Committee Minutes

Minutes/Service-Safety Standby Committee
Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 5:00 p.m._________

The Service/Safety Standby Committee met on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. in Room A101 in City Hall with Committee Chair Kreun presiding. Present at roll call were Kreun, Brooks, Bakken, John Schmisek, Al Grasser, Hazel Fetters-Sletten, Todd Feland, Rick Duquette, Paul Endres, Chief Packett, Dan Braaten, Dorette Kerian, Bryon Sieber, Mike McMenamy, Bill Vasicek,

1. Draft drought contingency/water demand reduction plan.
Todd Feland, director of public works, reported they wanted to use this committee over next several months to go through master planning on water and wastewater sides, and also doing memorandums on existing facility seeing issues they have and bring those plans in over next two years in 2007-08, this is first step in the process. Kreun stated in that interim period of time will they be using some of these policies as they go forward. Feland stated they were bringing this one in first because it ties to the water supply and it will cover the ordinance - today wanted to introduce the subject and have Hazel summarize that document, get some input and then bring back at future time.

Hazel Fetters-Sletten, water superintendent, presented information on the Drought Management and Conservation Plan which had been sent to the committee for their review along with copies of various permits. She reported she has prepared a document that incorporates both drought management and conservation and goes on to next step to enforcement. She reviewed the Plan following the table of contents.

She stated the first section identifies supplies, permitted locations - the last time she brought a plan for demand reduction, called it demand reduction but it was actually driven by the fact that they couldn't withdraw any more water from the Red River because of our intake from Red Lake River and was really to address demands and burdens on the infrastructure; this plan would go a step farther and address the water supply side of things and that is what ties into the Lake Agassiz project and encompasses both demand reduction, conservation and brought together to look at water supply issues as well so can verify our needs. Our current supplies are familiar with those but less familiar with reservoir storage and the City of Grand Forks does have senior water right on water in Lake Ashtabula behind Baldhill Dam; ND is a western water law state where it is first in time, first in line so Grand Forks has senior right over Fargo on that reservoir and one of the important things that Lake Agassiz Water Auth. is looking at is the plan operation which calls for water and how we know that our allocation is going to be ready for Grand Forks and not used by upstream users.

She noted Reservoir Storage is listed and did a little background search in pre-existing documents, Alternate Water Supplies such as aquifers in the area, those have been studied and really not good sources of water .in the volumes we might need in a drought situation, and not alternate water supplies available to the city which limits us to the Red and Red Lake Rivers. She stated she included copies of the permits in the appendices A.

Fargo has an existing plan and have outlined some drought indicators and we will use the same indicators, the Standard Precipitation Index, The Palmer Drought Sensitivity Index or Analysis, different reservoir levels that are upstream and have water available to us and stream flow conditions which is the CSF in the River at Grand Forks and upstream points. She noted there is a series of spread sheets which as they get into the Drought Advisory and Drought Watch Levels would start monitoring, and that is the format they have adopted and seemed to make sense that upstream (Fargo being our upstream neighbor) will feel the impact first and we would follow some of their triggers. There is a lot of history and a lot of data available on the internet and there will be references to each of these websites. They would use some of the same assumptions as Fargo and add the Red Lake River and the Red Lake Reservoir as some of our monitoring points, and thought about adding some of the larger tributaries on the MN side like the Buffalo and the Wild Rice.

She noted that the drought levels are listed as normal which is everyday operating, drought advisory which would be a Level II, drought watch, drought warning and drought emergency and those are fairly standard in the water industry and defined in the American Waterworks documents and also have been adopted by the City of Fargo.

She stated this brings us to the part for council input is demand reduction policies and through it would be useful and it is already happening now even though we are not in a drought emergency we're working on a little bit of an advisory capacity knowing the treatment plant capacity at any given time, knowing that the distribution needs and communicating daily with the fire department on hydrant flushing, that is a necessary maintenance operation but they call the plant asking how it looks re. storage and give them the go ahead and they continue on working, those things are going on. The Drought Advisory Comm. would take it to a more formal level, and listed in Appendix C some potential people that would be on that committee: mayor, city council, various industries, fire department and other city departments and would want to get as much input into that, don't want to be premature in addressing a drought level but want to be cautious and with mix on the committee would be able to do that. That is a place for council input and will start bringing that committee together communication and informing them when get to Level II , which is a drought advisory. She noted when they get to the third level, that when go more formally and have a formal meeting schedule and that is similar to what they do when we have a flood situation, start out with availability and then move into the next step which is regular meetings.

She stated some of the education is more of a normal operating situation where people aware of wasting water and their options and as get into different drought levels then we bring that up and that is where enforcement comes in. Watering - they have different schedules for watering lawns and best thing they could do there would be to limit the hours and that is another thing she would like the council to look at is what they are doing there as far as normal and advisory and the Level I, Level II and Level III conservation measures. She stated they moved awry from the odd/even days of the week sprinkling to setting a refined schedule of Monday/ Thursday and Tuesday/Friday and some hours and one of the goals would be to look at peak production times or peak use times when the tower levels are dropping and shave something off of that. She stated this may be a little aggressive and maybe that is one of the things they would like to have a little more input in; one of the tools they have there is their water model of distribution system so they can feed some different scenarios into that model and see impact of what that might mean to summer water usage where limiting those days and hours. She stated goal that she never wanted to limit storage to less than half of the safety factors if major fire needs storage behind us; and another thing would like to use water model to verify before go final. She stated would like to look at some of the user groups more specifically - asking a commercial business such as a car wash not to operate, is that really a significant impact on our water savings or is it a home usage that we don't affect businesses and that is something will use some data from water billing to look at; and that is on her next steps list.

Plan Implementation: That she would be watching the numbers filling in charts and when get to a certain point, then would have to make drought advisory through Todd and the Mayor's Office and then come back to advisory who would be involved in all levels and use Mayor's Office for final say on where that level of drought and time for these types of things. Another thing that they talked about briefly with the enforcement and maybe a little soft there, maybe need to be tougher if really in a drought emergency and is another area for council input.

She included a list of references and a copy of our current permits and withdrawal rates for each river source, there is description of those drought indicators. The Drought Advisory Committee makeup another area that probably needs some work is public education and conservation practices. She stated they probably would need some User Agreements, one is Simplot, because could save a lot of water if they would operate one line and needs to be done more formally in a true drought situation if they are operating at that time. She stated there are all kinds of stream flow gauges all over the State and if there are any that they think she should be monitoring that she doesn't have on the list that would be something they could add as well.

She stated in conclusion the next steps would be to collect input from the city council and other affected departments and use the water distribution model to verify what they potentially would be saving at each of those levels and use billing information to analyze some of the user categories to see what the real impact is. Eventually will get presentation to council for adoption of the final plan. She stated that currently they are at 9 mgd and over the weekend at 12 mgd, capacity is 16.5 mgd and are doing well and river still has significant amount of flow and are monitoring it, and are pre-advisory at this point. Feland stated that Simplot is such a large user, not fully on line and use 2 to 3 mgd, if fully operating could add 3 mgd onto our current usage.

Kreun asked if this plan has to go to the State Water Commission. Hazel stated that once the council has adopted it they have been asked for the plan by the Red River Basin Commission, State Water Commission and Lake Agassiz.

Kreun asked what was the chain of command or procedures of contact information and how do we get this out to the public in an easy manner. Hazel stated through press releases drafts that were presented in 2002 and need updating. Kreun asked how many acre feet of water do we normally use in a year; Hazel stated about 3 billion gallons and would have to do conversion; our allocation is way above what we use. Kreun stated an acre feet is about 13 billion gallons of water.

Kreun stated we will take this to the next level and will be back at a future meeting. Kreun stated we are behind where we should be in getting this into place but not an immediate emergency on this. Feland stated we are more infrastructure limited and can only treat so much water but not supply driven at this time. Water quality would be an issue if mechanical failure at the plant; the newest addition to the plan is 1984, 2/3rds of the bulk of the softening portion of the plant was built in 1956 which makes it 50 years old this year; and some of the original mechanical pieces are still operating; on Friday, the 14th they had to put in a different style motor and drive because they couldn't get the one that failed and luckily the city electricians were able to get that retrofit done and the basin was available, although didn't need it this weekend, 12 mgd would have been where we were at in capacity if that basin hadn't been restored. Hazel stated if they have any questions to call her at water treatment plant or water distribution office. Total finished water storage is 15 mg

2. Alcohol server training ordinance.
Pete Haga gave a brief overview of the task force committee meetings and ordinance presented by the committee; that the Mayor's Task Force was organized last November to specifically look at what the cities of Grand Forks and East Grand Forks could do to address what they saw as a problem of underage and binge drinking, something that has been seen throughout the nation and region Membership on the committee were council members from each of the cities, staff and police from each of the cities, also community representatives from organizations around the community that were involved with issues of underage drinking, binge drinking members of the hospitality organization; that after 4 - 5 months of meetings the task force centered around what they could effect and try to develop some recommendations to pass to the mayors and city councils, and doesn't have those recommendations before him. Primarily the main recommendation was that a greater community effort was needed to address the issues, something that couldn't be tackled with this task force alone or with city governments alone but with the whole community's and that the mayors and city leaders ought to take leadership role in calling for a greater community effort on this. They did recognize as one of the options that cities could look at several different approaches with the ordinances such as server training, laws affecting minors, etc. and the task force chose to go in the direction of server training and that is one step that the cities could take, not a cure all nor an end all but to begin addressing the situation of underage and binge drinking, and asked the city attorney to draft an ordinance modeled after some of the cities that are in region.

Kreun asked the hospitality group to give a written format to work off of and address the issues that were in the ordinance and asked Bill Vasicek to give his overview of how they came up with this ordinance and then ask Mr. McMenamy to go over his written portion to see where we differ and/or come together.

Bill Vasicek stated the task force was looking at point of what the city could do as a government to curb the accessibility of alcohol to minors and binge drinking; that currently the Grand Forks police department is providing server training and from the response of the people attending the training had a real positive response; and because of insurance and liability that the insurance carriers asked that they send people to server training to lessen their liability. He stated one of the things they wanted to add was a fee to server training to help cover the cost, esp. if it went mandatory, $10 fee, and some of the other concerns were that now only operating training once a month to a classroom that holds about 30 people; because they didn't have a demand for more than that at the time and knew that if this went mandatory that they would have to step up the number of times it was operating, but haven't done that yet as it is voluntary.

Mike McMenamy stated they have had several meetings and that they do not want this ordinance (server training), had question of how it would be paid for and a $10 fee, and fee could be increased and who will pay for that - employees or costs come back on the employer; that there was a grant funding some of that and if that would always be around; classes not at capacity, they have high turnover in their industry and re-certify every 3 years. He asked how do they plan to rate the effectiveness of mandatory server training - basically only one way and that is trough compliance checks - that is currently before the ND Supreme Court to see if legal or not - that to send in our police force to check the bar owners to see if they have all of their current records on employees on that night and if that is what they want the police force doing; that he has been told that when the police run the compliance checks the officers are on overtime (it was noted that is not always true). He asked if EGF would go along with this and if they don't do it, then have to compete for employees. (It was noted that EGF passed this ordinance on June 20); however it was noted that Whitey's and Blue Moose had not been notified that this had been passed nor had they received any notification.

There was some discussion as to holding of a minor who has tried to purchase liquor on licensed premise and penalty for such a person.
It was noted that part of the server training process is to explain how to hold that individual or detain them until the police department gets there; that the server training actually spells out rights as an employer and employee in that situation; and that city council received a recent memo. from the city attorney spelling out the ordinances they currently respond to, and goal is to punish those who are actually violating the law. It was noted that the police department has no control over sentence or what happens in municipal court. Kreun stated that the feeling is that the people that are causing the problems aren't the ones being punished, and feeling of liquor dealers is that server was punished but individual walked away and that they want to be put on a level playing field, that if they are going to be responsible then the other person should be too.

Bakken stated that they (liquor businesses) are talking about the consequences, if they do their job and spend their money and train their people, is there consequence to it, that is the issue, if have someone doing this and there is no consequence -- It was noted not to lose focus, that they are focusing on the education.

Dorette Kerian stated the task force was for Grand Forks/East Grand Forks and East Grand Forks has covered some of these things but doing the task force together wasn't something in terms of punishment but in context of what it is that we were able to address as a joint force, needed to take something that needed action on both sides and that is how they got server training and would hope that businesses see as an advantage in having training because of insurance. becomes and community concern, and the training is more important when have turnover because the employees are assets, one is that the employee needs to know that they have some culpability for themselves if they do not handle the age or excessive drinking issues appropriately and need to know that they are culpable and need to protect your business, and committee felt that this could have a good potential of win/win, and if there are things that are wrong with it, and hoping as result of hearing what are the real issues that need to be addressed here. Some of the industry people from EGF thought could be a real help and it is as many of the rules that we put into place, and hope they would have another look at the stance of opposition to this because thinks training is really in our good interest and that police officers saw the need for this and created the training program as need to be sure that people know what it is that they can and should do relative to alcohol. She stated even without compliance check, training would have some value, and are trying to protect people as well as businesses. She stated that if there are some things that they need to change, put this in place and want people turned away, and that people who are either minors or are drinking to excess are turned away, and that is what they asking.

Paul Endres stated that there are a lot of issues here, not just the bartenders fault, not judges fault, etc. and education is way to do it, - mandatory is a tough word for them because they feel that down the road find out what this is going to cost, and end up on liquor industry. He stated that this isn’t the answer to underage drinking and need to come at it at a lot of different angles

Mike McMenamy stated that members of the liquor industry feel that they are at fault or to blame for the problem - that they feel that the minor trying to purchase liquor or break the law should have tougher consequences, and suggested a $2,000 fine and that will send message out. The also suggested that there be a cap on the number of licenses that are issued by the City, that in the past were based on population, that there are currently 27 Class 1 liquor licenses in the city (Fargo has 22 and has a limit on their licenses) - with a total of 67 businesses that are allowed to sell liquor.

The question was asked when the task force was put together, was this in response to the publicity that the Grand Forks got as being rated very high in the nation for binge drinking; when that study came out. Kerian stated it wasn't in direct response to that, that they had worked with EGF on the 2:00 a.m. closing and this was a follow-up of that as to some other things that they might do.

Kerian stated she agreed with many points, but doesn't address the broader community issues of how alcohol is accepted, minors use of alcohol in the community, doesn't address the fine or penalties, etc. and they have brought up the number of licenses that we have and if council wanted to deal with these other ones, you will find some others that are willing to work with you on that, that there is still this ordinance that was passed through one hearing and will be before the council again and asked that the council approve this, that the issues that they brought up was the cost issue and licenses have increased for bar owners and the City, if the City believes, that trained personnel in the bars will help the safety of this community, then it is reasonable to take some of the license money to help with enforcement; that if 3 years is not the right number, what is it; and the enforcement for this particular ordinance and came to terms in working out the EGF that if you don't have your list of employee trainees, then there would be a fine; another way to do that is annually when you come in to pay your license, you list all of your personnel who are trained, and nothing else happens until the next year when have to ascertain that they are all trained or not get your license. People are willing to work with you on other things that were brought up.

Mr. McMenamy stated they think this has tunnel vision - mandatory server training, fee every 3 years, but they are trying to being up whole big picture and minors have no consequences. Kreun stated that minors do have consequences and that would like to have the ability to be either stronger or make sure that they are penalized in some way, but that is not in this ordinance, that penalties are in place, maybe not to the degree they feel is adequate and maybe fines aren't adequate, that now it is left up to the judge and asked if the City could put minimums on them in the city ordinance, and thinks we can.

There was discussion re. businesses self-training their employees, that The Ralph has a certified person who trains their people. On the matter of the re-training issue, it was noted that the Police Department has the responsibility but can delegate it but would want assurance that they are going to allow them to have their own trainers. It was also noted that the State can come in and check without City knowing it. Mr. McMenamy also stated that they didn't like the word "mandatory" and have some suggestions that will help.

McMenamy stated if the ordinance were passed as it is, the burden would be only on them.
Kreun stated this is the beginning step of larger possibility of doing more; that he is a little disappointed with the School District, that they even closed the office for The Answer group, place responsibility on someone else and challenge them to go back and get into the Schools and training and other areas so starts at young age and keeps going up and not at age when they are 19+ and The Answer group does good job but not getting much support from other entities and questioned why it is the City's responsibility totally to take care of this problem.

Brooks asked if pass this ordinance, why not include with it, tightening up some of those other ones to go after the real offenders, that to pass this now and say work on the others later, that never works and if pass this, should include the others. McMenamy stated he would have to go back and meet with everyone for answer to questions, can't answer for other members.

The committee asked that Pete Haga of the mayor's office organize meeting with different groups and a committee member to sit in on it and bring it back to the committee one more time, and if get those other ordinances that have concern with. Kreun asked that they get committee together, come back within one month to this committee - in August.

Kreun stated he would like to hold at least one of these committee meetings each month on council weeks.

3. Landfill update.
Feland reported they had a meeting with users of the landfill and surveys are coming back and may lose some to Fargo or Marshall-Kittson landfill and would like to do two things with the concurrence of the committee; to send a letter to the FAA to say that we are looking at all phase and alternatives and would like their opinion if they would ever allow a landfill location within 6 miles of our airport. He stated that if they look at the map to be clearly outside of the 6 mile limit, have to go south or southwest, and where the I-29 bows on south and west of Grand Forks, that is Merrifield Road, and asked if they want them to pursue anything in that direction or saying in a policy that we're not going in that direction, not prudent planning as that is where the city is growing.

Kreun stated that there is nothing off the table and should explore that, that in Chandler, AZ they are building $200-$300,000 homes across the street from the landfill, can address those issues and it can be done, we have tried to address that in the existing situation but nobody will believe it and nobody will listen and thinks we should address any of these areas that are compatible.

Feland stated that once it is there, people will say it is not that big a deal, drive out to our existing landfill which is an okay landfill but not near what we would want it to be, see a hill planted with grass about a mile from Highway 2 and nobody knows the difference, and could be done properly on a major corridor but will deal with people who don't want it down there and with higher priced land, prime agricultural property, and asked if they want him to continue down that path looking within our ET area.

Kreun stated that if there is a willing seller and if within our ET zone the City controls that - Feland stated if within the ET would have Planning and Zoning authority which we don't have in Turtle River Township and that is why if spend any resources we have to have it in our ET area and once get outside the ET area we have no control and will end up years upon years fighting planning and zoning issues. Kreun stated if we can't put it within our ET and that they are asking FAA if they will give a little bit and if they do, then we can utilize that area as well but have to plan within our ET zone. Bakken stated if we don't have a landfill and don't worry about everybody's else's garbage and only our own. Feland stated we are going to end up hauling our garbage and our interim step could become our long term step; it was noted that Fargo will not take us long term, do have one at Mar-Kit but they won't take us either and have very few alternatives. Feland stated Fargo will take us short term as long as have a long term option, could be in Cass County likely, that Fargo will struggle with trying to find a place and once get outside the ET area the laws in ND are not conducive to siting landfills.

Mr. Duquette stated that as part of our planning process and with dealing with the landfill issue we are looking for approval to continue to look at all options within our ET area to see if there is something that is suitable and acceptable out there, and thinks that's what we are looking for authority to do as we continue to press this issue forward, agrees with Art that this is going to be a deadend but have to see what's out there

Kreun stated that by having that extended territory we have jurisdiction over it and don't have to fight the Township and won't have to worry about the County at that point either and it becomes our own particular problem to deal with without any other governmental body, and that is why he thinks that nothing is off the table in any direction, that if there is a willing seller they can't stop it.

Feland stated that if go that direction will have angry people and have to assume that they really don't want it and will sue the City in court and seek an injunction, and assume that end up in court because individual property owners will gather and if feel strongly enough about it, and even if say yes, that may not be the end of the game either and the same thing we are doing to Turtle River Twp. may happen to the City of Grand Forks. Kreun stated we are not going to quit looking at other alternatives for garbage either and may get to point where we don't need much of a landfill so not a big deal to haul a couple loads a day. Mr. Duquette stated maybe just a transfer station, just hauling garbage. Bakken stated they may want to look at costs of both alternatives. Kreun stated they have done that and it is cheaper to have a landfill but as escalates, maybe won't.
Feland stated this fall they will get prices on what it is going to cost and look at Fargo as alternative, and work on other options in our own area - that Waste Management really wants it and that they are in the business and be the most aggressive and trying to lock up this region, and they are very interested. He stated he wanted to give an update and get acceptance of sending letter and making some informal requests to the south and southwest.

4. Annexation plan.
Brad Gengler, city planner, distributed summary report, that intent is to get some direction from the committee as to what direction they want to go and compiled a list of issues and noted that the Code Review Committee that was formed coming out of the MPO's task of hiring a consultant to revamp the Code, and they are doing some work - looking at annexation policies, focusing on revamping the annexation point system, and they are considering those items, and this group to talk about some of the issues.

The first goal is to identify what types of annexation they are looking at, island hopping concepts, and have developed land within the city and developed land immediately adj. to the city and have larger scale PUD's that are being piecemealed in and have larger scale corridors.

The first thing they need to do is prioritize the list, some battles more easily fought than others.

While focusing on listing to keep in mind when pursuing these things have protest by the owners, and depending on how future annexations are designed, whether 25% or more of the affected property owners saying no, up to Governor's office and back down. Mr. Gengler stated he and Al Grasser have been talking about feasibility of extending the city services, if pursue in a certain area have to be willing and able to lay lines in. He noted that on some of Todd's comments on the landfill, do we extend the ET, don't extend it, and would like to get more creative if we have to pursue extending the ET relative to the landfill instead of doing it across the board 4 mile, may be in a situation of reducing that, to extend the 4 mile in every direction just for the sake of doing it could cause more heartaches for us. Equity in the 2035 Land Use Plan, one of the key objectives is using annexation as a tool of equity to balance some of the odds. Flood protection system - new variable they need to incorporate into the point system. The revised point system will be taken back to the committee within the next month or so.

He reviewed a summary of the main areas:

Large scale areas: North 81 properties - have been through years of annexation studies that have been completed and shelved and are several years beyond the need to go back and look at it, that they looked at some of the existing property owners that were there in mid-90's and all the names are still there and businesses (S & S Transport, Opp Construction) and situation hasn't changed. Kreun stated some things have changed, that S & S needs water to run their sprinkler system and built themselves into a corner and some of the needs are going to change and good time to look at it. Study is already done and if given direction to pick it up again just revamping and replicating the prior study vs. other areas that may require a new study.

Gateway corridor - that have some existing signed annexation agreements based on previous requests for water - Vern's Addition, Bible Baptist Church - that New Vision had an agreement but didn't sign it but have something on record as a document, the crematory is hooked up to water and leading into the airport annexation/lagoon/landfill and charting course to try to get closer to that.

DeMers Avenue: Concrete, Inc. located south of DeMers and have utilized more of their property and have approved another new site plan for their batch plant, and if look south of main complex all that area is essentially their stockyard for their product and have some of their raw materials out there, and when did the original site plan in 2001 on their most recent building addition and went to meeting and mentioned annexation and they said no, they weren't going to play that game, and that there are other variables involved and didn't pursue it at that time. This is good example of taking part, taking all might be difficult, is a large scale development that is utilizing several acres of property but only paying fair share on a portion and that is where equity comes in vs. other large scale industrial users that are paying city property taxes and flood assessments, etc.

South 42nd Street: That if look at corridor from DeMers on, have some larger scale islands left out there and will take extra research due to the sensitivity of the Alerus Center and know that there were some handshakes made, some promises made that may not have ended up on paper and before we aggressively pursue those, would need to find out who said what, that Crary's property to the east across the street from the Alerus, know there were things said and done, some of which is on paper, park dedications and some firm ideas but still talk of issues of where we won't annex you until you come in and are some meeting minutes that reflect some language and how much legality the minutes have vs. actual signed agreements but some of it may reference to won't annex you until you come in for a building permit, so when Choice Financial built on the corner that was the deal, they platted and took care of their zoning requirements, annexed them but didn't take in the entire stretch. Kreun stated they need to go back and look at the agreement on that particular piece, there is some verbiage and Mr. Swanson will have to determine whether they can or cannot. He stated there is another one across the street from the Alerus and is in writing but have to research that.

32nd Avenue South: That west of I-29 have the Animal Kindness, have Tractor Supply and that Crary came in and zoned a larger part, not only the existing site but a line that is the northerly edge of the property and runs over to 48th and back down and that was part of the zoning document but was left in A-2 status, he included it but didn't follow through with any further replatting of it and is an area that is subject to discussion, and have former Amazon site.

South Washington corridor: This is similar to example just used with Crary only on a larger scale, and if go from 32nd Avenue South south have some major PUD's that have come on line in the past two years, Highland Point was an 80 acre PUD, on east side Homestead Grove which is sizeable from 40th to 47th and that is where the conditional use permit for the Alzheimer's Memory Care facility, have Meadow Ridge which is south of 47th, to the west some remaining stuff that Gornowicz has and unspoken for, and even farther west have the residual stuff from Southern Estates PUD. He raised the example of PUD's because they come in at 40-50-60 acres, and will zone the area but only plat 15 acres, develop it and then take on another, etc. Kreun asked when should they address those issues, when they come in for the zoning or when they want to annex a smaller area. Gengler stated it is a pure policy decision that when you come in with a proposal for 40 acres, 50 acres, not care if plat the whole area but will annex the whole thing; and policy with the 2035 and they are recommending that. Kreun stated the 2035 Land Use Policy is recommending that the City start taking those in. Gengler stated need firm backbone when it is challenged, protested and that is why they are revamping the point system. Kreun stated when point system revamped which will be done soon, then should take every one of these and apply point system to all these pieces of property. Ryan Brooks has done some dry runs on some based on the revised point system and that some like Concrete and All Seasons will deal with those as they come but if meet the criteria. He included map of area including All Seasons Garden Center and Kreun stated if it meets criteria then use the criteria. Gengler stated as shown in the North 81 annexation study determining the level of community of interest was big focus and that's when get into number of employees living in city, etc. and other variables and speaks volumes to your reasonings for annexation. .

Other side bar areas: That may not wish to pursue but when look at Shadyridge, the west side vs. dry side and know that have the 2014 Shadyridge Estates annexation that will be difficult to figure out to deal with that. Kreun stated they have agreed to it but Gengler stated with the full provision of services and if continue on and take in Edgewood, etc. Kreun stated we shouldn't annex anything else on the wet side of the dike, and the reason that we are providing services and is art of the city's because it was before the flood and that is where the line went, otherwise constitute taking of the land making it worthless if wouldn't let them build on it; and that anything on the wet side of the dike that is outside the city limits now and that he wouldn't recommend taking as far as annexation goes.

Gengler stated that Al Grasser wanted him to point out the English Coulee pump station and also talked to Mark Walker today and pointed out some other factors involved as why we should annex and is a laundry list of reasons; and is a primary city facility and not in the city. Kreun stated it is one of our main stations and pumps out the diversion channel. ICS has some adjacent property but will deal with that if we take them in that.

Kreun asked whether he needed a motion or a consensus to move forward with the process to bring these in. Gengler stated both but there is lot to think about but if having long list of possibilities or areas where staff should specifically focus, esp. if get into annexation studies, get with assessing to do some costing of property values, getting with engineering on extending utilities. Kreun suggested that they start with the 'low hanging fruit" first, those that meet the criteria of being annexed into the city - start there and get going so have experience and send a message that is what you are going to be doing, as an example - look at property on 42nd and Birkholz, prime piece of property that should be annexed into the city, and a little farther south property with a house and no reason that property not in the city next to 4000 Valley Square, they have every benefit of the city except water and sewer. Gengler agreed and that back that up with the current point system or the revised system, very easy to put in the variables. Kreun stated should start on properties like that and then proceed further - that this isn't going to develop in 6 months, will take a while, over year or 2 or 3 years as they start this process, the more development will take place so more advantageous to develop some of the more questionable ones and bring them, and would like to start that process and direct Planning to bring us a list that they feel would meet the criteria for annexation within those parameters of being surrounded by the city.

Brooks stated that we built the flood protection plan and like other cities that have done that, brought in areas and annexed areas protected by the flood protection, and would like to see that if annex some and if we can provide services and cost on that, impact planning and engineering offices, inspections, and fire department and impacts all the departments. - need to look at all that. Kreun stated as the "low hanging fruit" won't take anything extra, main infrastructure is there, streets are there, fire protection is there. Get those first and then analyze the rest so they are able to do it.

Feland stated one thing on the utility side was not that they served them, but have the ability to serve them, can engineer anything, and gripe is rather than investing in our aging infrastructure, end up in participating in funding new infrastructure and everything we shouldn't be doing, we're doing it - and we should be rehabbing - easy part is to engineer it and build it because can hire people to do that. Kreun stated he mentioned Birkholz Addition as prime example because we don't have to do anything but special assess some streets that would go in there and those people would pay for that, that we have the mainline infrastructures but missing tax base, the utility fees that we make off of that because we have already spent the money and that is his term "low hanging fruit" and that is why want to utilize those first.

Duquette stated he would recommend a motion from the committee, of having staff develop an annexation plan of properties that are contiguous and clearly should be annexed and as part of that take a look at physical impact and engineering and utility requirements. The motion was so moved by Brooks and Bakken. Motion carried.

ADJOURN

The committee adjourned at 7:20 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk