a pool; and it was noted that they have an extensive conceptual plan for it but doesn't include the pool. Gershman stated they want the pool to become a playground, etc., great plan but not a pool and doesn't believe pools are out of style, but around the country cities are renovating WPA pools.

Mr. Walker stated the original agreement had a map (provide that when provides a copy of the agreement) and it indicated approx. what lands were Park District owned that they would give to the City, the agreement also said that the Park District would give the lands that were in the greenway and the tennis court at Riverside wasn't included on the map, it was purposely excluded, recognizing that the levee wasn't going to put that on the wet side, so was not needed, and also the same thing happened with the tennis court at Elks Drive. Grasser stated that those parcels of land never came off the Park, those parcels were never contemplated in the transfer to the City, and never conveyed to us. Grasser stated we are not conveying them back but just defining it as a plat. Mr. Walker stated he thinks the way the process is going to work is that today the holder of the deed of the property is the Park District and when finish the plats we can file the plats and that there can be an exchange of deeds and likely the land where the tennis court is sitting will either remain in the Park District's hands or if they deed it over to us, will simply deed it back as a convenient way of transferring the property so that there is a clear record by the plat. He stated that they will have to final that agreement and realize that the pool study has to come in and we have to make some decisions on that.

Gershman stated that question is to go back to agreement of the $830,000 to see exactly what that says and if that said northend and knows how the people feel about everything going south and if they get one-third of the money, they feel that they are going to be short-changed and need to look at that very hard. McNamara stated one of the complaints from Riverside park people is that their pool is not heated, and look at numbers. Gershman stated you have to make it a family place with great slide, and interesting place to go, etc.; the Park District does not want pools and ran that place to fail. Kreun stated we are getting way off the topic and that we are here on financial overview and not whether discussing whether pool or splash park and want to get over the financial aspect. Grasser stated that concludes the report on the greenway betterment.

Christensen stated that has questions re. dog park, sledding hill stairway (doesn't believe need to build stairway for kids to climb up there, liability), and overlay. Kreun stated they wanted to get some estimates on the overlays so know what the cost will be, how much want to overlay and what repair, and put that back into the budget.

2. Flood Protection Project Haul Road Overview.
Grasser stated that he would go through background, Mark Walker has sent out packet and gives background on what they found on the haul roads and a potential plan, to summarize what they have is found a lot of technical difficulties with trying to directly connect the hauling routes with damages, and pages 1 and 2 of the report reviews that. He talked about possible options for paid for flood roads, one would be for City to pick up 100%, other would be to assess, and what actually talking about doing is Option 3, with the theory that these flood damaged roads that the City would try to get them back up to their original condition or into realistic condition - that concept is to provide a seal coat, free of charge to the residents on an asphalt street; for a concrete street they would like to keep it concrete and talking more concrete panel replacement and that would be a basic road restoration type, not bring everything up to new standards, but repair those. He reviewed map showing location of mill and overlay, seal cost on asphalt streets, they made big effort to eliminate assessments because nobody wants to deal with a lot of neighborhood issues if can avoid them, panel repair which is free, there is a little bit on East Elmwood which was really trashed, probably not from flood project as from the home demolition.
(Minor panel repair is where there are badly broken up concrete panels, pop them out and replace.) McNamara stated that everybody should pay their own fair share.

Grasser stated what they are proposing is that the seal coat and panel replacements are absorbed by the project, and if needed a mill and overlay, and in Sunbeam those areas were in need of mill and overlay before the flood, but in order to control or have cap or limit of what people may ask for is defaulting back to the standard city policies of how we would handle mill and overlays or reconstructions and now City policy is that on a mill and overlay the City would pay 50% of that work and on reconstruction City would pay 80% on a road that the City agrees needs reconstruction. The math is if look at table for Option3 , residents on a seal coat would be zero assessments, a mill and overlay is take the cost of the project, which is $11/sq.yd. subtract off the seal coat which is about $2 so get $4.50 when taking half of that; take $11 minus $2 divided by 2 and get $4.50; and $5.40 when there is the assessment markup that comes back into it.. He stated everybody gets credit for seal coat, and absorb engineering on that so only talking potentially 20% markup rather than the standard 28%, and from engineering standpoint doesn't know that it takes a lot more work to do a mill and overlay than it does for the seal coat, maybe little extra effort. The cost for frontage foot and Mr. Grasser stated they can get that info. Christensen stated he would like for mill and overlay as 80-20% or 75-25% - Grasser stated it netted out to about 63% because there was a combination of 50-50% and parts 80-20% and when combined ended up about 60+%. Grasser noted that the project is about $435,000 and if do zero special assessment markups it would be special assessing $132,500 and City would be picking up about 75% of the total overall cost. Schmisek stated that the cost for administration and interest during construction and the misc. costs of Commission are still there. Grasser stated they are planning on having some meetings with the Sunbeam neighborhoods so can go through and explain this. Grasser stated that if the council goes with zero % markup, looking at net cost to the subdivision as $132,500, and without City help would be $435,000 and they are paying about 25% of the total cost. Mark stated he calculated that and it was 31%. Kreun stated they can go back to cost per front footage and put a cost for front footage on all three options; that they are looking for cost per individual homeowner. Christensen stated $169,600 vs. $132,500 is $37,000 and is nothing for the goodwill will get if pass on your costs, when finalizing this, we can bill your department in other areas and the $37,000 is not going to run your department in the red, and we can move some of that out of the Betterment budget and he would like them to do if going to do the mill and overlay. Grasser stated this shows the assessment district for the scope of work and actually figured the entire Sunbeam area.

Grasser stated the other item he would like to address today is Elmwood and his recommendation is to do that project and the reason is because by the time we pay 80% of the cost plus have the intercity land, hardly worth it.

Grasser stated the last item is summary of what decisions committee has made and some of this will be going back on the CW, some not going to the CW but incorporate these decisions when creating the engineer's report - part of the costs that they are identifying flood project and when pay for cash vs. what pay for no fee - bring assessment district and engineer's report in that manner.

Duquette stated on the Riverside Park, North 3rd Street, minor panel repairs, funding scenario for those - Grasser stated those are free.

Kreun stated the only question they are having is do we want to charge any overhead costs in this flood protection project. Christensen stated to bring it in without any overhead costs and lay it in as a cost throughout the community, is to everybody's benefit.

Grasser stated they would talk with John to see if can roll those costs into the budget. Walker stated he counted the lots in the assessment district and comes up with 167 and that would be $1,000 spread over 20 year period and even at 28%

Motion to adjourn was moved by McNamara and seconded by Bakken. Motion carried.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk