Council Minutes

MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Monday, January 27, 2003 - 7:00 p.m.________

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, January 27, 2003 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 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) He reported that last week he and Pete Haga were in Washington, D.C. to visit with their delegation and he attended the U.S. Conference of Mayors; and had productive meeting with Congressional delegation and staff, talked about our community's biggest priorities - flood protection funding (when there the Senate passed the Omnibus Spending Bill which is great for our city, Air Base Retention and they were aware of how important this is to our community and gave us advise on how to proceed. He stated they reiterated that we had solid leadership locally with John Marshall, and hopes to name the Air Base Retention Committee by the end of this week; Homeland Security and Grand Forks' role as regional center and several other funding and legislative issues. He stated we continue to have good relationships with our Congressional delegation.
2) Congratulations to Master Police Officers Dwight Love and Mark Ellingson who will be promoted to the rank of sergeant this week, promotion ceremony will be at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 30. Officers Love and Ellingson have been with the department since 1993 and 1998, respectively.
3) He thanked Charlie Bunce and Gary Goetz for traveling to Bismarck last week to testify in favor of Senate Bill 2176 that provides access to an affordable health benefit program upon retirement. He stated he has had great feedback on their testimony and believes this bill will benefit the cities and organization but more importantly will be a tremendous benefit to our employees. He thanked local senators who passed the bill today and to Representative and Council Member Glassheim who signed on the bill. He also thanked Council Member Hamerlik and the rest of the council who have been supportive of this idea in the interest of the employees.
4) Ski Day has been postponed from January 31 and February 1 to February 21 and 22.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ITEMS

3.1 Budget amendment - Department of Finance/Administrative Services.
Council Member Brooks stated he reviews amendments to see what the financial plan and where putting the money, this one exists with expenditure budget at $93,000, that he thought the Air Base figure was a little off with the $200 million impact on this community, and $93,000 seems paltry sum to work on retaining this. He stated what concerns him is that something as important as this that they need to have a strategic plan on where going, that the budget reflects the strategic plan related to the mission; that he would ask for by next week some print out of expenditures from last year so have some idea of what they've been doing and if we have a plan in place of how going to conduct this.

Council Member Gershman stated that the Mayor had announced in his comments that he will be announcing the committee that will be doing this work, and the Mayor with John Marshall will be putting together a strong committee and agrees that there's no need to wait for a strategic planning session, the committee will come forward relatively quickly with some suggestions to the mayor and city council for the plan as we need to go forward, and the council will understand that the economic, social and cultural impact of the Air Base to this region is important on all those levels.

3.2 Budget amendment - PSAP.
Council Member Gershman stated the citizens passed the 50-cent increase and as go forward in 2005-2006 we slip back into deficit. Al Morken, director PSAP, stated that is correct, that he has been working with Mr. Schmisek to bring out the fund past that to see how some of the alternatives are going to be, in part of the presentation without passage they would have been farther in the red and as go forward will have to prioritize some of this and looking at the possibility if there are grants or other things they can do in connection with this. Council Member Gershman asked if they took into consideration that more cell phones will be used in the future or as a static number of cell phones. Mr. Morken stated he increased the number of cell phones by 10% each year and decreased the hard-line phones by 5%, and believes the decreases and increases will be faster than that and will continue to monitor.

Council Member Christensen stated he expects a projected balanced budget, not fiscally responsible to project an unbalanced budget; that the fee has been doubled from 50 cents to $1.00, and suggested that they work hard on giving them a balanced budget projection rather than unbalanced because we don't have the ability to give any more money, and then would have to go back to the voters - didn't know how council could approve an unbalanced budget.

The city auditor stated Mr. Morken and his office had conversation this week and what they have been given is the worst case scenario without them sitting down and scheduling out the purchases in a more uniform manner or looking at if have to bond but intention is to bring back a balanced budget and an on-going budget that they can work with the new revenues. Council Member Brooks stated these are preliminary budgets and would like to see a financial plan of more than one year and some work they need do in 2004 and 2005, and should hold that to all budgets they get.

3.3 Project No. 5451, 2003 Sidewalk Repairs (City-owned properties).
There were no comments.

3.4 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5409, 2003 Sidewalk Repairs.
There were no comments.

3.5 Authorization to proceed with project concept report for Project 5287, 17th and the crossing over 42nd. Cindy Voigt stated that path comes from 17th, goes behind the homes between the pine trees and comes up to where new Valley Dairy is, had them put the bikepath in their site plan and hook into 42nd Street on the corner; that there is nothing in this plan for beacons or those kinds of crossings, even a marked crosswalk, and will address that and make recommendation in the project concept report. 3.6 Cost Participation and Maintenance Agreement for overlay and reconstruction of
U.S. 81 from Gateway to I-29.____________________________________________
Council Member Hamerlik stated the project is from U.S. 81 from Gateway to I-29, and asked if that was north or west. Ms. Voigt reported this will be an overlay by the NDDoT, not a reconstruction, couple segments of box culverts and regular overlay from Gateway two miles north is our city participation cost, but DoT will be doing all the way to the interchange.

3.7 Providing service to property on the wet side of the Corps levee.
Council Member Christensen stated engineering is asking for authorization to price the construction of a lift station; Mr. Grasser stated they were asking for more than that - are asking as policy issue and question is if we want to provide city utility services to the area on the east side of the flood protection line. A map was put on the projection screen showing locations of current city limits at Adams Drive and pocket north of 62nd Avenue South that is currently outside the city limits and unplatted, and location of lift station.

Mr. Grasser stated first question is, do they anticipate that to be a future city growth area and if that is area they are looking to provide services (sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, streets) and if we wish to do that, there are some actions they should take at this time and part of what is driving this is that there is a property owner on the east side of Belmont Road west side of the proposed dike that is ready to build and two ways to get sanitary sewer service to that area: 1) to bring in extra deep sewer all the way from Cherry Street, can serve that by gravity and if not ever envisioning taking any more services farther to the east, that might be the way to go.

He stated the next question is whether they should serve anything on the wet side of the dike, that currently this property is above the current 100-year flood plain, may be in the new 100-year floodplain but not by very much and thinks the area can develop even though in the floodplain, real issue is how intensive can the development be, that if don't bring in sanitary sewer and have to put in drain fields, etc. a lower density subdivision with 2 1/2 acre lots with a lot less people than if you developed in a more traditional urban section; they do have a number of lots already platted on an urbanized base. There is a cost for the lift station that is off-set by the cost savings they can have in the gravity system and avoid some special assessments and tapping fees if have to go from the Cherry Street location. That Mr. Adams is considering putting in a lower level levee to meet the 100-year flood protection so they could sell those as protected property and save some of the costs on flood insurance. He stated he disconnected that from his decision-making process in case that doesn't materialize or in case in a location other than what he is assuming here - that even without the flood protection diking, with elevation of land, is prudent for the City to look at allowing that to be developed in an intensive manner.

Council Member Christensen stated it would be helpful before considering this if get another map showing the other lift stations so can position this; that he has a concern about the property that is west of Belmont that is undeveloped, south of LeClerc's property, to 62nd as that is not in the floodplain, the dike will protect that area; and is concerned about what we leave for those that follow us if we make some representations that the next councils can't deal with - if we have an event and the person who wants this land serviced with this lift station only gives them protection to a 100-year floodplain when we are doing protection for all of us at 265th year protection event.

He stated the second concern he has is circle if this is actual lift station that is being built; that there is a lift station on 47th Avenue South and servicing that which is annexed to the city now and how would Mr. Crary's property have been served without this plan and what lift station would have serviced his property that has the protection of the dike. Mr. Grasser stated the lift station that would serve this area would be the gravity sewer on 55th Avenue South, near Washington Street and would also serve the land to the west of Belmont Road. Christensen stated that they have a lift station that would serve all the land within the city within the dike protection at this time; Grasser stated yes. Christensen stated if they were to go with the recommendations recognizing that we haven't changed our policy on tapping fees they have been discussing at CIP, and general consensus of the group was we aren't going to change our policy on tapping fees for the year 2003 and whoever gets the benefit has to recognize that they will have a tapping fee, may change depreciation schedule so they will pay more of it, but all are concerned that the future lot owners are well advised that in addition to what they are paying for their lot, will have a tapping fee when they take out their building permit.

He stated that if they are going to do something like this, prudence would dictate that the property that isn't within the dike protection that they insist that the owners are required to build a dike to protect the property owners who will be buying this, because they will have a representation and a belief that they have protection, and day may come where an event will occur and they will be annexed into the city but won't have the flood protection that the rest of us have. He stated that they have some issues to cover before moving on this because there could be a lot of representation that have to be dealt with before we spend $600,000 or $700,000.

Mr. Grasser stated the lift station they are talking about near Washington, and sanitary sewer gravity mains ends at Cherry Street, and if going to serve this property on the dry side of the levee, would need to run the gravity main down Belmont Road and into the subdivision. (gravity main means the Crary addition would drain towards the lift station - would be a sloped pipe) and lift station would pump to sewage plant.) Christensen stated he is not concerned about judgment but concerned about the representations and protection of those people who would be on wet side of the dike - probably great planning but have to deal with those other issues because not on the dry side of the dike and don't have protection.

Mr. Grasser stated that as these parcels get platted, would incorporate some language into the platting process that would indicate the relative position with our permanent flood protection plan, and the fact that we have the right to shut that area of the sanitary sewer off, will have shut-offs on the new lift station, because it will be on the dry-side of the dike and have shut-offs on gravity mains in the event that there is catastrophic flooding in that area would be able to prevent that from coming back and flooding the city - probably cover that in the platting process to make sure there is language to notify people so they are aware of that situation.

Council Member Kreun stated this lift station serves a new area and also keeps the reserve capacity for those other existing areas, some of the areas are not yet developed, and that is the main concern during this process and decision-making is that the existing people and future of that existing lift station would be maxed out past its capacity because of development that is unknown at this point in time; most of this that is outside that area would be brought in through the normal area process through platting, through planning and zoning, etc. and go through the normal channels so everybody has their ability to give the input that is necessary.

3.8 Proposed boat ramp (Greenway). item in the Herald that suggested that we would be opposed to the Lincoln boat ramp, and that would be jumping to conclusions - that what they asked is that there be some additional study, that both the Park District and neighborhood groups have some questions as well as fishing groups, that wanted to know more about what other choices might be and how that would work out within the community - there was some support for a boat ramp for safety reasons that have a way to put boats in on the west side of the river and south of the dam , good information but need to follow up and make sure all of these things get investigated and spend more time in coming up with a plan; timing is such that we will not put this particular proposal in and do not like to delay that part, but for neighborhood and all the other questions, right thing to do at this time.

INFORMATION ITEMS

4.1 2003 ADA Curb Ramps 4.2 Storm Water Lift Station No. 89 and Drainage Improvement Study to
1) Council Member Brooks stated that as watching news this weekend and the number of troops in the area that were activated and leaving their families (that not a really popular move of the President, not a consensus perhaps, and doesn't know how that fits in politically) but as the troops leave their families that everybody puts aside whether they think it is right of wrong and lend some support to the troops and their families; and that troops will eventually come back home, and Godspeed to them and our prayers are with their families and rally around those people and put aside the other things. Mayor Brown stated that is something we watch for Base retention, too, is how we treat the people now and at this crucial time.

2) Council Member Hamerlik asked Mr. Swanson if he had heard from the Attorney General relative to council liability in funding private organizations as far as the Home Rule Charter is concerned; Mr. Swanson stated that the actual request for the opinion went out today to the Attorney General, that he sent it out after last week's additional conferences with the city attorney in Fargo, there was an indication that Fargo was getting the Attorney General's opinion, doesn't believe that is accurate, and that we went ahead with request to the Attorney General (copies of request to council members in their mail tomorrow).

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Kerian and seconded by Council Member Kreun to adjourn. Carried 7 votes affirmative.
Respectfully submitted,



John M. Schmisek, City Auditor