City of Grand Forks - Print Friendly Form

Working Session

Mayor and City Council Work Session

January 26, 2005 – 5:00 p.m.
A101

Council Members Present: Bob Brooks, Doug Christensen, Hal Gershman, Gerald Hamerlik, Curt Kreun (joined meeting in progress).
Council Members Absent: Eliot Glassheim, Dorette Kerian.
Others Present: Rick Duquette, Al Grasser, Todd Feland, Don Shields, Maureen Storstad, Al Morken, Dennis Potter, Daryl Hovland, John Packett, Pete O’Neill.

Gershman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.

1) Final Discussion on Stormwater Rates.
a) Final Determination of Stormwater Exemptions
b) Final Determination of coefficients for previously exempted properties

Al Grasser, City Engineer, stated that the handout he distributed today is a duplicate of part of last week’s handout so that the group would have it for reference at today’s meeting. He continued that the main focus for discussion today will be to finalize the exemptions that should be left in the ordinance and to set coefficients for any property groups that will no longer be exempted. Grasser stated that it was requested that he give some recommendations as to the exemptions and coefficients and that he would like to provide that to the group. They are as follows:

1. Street right-of-way – Grasser recommended that for clarity sake there should be an exemption added to the ordinance exempting street-right-of-way from the storm sewer charges.
2. Residential coefficients – Grasser recommend that the residential coefficient rate be left at .00025. He stated that his staff picked some random properties and calculated an actual run off rate for those sample properties and that the results ranged from .00024 to .00029. He stated that based on these results a .00025 seems to be a good fit for this category.
3. Public or private cemetery exemption – Grasser stated that at the last meeting there had been discussion on this item ranging from eliminating the exemption and setting a coefficient that would be the same as other similarly developed property and that if the council decides to eliminate the exemption then Grasser would recommend a coefficient of .00017, which is used for undeveloped land such as a park. He continued that while they have not actually calculated runoff rates for any of the cemeteries, due to their nature the runoff would be similar to that seen in the park areas of town and as such should be fairly covered if given that rate. Hamerlik stated that when the flood special assessment was done the cemeteries received a rate that was one half of the normal rate they would have fallen under, due to their special classification, and suggested that perhaps that philosophy would fit in this case as well. Grasser answered that in this case, their run off would be the same as any other similar property so he would still recommend using the .00017 if the exemption were to be eliminated. The group discussed that the potential revenue from this category would be less than $8,000 and debated pros and cons of eliminating the exemption. Motion by Christensen, second by Brooks, to continue an exemption for public or private cemetery property in the ordinance. Aye: Brooks, Christensen, Gershman – 3, Opposed: Hamerlik. Motion carried.
4. Public School Properties – Grasser stated that his recommendation is to change the coefficient to .00030 for the public school properties. He stated that when actual calculations were done on sample properties, they found that rates ranged from .00026 to .00044, and pointed out that all of the sample results were well above the current rate of .00020 that has been charged. Motion by Christensen, second by Brooks, to set the coefficient for public school properties at .00030. Aye: All. Motion carried.
5. Church properties – Grasser stated that he would recommend that no sample actual calculations were completed in this category, however historically the churches have been treated much like school properties and so he would recommend that the rate be changed to be .00030, the same as the school. Motion by Christensen, second by Brooks, to set the coefficient for church properties at .00030. Aye: All. Motion carried.
6. City Property with Water Meters – Grasser stated that he has been working on this and has come to two possible scenarios that either could fit: 1) set all property the same, regardless of residential, commercial, etc. and 2) having the property take on the coefficient for the class that fits it, for example, a city owned residential would have the residential rate, a city office building would fall in the commercial rate.

(Kreun joins meeting.)

7. Grasser stated that he had done a sample calculation for the Alerus Center and at .00025 the $650 per month, and at .00035 the monthly bill would be about $900, and further that some would argue that it really should fit in with other commercial property at .00040. Philosophically, he stated that we could set a rate that would be charged on all city owned property, regardless of its category, and that maybe a .00030 would be about an average that could work. Alternatively, you could let a house be charged the residential rate and then commercial be at that rate, etc. Christensen stated that for ease of understanding by others in may be appropriate to use a consistent rate. Motion by Christensen, second by Brooks, to set the coefficient for all city owned property at .00030. Aye: Brooks, Christensen, Gerhsman, Kreun – 4. Opposed: Hamerlik – 1. Motion carried.
8. Railroad Property – Grasser stated that he has struggled with a recommendation on this category for a number of reasons. He exmplained that generally speaking gravel is considered to be permeable and as such properties with large areas of gravel are set at the lowest rate of .00017, however in the case of the railroad, many of their graveled areas are very hard and packed and therefore, would actually have runoff more consistent with pavement. He continued that on the other hand there are also a sizeable area of railroad land that, in particular that west of 42nd St., which is grass and ditch and definitely permeable and undeveloped. He stated that if the Council wished he and staff could work further on this category and look at it more closely from an engineering standpoint to determine a recommended rate, and since he could not say for sure what an actual runoff would be he would conservatively set it at .00017. Gershman inquired what rate could be justified based on what we know now Grasser stated that without extensive other research at least a .00020 could easily be justified. Motion by Brooks, second by Kreun, to set the coefficient for railroad property at .00025. Aye: All. Motion carried.
9. English Coulee exemptions – Grasser inquired whether the committee wanted any further discussion on these properties. He stated that there is a listing of the affected properties and as it stands now they would each get the coefficient appropriate for the type of development, i.e. residential would be at .00025, commercial at .00040, etc. Grasser continued that the deletion of this exemption can be justified, as the City now controls the flow of water in the English Coulee through the flood control project. Motion by Christensen, Second by Brooks, to remove the English Coulee exemption from the ordinance. Grasser informed the group that most of the area of the UND property would probably fall in the commercial range, with exception for some of their housing such as the new townhome development would be residential; Altru would be mostly commercial, but has some undeveloped on its west side of the coulee; Park land would be in the undeveloped category and the residential and commercial would be allocated appropriately to their class. Upon call for the questions, Aye: All. Motion Carried.

10. Pond Exemption – Grasser stated that there had also been discussion about potentially eliminating this exemption as well, since even though the ponds slowed the flow of water, it all ultimately does flow through the system. He stated that his recommendation would be to leave this exemption in the ordinance, as many of these developments put in the pond for the purpose of receiving the lower rate and may come back to the City and request that the City now take over maintenance of the ponds or they would remove them if we no longer offer the exemption. He continued that there are also some new stormwater handling regulations that are going to be coming into play that will require certain properties to have a holding area. Gershman stated that he would be in favor of leaving the pond exemption in at this time. The group concurred that the exemption should remain in place. Kreun added that once the new regulations come into play and we see more ponds being required, even in residential areas that we may want to revisit this issue.

11. Red River Exemption – Grasser stated that it was his recollection that the group would also like to leave in the exemption for properties that drain straight to the Red River, which are mainly the properties on the wet side of the dike. The group concurred.

Grasser stated that he would be in contact with Howard Swanson, City Attorney, to draft a revised ordinance and forward the matter on to COW and Council.

c) Determination of use of funds from annexations

Duquette stated that he and Schmisek were reviewing revenues from newly annexed properties and that on average it amounts to about $300,000 per year and that they are making a recommendation to use that money toward the flood protection and greenway maintenance. Duquette stated that they are looking for policy direction from the Council so that as these new properties come in they know how to handle them. Grasser there may be a policy question that also comes up as to when they are paying the fee – when annexed or when they get the water meter. Christensen asked where the revenue goes now. Feland stated that it shows up as a tapping fee or special assessment revenue in the stormwater fund and it stays in the fund. Grasser stated that any collected for the Flood Project should be coded to go back to the flood project. After further discussion it was decided to make no change in the current way that it is handled at this time.

Other.

Duquette stated that for the next planning session Schmisek would like to bring in Al Erickson of Springsted, Inc., the bond consultant for the City of Grand Forks, to inform the Council of some opportunities that may exist in refinancing the Alerus bond issue. He continued that there appear to be some market conditions that we could take advantage of to save the City money and Schmisek and Erickson would like to review this potential with the Council. Duquette stated that the purpose would not be for approval to move at the present time with this refinancing, but would rather be looking to inform the Council and request authority to move ahead when the market and conditions are right, thereby saving the days lost waiting until it can be placed on an agenda for approval.

Gershman adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sherie Lundmark
Admin Spec Sr.