Council Minutes

MINUTES - Committee of the Whole
Monday, January 13, 2003 - 7:00 p.m.

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, January 13, 2003 following the JDA meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were: Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim (teleconference), Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 7; absent: none.

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

Mayor Brown commented on various events during the past week and upcoming events:
1) Marketplace of Ideas is returning to Grand Forks and the Alerus Center this week , Wednesday and Thursday, and a special thank you to Senator Kent Conrad and Ag Commissioner Roger Johnson for support and sponsorship.
2) Nature Tourism will be in the spotlight at the Alerus Center starting Wednesday, and may play a very important role for our community and region - that we have a number of wonderful attractions that center around outdoor wildlife-based recreation, and a chance to show off our beautiful open spaces that stand in stark contrast to the concrete jungles proliferating the rest of the country.
3) City/County/Park/School meeting scheduled for Wednesday - with all major local taxing entities in our community in outlining some goals and strategies.
4) Retirees: Congratulations to George Tuma, public works employee for 37 years, and to Max Allard, employee with the fire department for 38 years, and presentation of a watch to Mr. Allard.

CITIZEN REQUEST

Terry Bjerke, 5356 5th Avenue North, stated he was bringing forth an item and had some questions he would like answered when it comes time to make a decision regarding hotel and water park and would like to see questions answered before decision is made, copy of the questions was given to Mr. Duquette - he would also like to see that all businesses treated equally based upon Code and parking requirements: need to know total and actual cost of the project for purchase of land for the hotel, marketing funds and funding to the Park District, purchase of land to replace lost parking for Alerus because of indoor and outdoor parks and recreation center, paving costs and source of funding.

3.1 Pledged Collateral Report. 3.2 Budget amendment for Fire Department.
Transfer grant funds of $99,810 to 2003 budget to implement a mandatory wellness and fitness program for fire suppression individuals. Christensen asked if City had continuing responsibility to continue program after grant expires. Chief O'Neill stated they agreed to continue program in future years, cost would be minimal (upkeep of equipment and replacement over years) and contingent on funds in the budget, will have their own trainers on how to set program and not great expense to future budgets.

3.3 Application for abatement for 2000 and 2001 taxes by Heyman Associates No. 11, for property at 1720 South Washington Street.__________________
John Jenson, representing Heyman Associates, said his client asking for abatement of 2000 and 2001 taxes; that Mr. Carsen agreed abatement should be granted for 2001 in entirety, that his clients sold this property in May, 2002 for about $822,000 and that's approx. what Mr. Carsen has decided should be the value of this property going forward for assessment and he also agrees that's what the value of the property should be in 2001 and asked what's changed between 2000 and 2001, there wasn't any catastrophic event that caused this building to go from $1.4 million down to $221,000 - nothing changed and Mr. Carsen points out in his report to the council that the property was leased through October, 2000, but that's not relevant and Mr. Carsen has chosen to use the cost approach for valuing this property - in ND have three methods for valuing property - cost approach, comparable sales and income approach and whether or not property is leased has no relevance in the cost approach, has in income approach, and again asked what changed between 2000 and 2001 - property was in the same condition and had the same value and that is why they are requesting the abatement for year 2000. He provided a memo to the city council from his clients. and they are asking that the city council agree with the assessor for 2001 and also approve abatement for 2000.

Mel Carsen, city assessor, stated what's changed between 2000 and 2001, that February 1, 2000 is the assessment date, and at that time the store was fully rented, and rented until October 31 and that he believes that the value would be a value in use as a retail store, once they vacated that changed because in likelihood would not attract another major tenant, it would require considerable fix-up costs to retrofit it for smaller stores and that on February 1, 2000 the value at $2.41 million is a reasonable representation of the value because the store was fully rented.

Gershman stated he thinks it is the policy of the City that we don't necessarily judge property by one year it is rented and one year not because people have vacancies all the time, and asked in the past if they assessed property on the income approach or the cost approach. Mr. Carsen stated the last full appraisal in this store was done in 1991, updated in 1995 and in 1998 - last income approach was done in 1991 and that supported a value of $2.3 million, between then and 2000 it was $2.41 million but that was based on the cost approach. He stated on commercial property their main approach is the cost approach and that is supported by the market approach whenever they can and by the income approach whenever they can. Gershman questioned if they mainly do the cost approach, seems inconsistent to then use the income approach when it was released. Mr. Carsen stated that the income approach will give you a measure of how much economic obsolescence there may be in the property, and he indicated based on some other properties that there should be about a 25% economic obsolescence to that location as a major retail store. Gershman asked at what point do they shift from the cost approach to an income approach or blend them, or when reassess a property, do they look at the economics of that sector in the whole city and then make a determination when going out to do the city. Mr. Carsen stated do not do an income approach on every property every year, that when doing an appraisal it is done based on the cost approach, the cost approach is tempered by economic conditions, by income streams that indicate a reduced value, that the cost approach would set the upper limit of value and then continue off of that economic influences, and that is what they did here for location as a major retail location - 25% in the cost approach and that was measured based on an income approach on an adjacent store.

Kreun stated that a rep. of Wal-Mart and Sam's Club came in and asked the assessor to revisit those issues, and is this a similar approach that we used at that time to make the valuation. Mr. Carsen stated the final value on Wal-Mart and Sam's Club were both based on the cost approach, that he had made an income approach on both of those stores but final value was established by the cost approach, and this is typical of what doing in this case. Christensen stated he will be recusing himself from voting on this issue.

3.4 Application for abatement for 2001 taxes by Colleen Ross, 10 Vail Circle.
Hamerlik asked by either state or local regulations, how far back or in the future could they go with these. Mr. Carsen stated that applications for abatement can be filed going 2 years back, that they have missed 2000 and will start in 2001, they requalify every year based on the fact that they are blind or disabled. Gershman asked for explanation for TV audience as there maybe people who would qualify for these exemptions that don't know about it. Mr. Carsen stated that a legally blind person who occupies his own home and qualifies for an exemption on the house portion of that assessment up to a max. of $111,100; and that a person who is permanently and totally disabled and is confined to a wheelchair, can qualify for an exemption up to $80,000. He stated they are sending out forms this week and the week of January 27 run radio ads through Info Center, contact Options and NDAD. Brooks asked that they also contact the School for the Blind as Vision Services has a listing and can get that information out to them.

3.5 Application for abatement for 2001 taxes by Kathleen A. Taber-Pietron, 24 Vail Circle.______________________________________________________ 3.6 Application for abatement for 2001 taxes by Philip and Dolores Krump, 1007 Campbell Drive.___________________________________________________ 3.7 Altru Health System tax agreement.
Brooks stated that the listing in the staff report distinguishing hospital from clinic areas, asked how detailed this was or looking at bottom line of total sq. footage for all facilities. Howard Swanson, city attorney, stated that exhibit C is essentially a calculation page utilizing sq. footage from the other properties owned by Altru Health System, they came up with a ratio to apply to that building located at 2401 DeMers Avenue (previously occupied by Alerus) and because that building is a multi-use financial administration center for all of Altru it was difficult to come up with a formula to accurately measure the sq. footage and its uses, whether it be exempt or non-exempt, so Mr. Carsen after consideration came up with a proportion based upon the exempt and non-exempt areas of the other facilities and applied that same proportion to this building. Brooks stated they are looking at hospital vs. clinic. Mr. Carsen stated that was correct; and he stated in the case of the Rehab. Hospital, has considered that entirely hospital. Brooks stated that in March there will be some other changes that Altru is putting into place with some departments closing and if that adjustment is made on this as this agreement is for 5 years, or if do an annual review. Mr. Carsen stated the agreement is reviewed annually by his office to see what the use is, and agreement allows for change on an annual basis, but really sets out that hospital portion is exempt and clinic portions are taxable. Brooks asked if we go through the same process for other health care institutions. Mr. Carsen stated this one is unique as the ownership is held by Altru Health Systems, a non-profit organization, and it could be argued that all of their property should be exempt because not for profit health agency, when they first took over ownership 5 years ago, came up with initial agreement to tax what was non-exempt and exempt what was being exempt, and Altru people never opposed that - and wanted to pay their fair share of taxes but wanted an agreement so both knew what we were going to do; the first agreement was for 5 years and this is renewal or extension of that initial agreement with some minor changes - minor changes address the administration building on DeMers Avenue (partially and exempts portion of it) based on use of their other property. agreement is probably no longer necessary under current law, and believes that Mr. Carsen would have the authority to make these determinations, however, in an effort to make sure that all of the taxing authorities have current and accurate information, you will see that this is going to all of the other taxing authorities (School District, County, Park District, etc.) and as much an informational item as a formal agreement because the ultimate determination of exempt or non-exempt will be based upon State law as of February 1 of any given year or any changes that occur mid-year. Swanson stated if there is a dispute in terms or determination of exempt or non-exempt under this agreement and if all of the taxing entities and Altru can make a decision unanimously, that decision will stand, if they cannot, will fall back to the normal process under NDCC and that primarily relies upon the city assessor to make a determination of what is exempt or non-exempt with statutory appeal rights after that.
Hamerlik stated that 5 years ago when Altru was being organized out, there was a major concern having to do with the taxing because of the clinics and when the involved parties were able to do is a sign of cooperation and partnership and he appreciates it.

3.8 2003 Mosquito Control Program options and fee increase. owners and manager of Park Place Apartments (72 units), stated that she and her husband have both contacted the City 3 different times in order to get spraying done at Park Place and concern is that they want to double the fees per family or household for mosquito spraying and control and feels they are not being represented in the program they have now - that currently Park Place Apts. pays $1,000/year in assessment for mosquito control; the mosquito program that the City has consists of a pickup truck that drives from the north to the south on 42nd Street with a fogger in the back and that is supposed to fog and protect all of their 72 units in Park Place; that our climate has prevailing westerly winds and they are west of where the fogging is being done - they have numerous phone calls every day from people in their complex and not receiving any kind of mosquito control at this point, and now going to pay $2,000 next year. She stated she called health department and was told program goes to promote education, and can't imagine a neighborhood that came to you in mass saying they were being taxed for this and not receiving any benefit, should be no difference for apartment dwellers; frustrated at this point, and perhaps they have some suggestions or if could apply for an exemption - that for $2,000 can buy a lot of spray.

Gershman asked if in the future will their units be attended to; Todd Hanson stated he talked to Mrs. Leigh and they did send a crew out there but are limited on where they can drive when it has rained, don't want to do property damage. Mrs. Leigh asked why they couldn't occasionally go around and spray the park area other than just driving in the pickup truck with the fogger. Mr. Hanson stated the adulticiding is a small portion of their program, the larger portion is the larviciding and with successful larviciding program, won't have to get into adulticide operations - last year with the amount of rain - didn't have the staff, equipment going down - they did go out and spray that area - Mrs. Leigh asked if they have a schedule. He stated they do 43rd Street - should be some drift in.

Don Shields, health department, stated questions raised were valid as last year with excessive rains was terrible mosquito season, and would like to go through some of the options of what they do - have a program that does address the entire city of Grand Forks, could do better than did last year and want to present a list of those options telling what those improvements may be. He stated he would like to have Todd Hanson go through the various options for 2003 plus recommendations based on reducing the levels of mosquitoes because of the threat of West Nile virus and for nuisance level; recommendations were derived from staff, elected officials and public - in 2002 had excessive rainfall, wet season and address that so can do a better job in controlling mosquitoes this year that is going to require equipment and labor, etc. He stated that last year they collected $1.25 per utility bill in town and expensed $1.55 per utility bill for the season and before council is an increase in the mosquito control fee to accommodate that plus other recommendations they might want to include.

Mr. Hanson reviewed options and recommendations for 2003:
Option 1 - basic program established in 2000
Option 2 describes actual cost to operate program in 2002
Option 3 is an addition to Option 2 and starts to build program that would show improvements to the 2002 season, and would improve the larviciding and adulticiding program, consolidate operations facility and budget for 2 Air Force aerial sprays; would increase use of barrier sprays, budget for site reduction, start using long term larvicides and purchase 2 pickup trucks for the program.
Option 4 is recommended plan and this would build a program that would enable them to complete a citywide ground spray in one night throughout the entire season, increase staff and equipment to accommodate these needs. This plan allocates money for start-up and capital replacement expenses, increases labor budget and identifies needs for additional control on the greenway - and with this option expect an overall reduction in population of mosquitoes in shorter duration; and reviewed daily trap count sheets; and stated the cost to operate this option would be approx. $596,000/year and would have to increase monthly fee to $2.50.
Option 5 is aerial application for mosquito control and would include spraying one-half mile buffer around the exterior of the city; total cost would be $315,000 for 20 sprays plus annual budget needs of $911,000, raise in monthly fee to $3.80/mo.
Option 6 is aerial application for the city of Grand Forks; aerial spraying would come in accordance with arboviral surveillance plan, and would recommend doing Option 6 when they have a health concern for mosquito borne viruses.

He stated they have set a performance measure and see how productive they can be and set a goal of having an average daily trap count for the season at 60 or below, and that with Option 4 could reach and even surpass that goal.

Several council members stated they've had calls saying to "cut it all out, not doing any good", and other side that "whatever it costs, do it".

Hamerlik stated they are leasing pickups, and are recommending purchasing pickups, and if that is cost effective for using 3-4 months per year. Mr. Shields stated they are leasing 5 pickups, have not received bid for leasing pickups in over 3 years, have to negotiate with dealers who have told them that they are not willing to lease the number of vehicles that would be required to put these machines on the street; they are proposing to continue to lease 5 vehicles but have to purchase 5 other vehicles in order to make up difference it would take to put this equipment on the street to be able to do city in one night - would lease them all if could.

Kerian asked what is different in the larvicide area under this plan than what currently doing. Mr. Shields stated we use a very short duration of larviciding - 30 days and have to go through the season to put that on wet areas - that Option 4 has a longer-term larvicide - 150 days. Mr. Hanson stated the 150-day larvicide is a very expensive product and have used it in the past on limited areas - which they will not be able to treat all the sites with the 150-day larviciding product but will use the 30-day larviciding on easier sites to treat. Kerian asked if someone wanted to know chemicals being used - Mr. Hanson stated that material safety data sheets and label sheets are available at the health dept., and would put information on the web site.

Kerian questioned aerial sprays - Mr. Hanson stated Air Force would do one additional spray at $8,000 and have budgeted 1 aerial spray in Option 2 - and only do this if had an active West Nile virus or mosquito borne disease in the area or if the mosquito population was at such a level that they deem it necessary. The Air Force schedules the time when they will come in and the dates for the 2003 season are already set, that we cannot specify dates.

Mr. Hanson also noted that if homeowners helped them a little by purchasing a barrier spray and spraying their yard, would help tremendously; that if wind not in your favor may not get good coverage in backyard.

Gershman stated they will be using the 30-day larviciding in the large holding ponds in the greenway, that he has had a number of calls re. that item. Mr. Hanson stated that the ponds in the Lincoln Park are going to be easy to treat sites, and use 30-day products on that and treat them every 30 days.

Gershman asked if any overage built into the budget - Mr. Shields stated also have capital replacement built into 2002 but not a lot of give or take to that budget at $2.50 and if did collect too much revenue, would come back to council and ask to reduce the amount of fees to the public and also do the opposite. He commented on effectiveness of the products - that with the high tech machines they use today, don't see that fog. Mr. Hanson stated that the ultra-low volume sprayers that are used - it appears that the chemical dissipates before it reaches 300 ft., there is documentation that it is capable of reaching well over 300 ft. and is dependent upon the amount of wind; our equipment is set up with the nozzle set at a 40 degree pitch and doesn't matter if face it left or right because will go with wind direction; and at that level getting our 300 ft. drift (but can't get mosquitoes underneath the bushes).

It was noted that the two aerial sprays by the Air Force cost $8,000/each, and Christensen asked in Option 5 when spraying a half mile around the city and have 20 sprays - that a 5-month spray, why spray around the edge of the city versus spraying over the city - better cost benefit by spraying city itself rather than perimeter. Mr. Hanson stated this would compliment our ground spray for the city and would be doing both - would do city with ground spray equipment and do the buffer zone with aerial applications. Christensen asked if that is migration - one half mile - Mr. Hanson stated with the flood water mosquito there is a lot of data available that shows migration - some species capable of migrating upwards of 20 miles. Christensen stated he has some degree of skepticism as to driving down the middle of the street but in backyards pretty bad - and would encourage health department to exclude the Air Force and include some aerial applications for the city itself within our city limits - but have to try to cover the areas we're not covering by driving down the streets, encourage looking at aerial application over the city. Mr. Shields stated if they want them to build in aerial applications to please pick a number and will build that into the program. He stated he would caution on one aspect and in discussions with Dean Sollem who flies the airplanes, can't provide Options 5 and 6 in one evening in Grand Forks, city too big, still have to adulticide by ground because the airplanes can't complete the job. Christensen stated if it takes two nights to get it done; and asked that they think more about aerial applications.

Kreun stated if we can get some aerial applications, realize some of the coverage with foliage and trees isn't applicable - won't go down by the river with aerial application, asked if they have mapped areas for drivers so they know where to go in parking lot areas, and which private streets that they can go down, etc. Mr. Hanson stated they do.

Mayor Brown asked how they were working with East Grand Forks on this. Mr. Hanson stated that East Grand Forks has done assessment so that the Air Force will include them on an aerial spray and he will meet with reps. of East Grand Forks to find out if they want to do an aerial spray with the city of Grand Forks - they don't have the budget to do the larviciding comparable to Grand Forks, they do limited larviciding but not to the extent that we do.

3.9 Job description for urban development director.
Gershman questioned item 4. and concern is so that there is not confusion
between economic development corporation and urban development as to economic development - that with the way 4. reads it could be misinterpreted and asked if there was some other language that could be put in so that it would not be ambivalent. Charlie Bunce stated that when originally talking about this, did have something that said "city government" instead of city. Christensen stated he thinks the language to preclude the confusion is found in the definition where they included the sentence "to work in coordination with the economic development corporation to promote economic and business development" - these are functions in 4. which is to serve as the City of Grand Forks representative in business and economic development issues so this person would sit at the table when these issues are being discussed - need a representative from the City and if the mayor wasn't there or someone else, this person would be staffed. Gershman stated if the mayor, Mr. Bunce and committee were satisfied with that, he was comfortable with it.

Christensen stated the issue is the personalities that are assigned to economic development and who we hire as our urban development director, and tried to achieve along with the help of the committee is paragraph 3. which is defining in this person's job description what they expect of he/she regarding as our rep. in the Growth Fund and underwriting member where the EDC has an application and they submit it to urban development for underwriting for input, pre-application goes to economic development growth fund committee before an actual application comes forward so probably don't have the issues that Kerian was addressing on the MCI project - and they specifically wrote 7. in the essential functions to address some of the concerns re. this person's interface with the federal and state economic officials and in finding other funds, and they addressed some of the issues that Mr. Lund brought forward on behalf of the urban development office so didn't lose sight of the essential function of urban development which is housing.

Hamerlik stated in 4. that using the word "City of Grand Forks" may if somebody outside wishes to talk about economic development, were indicating that somewhere along the line were using the government or council, and might be better wording than the City of Grand Forks so that one of the things they were concerned about is as economic development is proceeding, who should they go to, and we want them to center in the Economic Development Corporation, and may wish to look at that. Christensen stated that maybe to put down to serve as the mayor and council's representative in economic and business development issues. Council agreed.

Glassheim stated he would have no objection to say - " to serve as the representative of the mayor and city council...." in 4.; but did want to make sure that the city government had a strong representation on economic development, not primary but certainly knowledgeable and very important capability and capacity with economic development, that is $1 million of our money and we have to have somebody who represents the government of the city and the people with that money. He stated he needed to make a statement that we have some concerns about what they voted on earlier for the JDA - got in very late in knowing what the deal was that was being considered - and wants to make sure that our rep. is briefed early-on so that we don't get a deal that comes to us - take it or leave it at the end, but have some input into the structuring of the deal before it is finalized. He also stated he thought they had a stronger statement somewhere about the housing function, only see homeless-ess in one place and HOME funds and know the person is not going to be a director of the housing program because the Authority will be the lead agency in that but thought stronger language with housing function still being with the urban development director.

Hamerlik stated in the preliminary draft they had, that's for job advertising, under experience 8 years of economic development and housing experience. Glassheim stated that would be excellent. Hamerlik stated throughout the whole spec, there isn't a mention of housing other than in experience and there's a lot to be said on what needs to be done in the housing area in securing funding, etc. and realize we have a housing professional so don't want that person to get that far involved but agrees that one word probably shouldn't have been taken out. Glassheim stated he didn't know the best place to put it in, but in the definitions, the last sentence where we say that the person will work in coordination with Economic Development Corporation to promote economic and business development, perhaps adding "and with the Housing Authority to promote housing options in Grand Forks", so that it is clear that they're not the lead person and not in charge of it but they work with the lead agency and still charged with doing something about it, and that would be one suggestion for it or Mr. Hamerlik's fine also, adding it in under experience.

Christensen stated he thought the word "housing" was inadvertently left out of this draft, and in draft back in his office had "housing" and will get it to Mr. Bunce so have it for Monday. He stated he also agrees with Mr. Hamerlik under experience, had that in his notes that they didn't have housing in those words either, and that's why they had No. 7 there, "...HOME, and other grants and loan funds." but will make sure it is back in there before Monday.

Hamerlik stated under Training, we're limiting the training to a maximum equivalent to Bachelor's Degree - should be a minimum equivalent to a Bachelor's Degree.

Gershman stated in item 7. to work with federal and state officials and agencies and representative staff members, or something to that effect. Christensen stated at the committee meeting, they asked staff to bring to them review of the policy and began the discussion as to allocation of 2163 funds at the regional level and expect to get something back within the next 2 to 3 weeks, and the EDC and urban development group will get together and review our current Growth Fund policies and give some recommendations so will have those when they get into our planning sessions. 3.10 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of LPF Properties for final approval of plat of Homestead Grove First Addition (located north of 47th Avenue South between Sunbeam 5th Resubdivision and South 11th Street. (public hearing and second reading of ordinance to amend Street and Highway Plan to include public rights of way shown on the plat were continued to January 21, with discussion at this meeting).______________________________________ and recommendation from the Planning Commission is that you continue these to a public hearing on February 17, the developer has asked for an extended time period to finish the work they are doing. No additional comments.

3.11 Request from CPS, Ltd on behalf of Homestead Grove Partnership for final approval of ordinance to amend the zoning map to exclude from the A-1 (Limited Development) District and to include within Homestead Grove PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, all of West Half of SW Quarter of Section 22, T151N, R50W of 5th P.M. (located west of South. Washington Street between 40th Avenue South and 47th Avenue South) (Public hearing and second reading of ordinance to amend zoning map were continued to January 21, with discussion at this meeting)._________________
No additional comments. 3.12 Report re. matter of the request from Planning Department to amend the Grand Forks Comprehensive Plan to exclude from the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks 2022 Transportation Plan Update (2001 Bikeway Element, 1999 Pedestrian Element, 2002 Transit Element, 2001 Street and Highway Element, and 2000 Grand Forks-East Grand Forks ITS Strategy Plan Element) together with all maps, information, recommendations and data continued therein________________________________________________
Mr. Potter reported that the Planning Commission's Land Use subcommittee met on January 9 and reviewed this issue, and their recommendation will go to the Planning & Zoning Commission on February 5 is that: 1) delete the fare structure and vehicle types form the 2002 Transit Element; 2) delete the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Strategy Plan Element; and 3) retain all other MPO Long Range Transportation Plan Update Elements in our Comprehensive Plan.

Christensen asked what the Intelligent Transportation System is - Mr. Potter stated that is an element which deals with utilizing computers to interlink traffic lights, signal systems, emergency transportation warning notifications for accidents, taking those systems and trying to link them together so they can be very proactive to any elements, any changes and traffic conditions and major traffic congestions (around Alerus Center or Engelstad Arena). He stated bus routes were not deleted and would remain in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Christensen asked what rationale for having Planning & Zoning involved in bus routes - Mr. Potter stated rationale was linked to the fact that you have an interplay between land use and bus routes because if looking to try to increase density in a community (smart growth) try to building up density areas where bus routes are and are interlinked and rather than removing at this point in time, the subcommittee wanted to leave them in. The Planning Commission has nothing to do with buying or sizing buses - vehicle types that includes size and fare structure has been taken out. Christensen stated that when we have these hearings is if we change bus routes; Mr. Potter stated those would flow through unless the council decides to take that out, council's option, but this is the subcommittee's recommendation to Planning & Zoning; and to remove would take a motion by council on preliminary introduction when presented. Christensen stated that 4.b. says "..to continue studying the need for a specific bridge crossing after the 2000 Census data is available and data from the next comprehensive traffic count..." we must have that data now; Mr. Potter stated they have that data and it is part of the long-range transportation plan update that the MPO is doing and out of that analysis there is a series of potential river crossings that are under study right now and once the MPO has established a recommenda-tion, then come back to the Planning Commission, then back to council for either agreement or disagreement. Christensen asked what has been done in the last 18-24 months to deal with the corridor preservation activities; Mr. Potter stated we have had one subdivision come in on Merrifield Road and what they do in corridor preservation to make sure they have enough right of way for the road, assuming there is going to be a bridge, which is now approved option for southside crossing, want to make sure have enough road right of way and want to limit the amount of road intersections that come from adjacent property onto the road and have done that with the one subdivision. Christensen stated that Mr. Klave was concerned that Merrifield Road bridge, if there was to be one, that people know that, and if do signing. Mr. Potter stated there is staff debate and need to resolve this, should it be MPO that puts the sign up, City even though outside the city limits, or the County - and will work to resolve that.

3.13 Unobligated 2002 HOME funds. 3.14 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5462, English Coulee maintenance from 24th Avenue South to 17th Avenue South through the CIP, that the city engineer has the authority to approve plans and specifications on a project that council has given the budgetary go ahead for; and in this case didn't bring this up as a specific project and in doing plans and specs. would actually be approving the expenditure of funds to do this project.

Council Member Brooks stated the concern to take care of high water levels after some of our large rains and the project will help re-establish the capacity of the channel by removal of silt and vegetation, from S. 17th to 24th, and if know what the impact will be on 17th Ave.N. if take that silt out of there and water starts moving north at faster and larger capacity and if have concern about impact north of that. Mr. Grasser stated when you increase water flows, there's increase downstream, this project is small conservative type of project, and don't anticipate that it will have significant effects downstream, and some discussion as to how beneficial this will be upstream, small step in trying to improve conditions and re-establish conditions, but always incremental impacts downstream. Brooks stated his concern was if start pushing that water in faster is it will come up quicker on homes in the northend and UND campus, Gateway Drive. Mr. Grasser stated there will be some impacts but can't quantify it at this point in time because not looking at a significant impact downstream, more of a smaller area of Columbia Mall area and also the discharges from the storm pumping stations and are relatively minor.

Gershman asked if there was any resistance from residents along that way from a beautification standpoint, that one area of town did not want it touched, or some reason not to take that into consideration. Mr. Grasser stated they wanted approval of the project and funding before bringing it to the public, letters will go out very soon and will have public input meeting following the council meeting and in event get overwhelming discussions, will have to bring back to council for further discussion. Gershman stated they are not approving going forward with the project, but authorizing the bidding of the project. Mr. Grasser stated that once they receive bids that will come back to the city council; and stated that the channel work is about 5-6 ft. wide and 3 ft. deep down the middle of the channel and small area as it relates to the entire width of that channel.

Gershman stated that I-29 and 32nd Ave. on the west side, Big Sioux Truckstop, lot of flooding that happens there, and that maybe taken care of. Mr. Grasser stated that the flooding problems at intersection of 32nd Ave.S. and I-29 on west side are caused from overland flooding coming into town and water can't get across 32nd quickly enough, and have done several things to improve the situation - put in larger culvert on the east side of I-29 but what will solve the problem is the flood protection project, there is a leg of the southend diversion that will extend south to equivalent of 47th Ave.S. and now in the neighborhood of 10 or 12 sections of land that find their way into that corner and will probably cut that in half with the flood protection project - there are benefits to the areas on the west side of community as well as those next to the river - and that won't be ready for the spring flood fight this year, anticipating that will be in place for spring runoff in 2004. 3.15 Bids for Project No. 4810, Lift Station No. 4.
3.16 Wastewater Treatment Plant Biosolids Management Facilities Plan.
Todd Feland, director of public works, stated they were here to go over the abbreviated version of the bio-solids facility plan, they reviewed this at the safety/service standby committee, and will go over the plan in brief and that there is some additional information that they gathered from EPA and want to go over that in more detail for further consideration. He stated the wastewater treatment plant expecting to have start-up of that facility sometime between February and March and at that time will have all the flow and sludge to go through the lagoon system at this time, and have been granted up to 3 years to put in place a bio-solids facility after they start disposing of sludge within those lagoons. He stated that Scott Carr, Black & Veatch, and Steve Burian, Advanced Engineering, sub consultant, would present overview.

Mr. Carr reviewed the biosolids management options, and recommendation of Alternative 2, which came out of the standby committee; and two updated treatment strategies and the second treatment strategy is the one they have gathered from further information and merits from further discussion because it has potential of both reducing the operation and maintenance costs and also the capital costs and forestalls it at this time.

Mr. Carr stated that Alternative 2 is one of the lowest cost options, both from initial investment of project cost but also from overall life cycle cost, and gives flexibility of outlets for the material, land application being the primary target but also process the material sufficiently where it could be disposed at the bale-fill - low complexity alternative, one disadvantage of it is that there is a moderate odor potential when working sludge, and would involve some air-drying of the product.