Committee Minutes

MINUTES/SAFETY-SERVICE STANDBY COMMITTEE
Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 5:00 p.m.__________________

Members present: Kreun, Kerian.

Others attending: Gershman, Chief O'Neill, Mark Walker, Al Grasser, Melanie Parvey-Biby, Scott McNamee, Tom Lander,

1. Proposed boat ramp.
Chairman Kreun stated there has been some concern in the community about the proposed boat ramp, that this is going little bit fast and want to look at some other areas and give information to the public so can get good feel of what the public wants, what the needs are and how fund this project.

Melanie Parvey-Biby, greenway coordinator, gave brief overview - that in the original concept plan they talked about additional river access points in the greenway concept plan and were asked by the Greenway Task Force to look at developing these access points; they started working with the engineering staff and looked at the stability of the land, the development of the flood protection project, the access points they had - there was a difference between an up and over access point and vehicle access point and cost difference associated with the two: an up and over access point costs approx. $150,000 vs. $500,000 for a vehicle access point - have limited number of vehicle access points in the greenway and were looking at the location of the proposed ramp relative to other ramps because working with East Grand Forks and DNR and wanted to stagger them so didn't have two in the downtown area or two in the north so people can access the river in different areas of town as well as the curvature of the river - they looked at potential sites and worked with ND Game & Fish, did a land and water survey and came up with two potential sites after looking at all the options - in Lincoln Drive and Elks Drive, and came up with recommendation of developing a ramp in Lincoln Drive because land more stable (had some stability issue concerns in Elks Drive); there was a boat ramp there at one point but number of maintenance issues with having to resurface that time and time again. She stated they have talked to the Park District about cost sharing, the cost of the Lincoln Drive ramp is between $80 and $90,000 and Game & Fish Department (if you submit an application to them and they approve the request) will fund up to 75% of the cost of the project, so local share would only be 25% and if work with the Park District, would be about 12-13% each - now looking at possible options and maintenance considerations.

Chairman Kreun stated they want input and comments from the public, concerns that the public has brought up and with the information from the public and from engineering, Park District and Game & Fish to make a good decision and if it takes a while to do that, we're willing to do that - the process that will probably have is for the committee to take information and to make some recommendation tonight and take that to the committee of the whole - gives engineering department a direction of which way to go and greenway coordinator to write grants and to look for funding.

Kerian asked for picture of what the greenway committee had of using the river from their standpoint - overall picture of access to water and use of water, and asked how does this fit within all of the things, locations they want to do. Ms. Biby stated there is desire to have river access for boating, kiacking, riverbank fishing, use of our river system; that they are trying to develop the greenway so that it is a multi-use recreational area and looking at all uses from snowmobiling to cross-country skiing to fishing, walking, nature trails, etc. so they touch on every recreational aspect and challenge of the project is trying to set all of those recreational users into the area they have - opportunities for all these activities to work together.

Chairman Kreun stated they want to keep in mind as far as whole greenway is concerned is that they do want usage in the greenway and if get usage it will be easier to keep clean and neat, better patrolled and won't become an eyesore - that part of the whole project of the greenway is to get people to utilize it because it will be huge amenity for us, and that with some of the few trails we have put down there, people are using those even n the wintertime and in some place someone has blown the snow off, etc (not City nor Park District) and they are keeping the trails clean.

Hal Gershman stated he attended the meeting at Phoenix School re. Lincoln Park area, and neighbors made some good points - that early on in this process of the greenway, decided there should be some sort of park at the Lincoln Park area, and was relatively simple affair, however, it started taking on much larger type of park and the neighborhood was very tolerant of the changes and expansion of that park - that now there is only one way in and one way out and all the traffic funneled on one street and they have a tremendous concern about putting in another parking lot and a boat ramp that will increase the traffic and length of the trailers, concern with the children, etc. He stated that after talking with John Staley that the boat ramp is going to be fairly busy and something that is going to be utilized to a great degree - that boat ramp is also needed for safety reasons and the fire department to get into the river for rescue needs - but would like us to step back and let the neighborhood absorb this expanded park this year, let the traffic patterns happen and then would recommend that they form a committee of neighborhood interested people with the fishing population, having fire chief for their concerns, the Park District, etc. but believes the citizens should be involved in the discussion and hoping will postpone it for this year in developing and seeing how they can look at where a boat ramp could go. He stated that in looking at the Elks the issue seems to be that there is an instability in the land - (that after the flood that many were concerned about saving properties in Grand Forks and were told that there had to be a levee, that floodwalls could not be done because of instability of the soil, but there are floodwalls going in various locations (downtown, Reeves Drive and in southend) in areas that they were told could not be done because of the stability but with engineering and perseverance and taking time to step back and look at it, they found that land can be stabilized, and owe it to the residents to examine how they could possibly stabilize the land at Elks and get the boat ramp there. He stated as far as parking lot, use gravel which takes weight away from stabilization problem and/or expanding the clubhouse parking lot which is on high ground and stable - that the golf course clubhouse is going to be a multi-purpose facility and will be very attractive for fishing person population to use and good for recreation - good for the Park District and John Staley stated that his preference is Elks. He stated he would request the committee to make a recommendation to the committee of the whole that we step back this year - that the grant will be in jeopardy unless they can change the location and possibility for next year, but believes they will have to wait. Ms. Biby stated they in order to do it for 2003, would need decision by February 3 to submit it for 2003. Gershman stated that if we were to say we wanted to focus on the Elks, could submit it for Elks and take the year to see if we can get that done there, and if that is a possibility. Mark Walker stated in talking with Fish & Game their funding is set up and would desire to use the funding that year because the levee project is in Phase III and possibly finish the levee construction in the Elks area in 2004 but no guarantee until 2005, and if the Elks area was selected would want to submit a grant on that and suggested that they do that this year.
Gershman stated that citizen input on these types of things because he has had the experience where his home and his neighbors were jeopardized, were told impossible, got involved and were able to work out some alternatives, and that this is less than saving homes but does need citizen input and would request that is what they would consider.

Kerian stated it was her understanding that the site was agreed to by Game & Fish at Lincoln Park and that if a grant came it would come for location. Ms. Biby stated that when they looked at the areas they looked at stability as well as slope, and when taking input in from other communities along the Red River, that was one thing they heard over and over again was that a boat ramp will work but a successful boat ramp is when you can have a parking lot a little higher, not too far from the ramp, because nobody likes to walk too far and ramp goes gradually into the river so that if it floods throughout the summer season they are able to use it throughout the whole season and if just a flatter slope then not able to access it throughout the season as the water fluctuates. Mr. Walker stated that stability of the land wasn't so much looked at by Game & Fish, more so by the Corps of Engineers who have measured that at numerous locations when they did their design of the levees and floodwalls.

Chairman Kreun asked how many sites were looked at by Game & Fish and Corps and greenway and if there were any alternatives; Ms. Biby stated they looked at the whole area south of DeMers Avenue and they took into consideration where their access points could be, looked specifically at Lincoln Drive and at Elks Drive, that Game & Fish, the MNDNR and the City looked at all potential access points along with the planning of the recreation and flood protection project to see where they could have vehicle access points, Central Park is one area that has been looked at but with the design of the flood protection, there is no vehicle access point or parking on the wet side, otherwise that could have been a potential site but wasn't looked at by the Game & Fish because of those reasons. Mr. Walker stated that cost of one of those access point with closure in is about half a million dollars and certainly not feasible to spend half million to put in a $90,000 boat ramp. Chairman Kreun stated it comes down to the two potential locations - Lincoln or Elks. Ms. Biby stated that while doing the research in looking at the two sites, they realized that the area in Lincoln Drive had actually been purchased with FEMA 404 funds and there were certain covenants on it that wouldn't allow hard surface, impervious surface, and at that point weren't able that that would be a viable location but working with FEMA reps. and Office of Emg. Mgmt. through the State, they were willing to make an exception if that was desirable by the City because of its location and slope offered and easier maintenance plan at Lincoln Drive - and that was a timing issue for them as they didn't receive information from FEMA until mid-December and at the same time were working with the committees that are currently established (Christmas in the Park) as well as Lincoln Drive Neighborhood Assn. and working with those groups to tell them that this is something they were thinking about doing.

Chairman Kreun invited any members of the neighborhood to speak to the issues and what their concerns are.

Tom Lander, 1110 Almonte Avenue, stated they have had several neighborhood meetings when the greenway started in the Lincoln Park area, that he is an unelected chair and speaking in that capacity - he stated at the last meeting had 36 people at that meeting, sent out an e-mail about this meeting - and this has gotten bigger than what originally envisioned - that he lives 3 houses away from Lincoln Drive or 13th Avenue - that kids drive down into Lincoln area and come through Almonte Avenue - and have concern that once that wall is up 8 ft.-10 ft. dike and on the other side of that anything can happen because out of sight, neighborhood has concern - there is a real concern re. boat ramp as there is one entrance in there and as they have lost homes that were down there and now different type of traffic - lot of kids going down there and concern that had 3 people at their meeting that are members of neighborhood who are boaters and they don't feel that's a good place for a ramp - concern about the bike trails coming through, 13th Avenue at the closure structure - safety concern and that this is not what they had envisioned and not what they had hoped for, and John Staley had stated Park District doesn't want it there, want it at Elks and neighborhood feels Elks location is much better location, and if put group together would have reps. from their group.

Chairman Kreun stated with a situation like this and see people it's going to involve and impact, not asking too much to take a step back and take a look at it and analyze it to see what they can come up with, that Park District envisions that being at Elks - not suggesting they do one or the other - and then ran into some of the other problems that deterred that decision - and taking time to look at it might be opportunity to re-develop some of those areas at Elks as well and make that a more viable solution - he didn't see waiting one year to see how the park is developed is bad solution - have to make a decision at some point in time and do want a boat ramp, not just for safety reasons from fire department, but as a whole and be a plus in the community and want to make sure put it in the right location that has the least amount of impact and still have the accessibility that boaters and fishermen needs. He stated one of the things they've seen when actually involve the people in decision making process, they do make good decisions and choices when have good information and not afraid of putting people who oppose it on the committee to help make that decision - that we want to postpone this at this point in time and take a look at it so can see if we can write the grant one way or the other to see if it can coincide with construction of Phase III of the levee system and/or if there is possibility of transferring any funds if we write the grant from one location to the other. Ms. Biby stated in discussions with Game & Fish reps. it is site specific, they go in and look at the site. She stated that whether or not you can transfer funds, that if we request funds for 2003 and aren't able to use them in 2003, we take away from other projects in the state, and their recommendation would be to try to determine the best year. Kreun asked if they would look favorably on us if we looked at an alternate location and then have the construction coincide with the levee construction, if that would be a positive as far as funding goes from Game & Fish. Mr. Walker stated as far as funding from Game & Fish if you are considering Elks Drive, don't think want to make grant application this year, better off waiting until next year and determining at that time if construction on the levee has progressed far enough that you feel comfortable that you would get it done in that construction season; that it is his understanding that if a project doesn't go through, those federal funds that come to the State for distribution, go back to the federal government and we would be taking away an opportunity for some other city in ND to build a boat ramp. Kreun stated that we should wait with the application until we're specifically siting a location where we want to put it. Mr. Walker stated both location and construction timeframe.

Kreun asked if they want to put together a recommendation to put together a committee and that committee was not to make up configuration of the committee - Kerian stated there are two groups in place already that could be a start of that and pull people together from those. Kreun stated that Scott McNamee is interested in the boat ramp for a long time as well.

Chief O'Neill stated that historically had access to the boat ramps in the city and were for fire department usage, and urge caution, public education as they move into wider use of the river, get complacent when haven't had a drowning recently - old enough that he remembers dragging the river for many people, and other thing beyond placing the ramp is also maintenance of the ramp - ramp no good if not maintained and have had that problem in the city - ramp at Elks constantly busted up and one downtown would fill up immediately in the spring when probably have heaviest use and as put plans together would encourage a maintenance plan in addition to the placement. He stated the fire department has a river craft that can access more points than just with a ramp, but it too has limitations, they can access the river just about anywhere in the wintertime but some limitations and have affected many rescues on the river with overturned canoes, etc. and could live with either location as long as well maintained.

Kreun stated maintenance has been one of the issues concerned with and that will be a part of the discussion when they put the group together to see what kind of maintenance program is going to be required to maintain it so it has access at different levels when the water rises and need access just as well as when have low water level and those considerations will be on the table so can address them.

Kerian stated there are a lot of other activities - and wondering about neighborhoods reaction to that as a water entrance - traffic and interest in supporting those activities. Mr. Lander stated that comment someone had made was that in one sense want to make it as least attractive for a canoe or for people to be there because concerned about the kids on the bike path who might want to hang out by the river - that it's not a safe river and concern don't want to make it as nice or inviting as can; if have floating dock, kids stand on dock and jump in, etc. Chief O'Neill stated that at one point they made it illegal to be on the river within the city limits because of the dangers and know that have had one child trapped in a car that went in while launching a boat (was rescued) and there should be a lot of public education as to the dangers. Gershman stated that people shouldn't be boating when flooding and could handle that issue by ordinance.

Mr. Lander stated he would like something said that you don't want it at Lincoln Park, but are in favor of having the committee, that their group would prefer to have an answer that says it's not going to be there but understand that's not the case. Chairman Kreun stated part of the process is that they would like to put together the committee with neighborhood group's input so get all of the information and come back with recommendation to this committee and then make complete recommendation to committee of the whole and to council. He stated he would like that committee to gather that information and meeting with engineering group and greenway groups, etc.

Mary Pat Bibel , new resident on Almonte Avenue, (923 Almonte Avenue) and stated that she felt it would be great to be able to walk down the street and put a boat in the river and enjoy that and appreciates the economic issues and the technical issues that the committee has presented, but as a resident in which she will live with all the consequences of these decisions and her concerns have been for safety, never seen boat ramp that close to a residential area and with that being the only access with kids riding their bikes, people taking walks, etc. and these are things they have been able to have voice to this, but would like to leave with assurance that the weight of the human concerns on the non-waterside of the river will be given as much weight as the technical issues. Kreun stated with the mix of the committee that will be done and that's what asking for their group's rep. into the committee to voice those opinions.
Scott McNamee, stated he has several fishing websites, and only been fishing on the river for about 3 years, and when he went down there he was astounded by how great the fishing was, and not too long after that bought a boat and has been using the north ramp on the north end of the city; that he has got to know quite a few of the Red River fishermen in town and all very excited in trying to get some Grand Forks access, hearing a few concerns here tonight and hopes to do a little to alleviate it, whether it goes in Lincoln or Elks, he doesn't think there will be an outcry from the boaters or the people that want to use it at either location and would be satisfied with either. He stated he is hearing that they would like to have something in the southend to have access, as now have to go over to EGF, that now boaters are buying their stuff at Cabala's rather than Home of Economy - that as fisherman would like to see on both the southend and the northend on the other side of the dam access. He stated at one of the meetings he attended that the Game & Fish would take in future requests based on how existing boat ramp maintained, that if one was put in the southend and it wasn't maintained, they wouldn't be interested in funding future projects and in looking at it from boaters standpoint, they have a vested interest because they would also like to see one on the northend - that last year went down to the north landing with his snowplow in the summertime and cleaned the mud off of it to keep it accessible for the boaters.

He stated that for both the Elks or Lincoln concerning traffic and safety and been his observation that people pulling boats drive slower, esp. as approach area of access, they are concerned about their boats and their vehicles - concerned about security because leaving their trailers - that location is not a major issue to the boaters, the slope is an issue because if water level comes up above the concrete and flat and then can't get a boat in - need to have slope so no matter where the water level is at, people can get in. He noted that with public education of the river for safety, important to pass on that information so people can know what it's like - it's beautiful fishing on the river - maintenance is an issue, that right now the north landing is not being taken care of and would need to be maintained - that up and down the river have Wahpeton, Fargo, Pembina and not hearing on website people reporting that having problems with kids - that anytime people come they will bring trash and more of a self-policing because his guess is going to open opportunities for fishing guides on the Red River, have clients and want to be cleaning up after them and looking at possibility of a north landing and how well does this city take care of a south landing so that a north landing could be put in also - He stated that last year he received approx. 300 requests from people outside of the area that wanted to come up and fish on the Red River for a guided fishing trip - and had to send pretty much everyone of them to Wahpeton or Canada to a fishing guide in those areas because we didn't have the facilities here to cater to their needs and quite unfortunate but the Red River is known all around the nation for its catfish - short season - and will get people from out of town and will want a guide so really have an opportunity for fishing guides on the Red River to make some money. He stated the demand is there, that requests were to give them information on a guide, a place to stay because they want to come and fish the Red River - not everyone say they want to come to Grand Forks - they are coming to him because of his website for Red River fishing, and can't tell them to come to Grand Forks (as far south as Louisiana, Arizona, all over the U.,S.) and thinks it will be used more than what they think but if a north landing is put in, the shift of traffic would be more toward the north landing because of it being wider and fish bigger.

Mr. Walker stated the City has one ramp on the downstream end of the dam, a dam by Riverside Drive, that some of the problems they've experienced on the northend ramp are somewhat severe, it's in an area that it gets silted up and that's one of the things that they want to avoid next time around because it's a problem getting the silt off - with silt there can't get traction and can't utilize - the north ramp is in area that is unstable and similar to the Elks Drive area, they spend a fair amount of time patching that, that get complaints that boaters are going down there and too sharp of a slip and can damage their boats, props hit pavement and cause damage, and they try to learn from past mistakes and the location of that ramp, putting in unstable area is a mistake and that's one of the reasons they suggested to avoid Elks and would experience some of the same problems. There's been discussion about possibly stabilizing, as have done some in the flood protection project, is pretty costly and not sure how expensive it would be to stabilize it but may find out financially infeasible to do that; that he had short conversation with the geo-technical person from the Corps and asked what could be done and he indicated about the only thing could do is cut down some of the slope and reduce some of the burden but could look at that in more detail. He stated there's been some concerns putting the ramp at Lincoln is bad idea because have bicycle traffic down the bikeway, and basically have that no matter where you put the ramp, unless the ramp is located out of the greenway because have a bicycle path that starts from north end of the city by Riverside Drive to the southend drainway, and that ramp is going to have to cross that bicycle trail and have that problem no matter where you place it; engineering-wise Elks area is going to have some problems and if do select that site, have to make that decision with the idea that there is going to be continued maintenance on a periodic basis, expect slides to occur and to patch them.

Mr. McNamee asked if it went to Elks and there was a stabilization to take place, would a grant from Game & Fish cover that. Ms. Biby stated that is something they would need to check on, not sure how much dollar amounts they have each year and whether or not we would be in that realm of funding, don't have all the details on the costs for stabilization if that is possible on Elks Drive to make it stable enough.

Mr. Walker stated that stabilization project that's taking place behind Reeves Drive right now involves placing 54 pilings, which are 100 ft. deep, every 12 feet, and piling is 6 ft. diameter cast in place concrete piling, not sure what price tags are but probably at or in
excess of $1 million to do all that, and with the idea that you would spend stabilization money may be 10 times more than the boat ramp would cost and would tend to be infeasible financially - would find out that if received grant might take the entire budget to put in one ramp at Grand Forks as opposed to putting in 10 ramps throughout the state. Mr. Gershman stated stabilizing is incredibly dramatic, but that is stabilizing a tremendous area with a huge floodwall 13 ft. high about it, and here talking about boat ramp with gravel parking lot and that they were told that what is being done could never be done; he went to St. Paul, met with geologist and they showed him the slip planes and said it can't be done but they persevered and saved about 300 structures in Grand Forks - that they could be 100% right but may not be and need to find out, take the time to study it.

Kreun stated that he would like the proposed committee to discus those concerns and have give and take of exchange of information; and would like to have the committee set up of varied people in the community, engineering department, etc., look at all this information and concerns re. traffic, neighborhood concerns, take another hard look at it and step back for a year and not put a timeframe on it - however it develops, take it from there, and then bring that information back with consensus from that group to this committee, and then bring it forward to the city council. Kerian suggested that Melanie bring the group together, need facilitator and someone who will take the next step.

Al Grasser, city engineer, stated he doesn't have a problem with the process that has been discussed and also heard that an application would need to be done by February 3 and would suggest the recommendation from this committee to forward on is that they not proceed with grant application in 2003 but continue to investigate the possibility of a grant application for 2004 - that gives assurance to everybody at this point.

Kerian moved that recommendation and added that the group comes together to develop the plans for a future proposal for the boat ramp for the greenway. Kreun seconded the motion.

John Knutson, 3720 Cherry Street, asked if there is any type of proposed site drawing of what one of these ramp areas would look like, 3 acres or 5 acres, or what physical outline of a site would look like. Mr. Walker stated they had drawings of both sites and they could look at those (preliminary drawing of sites). Kreun stated that part of the design process can also be utilized to help design area and amenities and this committee would also be involved in part of that. Mr. Knutson asked how that would affect the proposed bridge site. Kreun stated that information has to be taken into consideration, lot of things going on and good time to take step back and re-evaluate it and won't be detriment to process that's taking place.

Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried.

2. Matter of consideration of providing services to property on the wet side of the Corps levee (Tim Crary and Darrell Adams).________________________________________
Mr. Grasser presented an item that was not on the agenda, that running out of time -they've been working with the developers, Tim Crary and Darrell Adams, and distributed copies of map showing the area and the Corps dike alignment; had discussions and requests from Mr. Adams to be able to provide services to the area on the wet side of the Corps levee and line showing rough proposal of a 100-year flood protection they would like to provide for that area, not as high as the Corps levee but lower level and they would probably end up special assessing - he stated he set that aside on his decision and recommendation - he stated the area is pretty much high ground and could build on that site even with minor site grading even if didn't have the 100-year flood protection. He noted that the map shows the current city limits line - and land owner is concerned about how he can develop - to give him the greatest options in his perspective and greatest potential for profit, he wanted to develop it as a typical intensive city development (single family.) Grasser noted that all the property that is in the city limits is not developed, many lots are empty and some along the outside, allow putting in septic systems.

Grasser stated they've looked at what it would cost to bring gravity sewer in to serve Crary's area on the dry side of the dike and it's going to cost quite a bit of money as have to run the gravity main here from Cherry Street, and if we're going to decide to be able to serve that area with city utilities, need a lift station. Another line on the map is a combination of the force main and private lift station in this vicinity. He stated the urgency to this is that Mr. Crary is wanting to develop, first delayed and needed to know where the dike alignment would be before allowing development as don't want to build homes and then have to buy them back out; they have set the dike alignment and are in the process of getting that finalized now but for that area to develop and be cost effective, going to put in a lift station.

He outlined the service area on the map (in yellow), and if these went into rural lots, could still take them, doesn't mean we will but gives us the potential. Kerian asked if they need all of this to make this cost effective. Mr. Grasser stated that once you've set this lift station in, you can serve - wouldn't do it just for this as they can reach this with gravity but if want to bring in this, need a lift station and once you invest in a lift station, it doesn't cost us incrementally any more to serve all of this area - and save deep sewer cost here and put in one lift station. Kreun stated his concern would be is we would be able to special assess the lift station portion of it to the lot - Grasser stated he supposed we can but policy has not been to assess sanitary lift stations, sanitary lift stations and forcemains come out of the utility fund - Kreun stated people would have as property is developed the special assessment - Grasser stated the gravity portion would be special assessed. Kreun stated that he would not like Mr. Adams to special assess this 100-year dike in any way, shape or form, he has to build that and include that in the price of his lots - Grasser stated he can see some discussions resulting from that concept - Kreun stated that we still would certify it and be responsible after it's built to those codes, but he didn't want to say we're annexing property into the city that is outside the Corps dike alignment and does not want to say we're going to build a dike outside the Corps dike alignment, but if developer wants to do that and put that on the price of the lots and then ask to be annexed, he would consider.

Grasser stated developer might not be able to cash flow that without that being a special assessment project, Kreun stated that wasn't what they said during the initial discussions - Grasser stated things have changed. Kreun stated he wasn't opposed to when they provide this service for special assessment on the lots for storm sewer but this is not something he thinks the City should be promoting, but if developer wants to do it and bring it in, doesn't have a problem with that. Grasser stated the 100-year dike line is something they need to be aware of and that he has separated this in his mind and said with or without the flood protection, does it make sense for the City to provide service for this area, and even if there is no additional flood protection out there, do we want to make that possible because it's an economic decision from the City about tax base and land area. Kreun stated he wanted them to develop it and want that tax base but that becomes part of his development responsibility. Grasser stated his recommendation to council members is don't make the decision of the lift station necessarily contingent on this alignment, thinks we need to decide, do we want to provide service area, Kreun stated he thinks we do. Grasser stated this isn't low ground, but even during 1997 only had 6 inches or maybe a foot of water on the majority of that and we would valve this off so that in the event this ever did get flooded, we're not going to contaminate the rest of the city and are some provisions they have to make - written into abstract and title that those things would take place at that point in time. Kreun stated we've already set precedence with this group out here- as they are outside the permanent dike alignment as well and will be on their abstract or title, deed so that they realize during high water, they will be out there without any water and sewer. Grasser stated that would be in the covenants.

Grasser stated what they need to do is decide if we wish to provide service to this area. They've estimated the cost of this as somewhere between $600,000 to $700,000 and a lot of that is the cost of the forcemain as they have to get the forcemain all the way to Washington Street. Grasser stated that we're into January and if don't want to seriously prevent any development, we need to get the design process underway. Recommendation is to build a lift station and serve the area, but problem is have an unbudgeted lift station but did talk to John Schmisek and basically we would bond it and it would come out of the Sewer Utility Fund as per normal process and we can handle that. Kreun stated it gives us a larger area even if we didn't because we are on the edge, still not a bad engineering decision to build that no matter what. Grasser stated that the plan is to serve the area south of the road and would put another lift station in the middle of this section to serve that, try to pick up a section at a time.

Grasser stated what he needs for the committee is approval of the concept to serve this area.

Kreun stated we are doing in this particular area, water only and they were large enough lots that he had the septic system in there and brought that forward and changed that so could have septic systems inside the city limits but what Al is saying is, should they want to, decide that these large lots would want to hook up to this lift station, have potential to do that. Kerian stated this is a new discussion, that should we extend this system. Grasser stated that if we don't provide utility services out here, we're inside the city limits and expectation about normal type services but without providing sanitary sewer out here have to be 2.5 acre lots and some of these are only 1 acre lots around the outside but they drain down to either the coulee or the river but if we develop all of this in here that they should be 2.5 acre lots, but thinks get in trouble with 1 acre lots, because at 2.5 acre density not sell nearly as many lots as with a third acre.

Mr. Walker stated that the current requirements by code is that the developer has to upfront half the money so compromise to the levee if the developer is putting the levee in or special assess the levee, he is supposed to put up half the monies and if he is going to start building the levee and start paying those special assessment he will be developing those lots with sewer, water and paving so under our policies we have a contractor or developer put in sewer and water and special assess the paving as his upfront. Grasser stated that the whole issue of the 100-year dike line has got a lot of discussion that needs to go through, and his communication back to the consultant, CPS, is basically that they keep seeing different alignments, the developer has to decide what alignment he wants and his suggestion is that they run that through Planning and Zoning so they actually zone the plat, the footprint of the dike and use that as public input process by which the City is ultimately going to have to sign off on the plat, not sure as pushing this farther east, not sure what the reaction of the Birkholz Addn. people, that this whole alignment is fuzzy; that the Burke Addn. has expressed concerns with this Corps dike alignment and heard discussions should we protect the whole Burke Addn. or not and they voted against it but did continue to express anxiety with the proximity of this levee. Kreun stated they were offered these same scenarios, went through the same process with them - Grasser stated that the finalization of this process is a way off, but this is an immediate need, ands worst of both worlds is if we spend the money to get this gravity main and then turn around and invest in a lift station - he's at the point now where he thinks it makes sense to say we're going to serve this with a lift station and irregardless whether this is protected or not, it makes sense to be able to develop that, it cleans us up as where the city limits - if this were outside the city limits - but there is some expectation and some responsibility of the City because we have this out there currently. Kreun stated this can be brought in and could be squared right off, there's other good potential possibilities - Grasser stated we need to talk about this with Land Use because he wouldn't anticipate serving anything south of here because of the water potential, land is little lower - Grasser stated this decision will also help us in our resolution of some issues we have with rural water about who is going to serve what and where and how. This was part of the city before 1997. Kreun stated we will encourage development if they go ahead and do the legwork, no problem with that, but does have problem with City doing legwork of making another dike outside our permanent dike protection.

Kreun moved the following motion, with second by Kerian, that the engineering department plan the area for service and to proceed with design of the lift station and budget $700,000 for the construction of lift station and forcemain with funding from Sanitary Sewer Fund. Motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk