Council Minutes

MINUTES/COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - (following city council meeting)

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 6; absent: Council Member Brooks - 1.

Mayor Brown announced that when addressing the committee to please come forward to use the microphone, give your name and address for the record, and advised the meeting is being televised live and taped for later broadcast.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ITEMS

2.1 Presentation re. Wastewater and Water Utilities Cost of Service evaluations. wastewater utilities rate study, they have had couple briefings at ad hoc committee meetings and tonight to discuss the motion they would pass the cost of services as well as the new rate structure. He stated the wastewater analysis is a 5-year analysis and 5-year plan where rates are smoothed in over the 5-years; the water is a 10-year plan where rates are smoothed in over those years. He stated they modified the water plan because of uncertainty in large projects and is not as aggressive as the model would show, uncertainty in funding, timeline and scope of the project. He stated as part of the mayor's budget and if modified therein, will be running another model that may change some of these percentages accordingly and this is their run based on the numbers they had at the time; and will be coming forward with an ordinance change in regards to passing their utility rates as per resolution instead of by ordinance. He stated that some of the large projects that are not included on the wastewater end are: biosolids, Phase II project and also some southend development infrastructure in the wastewater utility. He stated one of the questions they have had on the trunk infrastructure (item 2.27 on agenda), and how will that impact rates, that plan calls for a $230,000 to come from the Wastewater Utility Fund and that will cause a 3 to 4% increase in revenue requirements for and for the Water it's $165,000 and that is about a 2% increase in revenue requirements.

Steve Burian, Advanced Engineering, presented a brief presentation on the wastewater and water utilities cost of services evaluations and individual changes within the base and flow rates and an economic model of where we are at today and differences in individual users. He stated they looked at water, wastewater, storm water and solid wastes, they went through elaborate cost of services analysis looking at costs of utilities and user classes, equities and inequities and came up with some recommendations.

Wastewater structure - rate structure fairly equitable, costs for various user classes were equitable to the amount of cost they were contributing to the utility - rate increases are going to be needed in the future.

Recommended strategy: residential monthly base fee from $16.23 to $8.90 (first 5,000 gal of flow not included); Commercial monthly base fee from $16.23 to $9.00; Simplot monthly base fee from $16.23 to $2,001.00 and RDO Monthly base fee from $16.23 to $1,653.00. Flow rate as follows: Residential flow rate and Commercial flow rate (per 1,000 gal.cap) from $1.96 to $2.05; Simplot flow rate and RDO flow rate (per 1,000 gal.) from $1.96 to $1.73; TSS surcharge (per lb.) from $0.0569 to $0.0614; and BOD surcharge (per lb.) from $0.1892 to $0.1987.

Water Utility:
Rates to be increased to meet future coverage requirements, help pay for CIP, cover increase in debt and operational expenses and to continue to maintain adequate cash reserves.

Residential water rates were changed for fees for various meter sizes to $5.00 for all meter sizes, and residential flow rate (per 1,000 gal.) from various rates to $2.60.

Commercial water rates and Heavy Industrial water rates changed based on meter size.

Kerian questioned what people might look to in the future. Mr. Feland stated they tried to use some of the cash over the 5 or 10 year period, on water side is the water treatment plant and all of its associated infrastructure, and that is included in the 10-year planning horizon, don't know the scope, timeline or funding sources and don't have the regulations that have come together to push them into this but planning issue for them but each year adjusted as get better information. He stated the wastewater utility is only over the 5-year period, that they planned for the $4 million biosolids job and expect to get approval on a project of a similar scope and fee from EPA and State Health Department, that over 10-year planning horizon may be a Phase 2 project and which they won't be able to treat biosolids through the lagoons and if that happens have to go to Phase 2, where treat to higher level, and expense on both capital and O & M. He stated another issue was the southend master pump station and lines and depending on development and would be line from south end to the west of town and north to wastewater treatment plant. He stated those are the 3 large projects that can affect us - have to look at each year.

Kreun stated the study is done and was an in depth study and goal was to make this structure equitable to all rate areas to the amount that they require to process and pay their percentage of that, and also meeting needs for the future and capital expenditures - that they accomplished the majority of that and keeping rates very competitive. He noted that this is a work in process and can be adjusted to different needs each year. Christensen stated this hadn't been done since 1984 or 1985 and commended people who did the study because they've taken comments and direction, and that there has been planning going on in this community without this study and Mr. Schmisek has had quite an albatross as he has been planning some of these things and this tool will serve the city well going forward and model that has been built and will help in the budgeting process.

2.2 An ordinance to annex part of Johnson's 4th Addition (reconsideration of Ordinance No. 3970) (public hearing and second reading scheduled for June 2)________________________________________________________________
Kerian stated this was presented at last meeting for reconsideration, that they
moved on it rather quickly when it was passed, that they brought in 3 parcels but when at committee there was discussion about agreements on how that comes into the city and Mr. Swanson did send some information about agreements and included in the packet; council members asked for a building plan; and was brought back for further questions.
Mr. Grasser stated that the council action was to annex Lots A, B and C; that Lot B is where planning to site a bank and have plans in the office that indicate potential access to the bank, either through Lot A or Lot C, or both. He stated that partial developments in Lots A and C would be sufficient justification to annex both of those lots; Mr. Crary disagreed with that and prior to the last city council they had discussion to annex Lot A and B, and that would get rid of concern of creating island, not objectionable to Lot C.

Kerian stated her push was to be sure Lot A came in and that there was access. Christensen stated when this matter came before them there was some issue about whether or not something had been promised (have copy of no annexation agreement); that Mr. Swanson had advised that the document had no effect on their action and free to annex Lots A, B and C, and action taken to annex all lots, and his purpose to annexing all lots vs. Lots A and B is that it is bad policy to have little islands of property that aren't annexed because all are paying special assessments for the dike, and owners of that property get benefit of not paying specials. He stated if have ability to use that property and having a frontage road should have privilege of paying special assessments associated with the use of the property and doesn't see any reason to change his vote.

Kreun stated that during Planning and Zoning information brought forward, the owner of the property interpreted some of the information quite differently than what Mr. Swanson did, and Mr. Crary's indicated that he would like it brought back to have it reconsidered..

2.3 Amendment to 2003 Community Development Block Grant Program. (public hearing scheduled for June 2)____________________________ 2.4 Application for moving permit to move single-family home from 1508 Lewis Blvd. to 1628 Lewis Blvd. to be used as single-family home (public hearing scheduled for June 2)______________________________________________
2.5 Application for moving permit to move single family home from 1502 Lewis Blvd. to 28 Conklin Avenue to be used as single-family home (public hearing scheduled for June 2)_______________________________________________
2.6 Application for moving permit to move single family home from 1412 Lewis Blvd. to 1702 Lewis Blvd. to be used as single family home (public hearing scheduled for June 2)_______________________________________________
Council Member Glassheim questioned what plan is for moving houses, whether lots needed fill. Mark Walker stated the lots have been filled to some extent to get out of 100-year flood plain.

2.7 Defined Contribution Plan manager.
No comments.
2.8 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5510, Dist. 593, paving in Columbia Park 29th Resubdivision, Phase I.__________________________ 2.9 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5514, Dist. 423, sanitary sewer in Promenade 1st Addition.__________________________________
2.10 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5515, Dist. 278, watermain in Promenade 1st Addition.__________________________________________
2.11 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5516, Dist. 424, storm sewer in Promenade 1st Addition.________________________________ Authority and not Urban Development. 2.12 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5530, Dist. 594, Southbrook area paving._______________________________________________________ 2.13 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5517, Dist. 592, Promenade First Addition paving._______________________________________________ 2.14 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5493, Dist. 595, Deacons 2.15 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5507, Dist. 419, Pembrooke area sanitary sewer._________________________________________________ 2.16 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5508, Dist. 276, Pembrooke area watermain._____________________________________________________ 2.17 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5509, Dist. 420, Pembrooke area storm sewer.___________________________________________________ 2.18 Revised Engineer's Report and assessment district map, and Plans and specifications for Project No. 5527, Dist. 421, Southbrook area sanitary sewer._______________________________________________________
No comments.

2.19 Revised Engineer's Report and assessment district map, and Plans and specifications for Project No. 5528, Dist. 277, Southbrook area watermain. 2.20 Revised Engineer's Report and assessment district map, and Plans and specifications for Project No. 5529, Dist. 422, Southbrook area 2.21 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5489, Dist. 591, paving S. 34th St. from 36th Ave.S. to Ruemmele Road and Ruemmele Road from S. 34th St. to 40th Ave.S.________________________________________________________ 2.22 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5467, paving 34th Ave.S. east of Belmont Road, and Project No. 5326, paving East Elmwood Drive from 32nd Ave.S. to Elmwood Avenue, and bike/pedestrian path on 32nd Ave.S. from Belmont Road to Greenway access on Elmwood Drive.___________________
Christensen asked if we could consider putting the bikepath along the existing levee and have it tie into Belmont at Flaat's 4th Addition - bikepaths are located on sidewalk easements but going across property owner's yards and there is going to be a new home constructed at the intersection of Belmont and 32nd and consider putting bikepath in the back rather than running it down the sidewalk. Mark Walker stated that consideration was given but upon further investigation they noted there are two existing homes adj. to 34th Avenue and those two homes have driveways and garages that are close to the existing street and difficult to get back to the bikepath at that location. Christensen stated the City is considering the platting of Lots 5 and 6 and Lots 2, 3 and 4 are Auditor's lots and are worthless and it would be easy to run the bikepath in our own lots (2, 3 and 4) and run it along our own easement in Lot 5 which is owned by the City, and bikepath exit in cul-de-sac and would join up again on the sidewalk on Belmont and wouldn't affect anybody's homes. Mr. Walker stated they have bikepaths or lanes that are in the streets but for the most part try to get separate from traffic, but because a dead-end street and no objections to having additional bikepath traffic and pedestrian traffic on 34th Avenue - his concern was that in trying to connect the neighborhood to the pedestrian access that the bikepath route on 32nd Avenue would be more appropriate and since there isn't a sidewalk there now, that the project could put a sidewalk in that location. 2.23 Consideration of bids for Project No. 4948.5, Residuals Storage Ponds. 2.24 Consideration of bids for Project no. 5444, Dist. 415, sanitary sewer to serve 2700 and 2800 blocks of 36th Ave.S.__________________________________
Cindy Voigt, asst. city engineer, reported they opened the bids last Friday and did a mailing to property owners, had published this bid previously, the Herald published the opening date incorrectly and recommended rejecting all the bids, readvertised and recommend awarding to United Crane & Excavating, Inc. in the amount of $47,830.10.

2.25 Consideration of bids for Project No. 5446, Dist. 91, mill and overlay 1800 and 1900 blocks of Cottonwood Street.______________________________ 2.26 Amendment to Cost Participation and Maintenance Agreement for overlay and reconstruction of US 81 from Gateway Drive to I-29._______________ 2.27 Trunk infrastructure for sanitary sewer and water.
Kerian asked for information re. this item. Mr. Grasser stated this is effort to come up with proposal to address issues council has been dealing with as to how we fund some of our trunk infrastructure items in the city, that by definition these shouldn't have any direct connections to them and yet we need to keep expanding that to fulfill our system and provide service. He noted that the council has discussed of trying to unwind the special assessment process and try to find ways of minimizing those special assessments - before council is a process in which they would start that procedure - the recommendation is to address the water and the sanitary sewer trunks, those are easiest to address because can handle within the rate structures and not have imposing increases that go with that. He stated as part of the proposal they have a draft infrastructure selection process which are guidelines they can use when evaluate requests from developers for installations - gives process to weight one request against another to determine who might get the funding in any particular year - the proposal is not flush that they would be able to meet all requests - resources will be tight and will get multiple requests for those dollars.

The city auditor stated that these are not in the projections that you were given earlier re. rates - and if do this for the water projects that means a 2% additional revenue need and in sanitary sewer, 3 to 4%.

Kerian stated that in the report it stated infrastructure funding if done properly can eliminate some of the annexation problems. Mr. Grasser stated in the past they'd had resistance from people that there is the potential to be exposed to special assessments that may come; and noted that it does impact the rates but if in orderly manner extend utilities may avoid putting in major cost infrastructure.

Christensen stated we've had rate study that just completed and in that rate study is 2% for infrastructure, and when developing the model, we asked them to include as part of the rate study the ability to fund this item - and when we develop our budget in 2004 as we adopt this policy, then we should be prepared to direct money from our user fees to fund this because this is beginning of foundation for change in policy and beginning of process to encourage development.

Glassheim asked if it is envisioned to put a certain amount into the pot and do only a half-mile year in water and wastewater, and what kind of percent is that of the likely growth. Mr. Grasser stated he hopes that this will cover the majority of the trunk line infrastructure, but still special assessing or having the developer do all of the interior work - and what percentage the trunk is to that total amount of work, can't really tell you, depends on variables but trunk line fairly small portion of the area that would be served.
Glassheim stated the amounts are couple hundred thousand in each of the budgets? Mr. Grasser stated they aren't addressing the storm sewer, only watermain and sanitary; and noted that this process would do is that project gets in when it needs to get in and done for less, may not serve everybody at the same time - wouldn't put into unmarketable areas and will need right of way and unless developer has some interest in providing some of that (doesn't intend to spend any money for land), and if look at draft policy items is that if we don't have the land, you're out and take some cooperation.

2.28 Project Concept Report for Project No. 5347, Gateway-Columbia Road. 2.29 Urban and Regional Program Project request to NDDoT. 2.30 Request from Metro Plains Properties, Inc. for deferment of Flood Rental Rehab loan payments.____________________________________________
Kreun asked if forgiveness as part of the rental rehab loan was part of the negotiations with the City and asked if they can trade that loan for purchases that will buy out from them. Keith Lund, Urban Renewal, stated that the city council can trade that off, can waive or forgive that, and thinks council would want to consider the precedent for others who have had rental rehab loans and who have paid those off prior to a sale, they are requesting to abate or defer their payments for a period of 12 months while this negotiation takes place.

2.31 Surplus real property. 2.32 Request from John Staley on behalf of Grand Forks Park Board for preliminary approval of ordinance to amend the Zoning Map to rezone and exclude Lots A and B, Block 1 of Replat of Lot 2, Block 1, Flaat-Mikkelson Addition from the Washington Estates PUD (Planned Unit Development) Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 1, and include within Washington Estates PUD (Planned Unit Development) Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 1 (located at 3900 S. 11th Street.___________________
No comments.

2.33 Petition from Country Development LLP for vacation of sidewalk easement (utility easement to be retained) only lying within Lots 7 and 8, Block 2 of Country View First Resubdivision, Grand Forks, ND (located between 38 and 44 Desiree Drive).______________________________________________
Doug Herzog, CPS, Ltd., stated they've done most of the survey work and platting in that area and in behalf of Tim and Sandy Christian, who are asking that the sidewalk easement be vacated and removed. He stated the sidewalk is to unplatted property and the pedestrian pattern that is going to happen is that it cannot get to the drainway because no sidewalk easement on the north side of Desiree Drive and would be safety issue of crossing the bottom of the drainway - there will be a proposed bikepath on the north side of the drainway - and logical access for the flow of pedestrian traffic on Desiree Drive to Belmont Road and access the proposed bikepath. He stated that these easements in the sideyards are becoming more of an issue (4 months not cleaned, privacy issue and market for those lots don't allow for the up-scale houses that are going in this area) (pedestrian traffic on side of the house). He stated they don't think it is needed and asking that it be removed. It was noted that as the houses are being built there is sidewalk on each side of the street. Kreun asked how do they have access to maintain the storm sewer; Mr. Herzog stated that is an enforcement issue, that the easement is 30 ft. wide (15 ft. on each lot line) and when take out a permit for the house, have to show site plan that would show that easement.

Mr. Grasser stated he felt it was poor policy to be putting infrastructure into easements because they get encroached upon by fences, outbuildings, etc. and he left the sidewalk was important because the storm sewer is there and is a way for out maintenance people to get access to that to monitor it and watch for changes, has opposed this but agrees with Mr. Herzog is that as a community he didn't think you'd find anybody with sidewalk in their sideyard and would prefer to have it somewhere else and if think impacts on adjacent lots are not important to keep and install the sidewalks, would suggest they change the ordinances so that Planning and Zoning and Engineering don't go through the process of installing them because neighborhoods did pay for and were special assessed the cost of the sidewalk but important to make a decision and follow through on it.

2.34 Request from Pribula Engineering on behalf of John Campbell for preliminary approval of plat of Service 5th Subdivision.__________ 2.35 Request from Widseth Smith & Nolting on behalf of James Hanson for preliminary approval of the Replat of Block 1, Hansen's Addition to the city of Grand Forks (located at 13th Ave.N and Stanford Road)_______________ 2.36 Request from ICON Architectural Group and Cowger Construction on behalf of James Hansen for approval of ordinance to amend the Zoning Map and to rezone from B-3 (General Business) District and include with the R-4 (Multiple Family Residence High Density) District Lots 2 through 5, Block 2 of a Replat of Block 1, Hansen's Addition (located at 13th Avenue North and Stanford Road).____________________________________________________
No comments.

2.37 Request from Jerry Pribula on behalf of Dave Parker for preliminary approval of a plat of Perkins Eighth Resubdivision being a replat of Lots V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, BB, CC, DD, and EE, Block 1 of Replat of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Perkins Fifth Addition and a Replat of Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 of Perkins Sixth Addition to the city of Grand Forks, ND (located at 40th Ave.S. and Columbia Road)________________________________________________
No comments.
2.38 Request from Dan Stauss on behalf of David Parker for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the Zoning Map to exclude from Perkins Third PUD (Planned Unit Development) Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 1 (Lots V, W, X, Z, AA, BB, CC, and EE, Block 1, Perkins Fifth Addition and Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Perkins Sixth Addition) and to include in Perkins Third PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 2, all of Perkins 8th Resubdiv. to the city of Grand Forks (loc. in 3900 blk. of 40th Ave.S.)_________________________ 2.39 South 48th Street Study Report.
No comments.

3. INFORMATION ITEMS

3.1 2003 Curbside Recycling Program, Update #2.
No comments.

3.2 Cash Balance report for April, 2003.
No comments.

4. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Hamerlik stated he has received some requests because of rains, and would like for some consideration to look at doing something different with alleys - different base or gravel - to look at in the future; and asked for referral to Finance/ Development Standby Comm.- that they've discussed in the past the use of fire hall and civic auditorium - but more specifically the lease agreement with Public School System for lot across from civic auditorium and all those coming up when talk about budget and CIP and working with the School District.

2) Gershman thanked Todd Feland and Steve Burian, Council Members Christensen and Kreun for work on the water rate study - and asked that Mayor's Office send out e-mail reminding council of the 5:00 p.m. budget meeting tomorrow.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Gershman to adjourn. Carried 5 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,


John M. Schmisek, City Auditor