Committee Minutes

MINUTES/FINANCE-DEVELOPMENT STANDBY COMM.
Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 8:00 a.m.________________

Members present: Christensen, chair; Gershman, Glassheim, Hamerlik.

Others present: Al Grasser, Cindy Voigt, Mark Walker, Melanie Parvey-Biby, John Schmisek, Richard Duquette.

2.1 Agreement with Park District.

Chairman Christensen called the meeting to order and called on Al Grasser, City Engineer, to discuss the first agenda item. Mr. Grasser distributed copies of the purchase agreement with exhibits attached. The committee inquired why the lease agreement was not yet signed. Mr. Grasser stated that they are waiting on receipt of the new legal description, so that they can accurately designate which land is to be leased. He further stated that using the plat description is more easily understood and the plat will be going to the Planning & Zoning Commission in December. Mr. Grasser referred to the map (Exhibit A) and pointed out the areas that will be leased. Mr. Grasser stated that as per the agreement any maintenance and associated costs will be borne by the park district, versus the City having liability for the remaining areas.

(Gershman arrived.)

Mr. Grasser stated that the agreement will be signed once the plats are approved, dike alignment is set, and the land title is transferred.

Mr. Grasser informed the committee that there are some areas that the Corps has completed work and is ready to turn the land back to the City for control, but need to work with the City Attorney on a document that could identify the land currently being transferred and then be able to amend it to include the other areas as they are completed.

The committee discussed what earlier discussions and intent had been in regard to the Riverside Pool specifically and whether any discussions had taken place on what if anything changes in the purchase agreement if the pool is not converted to another use. The committee discussed that there is a desire by the Park District to use the $830,000 to construct splash parks at alternate locations to Riverside Park, and that the agreement had stated that the $830,000 was to use splash parks to replace Riverside Park and if keep Riverside Park open, whether the City should seek to relook at the agreement. Mr. Grasser referred the Committee to Item 3a on page 2 of the document which states that the City agrees to acquire the land and reimburse the park district in an amount not to exceed the $830,000 for construction of a splash park. The committee stated that the main issue the park district has in continuing to operate Riverside Pool is the annual short fall in revenues and that perhaps that needs to be looked at in arriving at a price to lease the pool back or if the City should rather just hire a manager for the pool and then look for ways to cover any shortfall. The committee discussed that a group had suggested forming a foundation to conduct gaming with revenues going to cover the shortfall.

Mr. Grasser pointed out that the City will also be responsible for any needed repairs and cleanup on the pool should there be a flood event in the future. He stated that the interim flood protection project will only protect the pool to a 45 foot level. Mr. Glassheim suggested that perhaps the committee should be given information detailing how many floods we have had over the years that were greater than that amount and what a projected cost would be to a flood event.

The committee discussed what areas of the Riverside Pool issue would be researched and analyzed by the study group that the Park District has put together, and whether one of these areas would be usage. Mr. Glassheim stated that he believed that was within the scope of the study group. Chair Christensen requested that follow-up information be returned to the committee on this once the study is complete.

Mr. Glassheim stated that using a foundation would be similar to the Blue Line Club arena which is also funded through gaming proceeds, but is a public facility.

The committee discussed that one decision that will need to be made is whether the facility is leased to someone to operate or if we just hire someone to manage the facility and prepare for covering any shortfall – whether that is through a foundation or some other method. The committee also discussed that perhaps if the facility was leased to a foundation to operate that there may be an opportunity for the foundation to also apply for grants to assist with improvements and operations of the facility, which is an opportunity that the City would not have.

Chair Christensen listed specific areas that required follow-up information:

1) Clarification of the intent on the $830,000 usage, including the Park District’s expectation of the funds.
2) Getting the lease document in a form that can be signed.
3) Define which park areas will be managed by the Park District for the coming year and details of the management agreement.
4) Provide the cost of demolition that the City would be responsible for should they decide to remove the demolition from the current Corps bid package. (Mr. Grasser stated that he believes that the City would be able to complete this work at a cheaper rate than if the corps were completing the work. )

Mr. Glassheim suggested that it may be helpful to secure a copy of the earlier study completed by the Park District on the usage and proposed improvements to the Riverside Park area. Mr. Grasser stated that the Park District should have copies of that study.

2.2 Preliminary 3-5 Year CIP Report.

Chair Christensen stated that the committee is interested in what’s in the 2004 budget and what the need’s are looking forward, as opposed to a complete list of all potential projects.

Mr. Schmisek distributed to the committee a copy of the 2003-2008 CIP tables. He prefaced the review of the documents with comments that they were prepared by staff in 2003 and that some items may not be accurately listed. The Mayor has asked staff to review the tables and update them prior to January 1, 2004.

Mr. Schmisek reviewed the various items on the list with the committee.

For the PSAP, he stated that the project listed for 2003 has not been done and was moved to 2005 in the last budget round. He stated that this project could be financed with a borrowing and would have repayment from a combination of sources, as PSAP is a combination of UND, County, and City funds.

For the Fire Department, he stated that the project listed would be paid from the Public Building Fund and that the project listed for 2004 is not in the budget and has been moved to a later year.

For the Street Department, there is a salt storage building which will be paid for with a borrowing, with the rest of the projects on the table and needing review.

For the Police Department, the Public Safety Building Addition is not in the budget for 2004, but will be requested again in the future. Mr. Duquette stated that a consultant had analyzed the Civic Auditorium to see what capability there was to use that building instead of a building addition, but the costs were too great to bring the Civic up to technological capability.

For the Fire Department, Mr. Schmisek stated that the pumper would only be needed if the new station were constructed. He informed the Committee that there is a potential for a few years out as development of the Engelstad site continues that the Northend Fire Hall may be relocated to near the Mini Mart on North 42nd Street or some other location. He stated that the spreadsheets also show the desire to construct a training site in 2006, and that this item has been on the books for several years and has been rescheduled several times.

Police Department includes a remodel of the Community Resource Building, which is the old southend Fire Station.

The Street Department equipment that is listed is planned as a one time charge to the Highway User Fund, with future equipment needs being reserved a small amount each year so that by the time the replacement is needed the reserve should cover it.

Streets and Highway items are very outdated and in fact the list does not contain all of the items that are actually in the 2004 budget. The list appears to be more a list of previously proposed projects for 2004. The committee requested a list of those projects that need to be completed in the near future so that they could better prioritize and prepare for the expenditures. Mr. Grasser stated that there is a comprehensive list of proposed projects, however the problem is that without City participation the projects are usually protested out and at this time he has no funding source for the City share on some of the projects.

Chair Christensen stated that perhaps if a list of needed projects could be compiled, then the matter of a sales tax to be used for funding infrastructure projects could be brought back to the people, with these particular projects being used as examples of how the sales tax would be used. He further stated the this could also be used to show people how a potential rotation could be done with areas of town that have infrastructure needs to be funded with the tax so that they could see that it would benefit all areas of town and not only some. If a list compiled of only projects that were necessary was available it would be easier to look at prioritizing and determining funding needs at budget time.

Mr. Gershman stated that the Council also needs to take a look at some roadways in town and address concerns by the public that the truck traffic from dike construction has taken a hard toll on the roadways, thereby necessitating them being repaired or replaced sooner than normal and thus creating an additional cost for the area homeowners, and that perhaps those should rather be paid for through a city-wide assessment and that a policy on these type of issues needs to be discussed. Chair Christensen stated that possibly Engineering could quantify which streets would require this type of repair and the City could use City share of dike dollars to pay for any reconstructon or repair costs. He inquired how much of our dollars were still unallocated. Mr. Grasser stated that there may be a small opportunity in this area, but that all but a small amount of our dollars have been used. He further stated that with the uncertain outcome of the FEMA appeal process the City needs to keep some funding available and that there maybe a carryover of approximately $2.3 million that could potentially be used to pay the city’s 80% share on a project.

Mr. Schmisek noted for the committee that to date the capital needs in the utility funds had been included in the rate studies and the rate structure that was set had been able to handle the cost of those projects.

The committee discussed the ability to do a similar type study for non-utility funds, to allow for better long-term planning. The goal would be to phase out of the use of special assessments for infrastructure and allow for other funding sources to plan for the expenditures.

Mr. Schmisek pointed out for the committee that pages two and three of the handout are an analysis of the public building fund and shows how dollars could be freed up as we go forward.

Chair Christensen directed staff to continue with the analysis and revision of the list and to return it to committee prior to the beginning of the next CIP round. Chair Christensen also requested that within the next couple of weeks, a list of the street projects that would need to be completed in the next couple of years be compiled and provided to committee. Mr. Grasser stated that for a full list of what may have been damaged due to flood protection work, may need to wait until further into the completion of the greenway and dike project. Mr. Schmisek added that all of this information will continue to be updated and will be provided again to the committee at the start of the 2005 budget process.

Chair Christensen also inquired as to the sales tax allocation and if Mr. Schmisek could review that to see if an adjustment to that allocation needed to be recommended to cover some of the upcoming infrastructure costs. The committee discussed other areas that could also be explored as funding sources prior to making changes in the sales tax allocation.

Meeting adjourned 5:25 p.m.



Respectfully submitted,


Sherie Lundmark