Committee Minutes

Minutes of the Grand Forks City Council/Finance-Development
Standby Committee Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 4:00 p.m. ___

The Finance/Development Standby Committee met on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. in Room 101 in City Hall with Chairman Christensen presiding. Present at roll call: Christensen, Glassheim, Hutchison.

Also present were Al Grasser, Rick Duquette, John Staley, Chief O'Neill, Council Member Kreun, Roxanne Fiala, Pete Haga, Mark Walker, Mayor Brown, Mike Swenseid, Pat Grinde.

1. Riverside Pool.
Chair Christensen called the meeting to order with one item on the agenda - Riverside pool; noting that they have been involved in this program for a long time, esp. Mr. Hutchison and Mr. Glassheim. Background information relating to the Riverside pool was reviewed.

Hutchison stated that the City took possession of Riverside Park, Lincoln Park and any others along the river that were going to be on the wet side of the dike, the City had asked the Park District if they would sign a long term lease for basically nothing to reopen Lincoln Golf Course, to build a new park in Lincoln Drive park and reopen Riverside Park when the dike was done; that the $830,000 was not to buy land in Riverside Park but was a mitigation for not having the pool - because the idea was that they weren't going to have a pool but water facility north of DeMers and done on a reimbursement basis, the Park Dist. turned over their bills when they built the splash park in University and were reimbursed for that as agreed.

The City had been informed by the Corps of Engineers that Riverside pool could not function as a swimming pool on the wet side of the dike. It was also noted that the deed for Riverside is in the process of being transferred, that the City has taken possession of the land even though still in the name of the Park District.

Christensen read portions of the agreement - that consideration of the covenants taken hereunder by the Park District, the City shall reimburse the Park District for the acquisition of the land described herein, relocation of Park District facilities and activities in an amount not to exceed $830,000. Said compensation shall be in the form of reimbursement for the cost of construction of a splash pool upon filing of appropriate receipts… He stated it looks like there is a question of balance of the $830,000 for acquisition of the land, and that we have to resolve the questions before we make any recommendations. He stated discussion revolved around construction of a water park, was put to a vote of the people in 2003 and was denied; and then the splash park was built in University Park for $235,000, leaving balance of $600,000+. He stated that after the vote and after splash park was built, there was discussion as to renovating Riverside Park, that was studied by consulting firm with an estimate of $1.8, was reviewed by staff and authorized another study by EAPC who worked with pool people from Nebraska, and EAPC reported two weeks ago that renovation of the pool est. at $1.1; that we have $600,000 for the Riverside Park pool and leave shortfall of $500,000, which could be taken from the Greenway Betterment Funds; that left them with other unresolved issues as Park District has told us on more than one occasion that they don't want to run the Riverside pool.

There was a memo from our finance director that in his best estimate that it would be $35,000-$50,000/yr. shortfall and the source of revenue for that is to take it from 2163 sales tax and that would delete the economic development portion of 2163 because we have those funds allocated for property tax relief and infrastructure leaving economic development - economic development is about $1.3, but when look at economic development number we have about $500,000 for deals so taking 8% of economic development to swim for 2.5 months, becomes priorities.

Al Grasser, city engineer, reported that the structure is in the designated floodplain and floodway of the Red River and that with a building that is damaged would not be able to rebuild or renovate - that is where some of the discussions occurred with the Corps, but because of the historical nature of this building room for some negotiation with FEMA and those discussions/negotiations have not been completely resolved - some of the electrical work will have to be elevated about the 100-year floodplain. There are still some discussions that have to occur with FEMA as to opening up and repairing of facility within the floodway.

Christensen asked whether the Park District has a claim to that money, do we believe it is within the scope of our mandate as city to get into the pool business, do we believe we should subsidize another entity if we do not choose to get into the pool business but renovate it, they run it but say they won't cover a shortfall, some discussion about putting this to a vote of the people, and what would they ask people to decide. He stated whether this is an issue they should put to the people or council decide should be a council decision.

Pat Grinde, resident of Riverside area, read letter in support of renovation of Riverside pool (attached).

Glassheim presented various reasons why he thinks they should save the pool and put it back into operation: Putting Riverside pool back into commission would do lot to heal the North/South split - the perception in the northend is that it is getting worse, money is going south with new construction, shopping, School Dist. center in the south, big investments and recreation, golf, etc. and that construction of the dike went from southend to northend and that attitude is out there as a split between the north and the southend and decisions are made which are unfavorable towards the northend - except for Central High School, the greenway , pool and Riverside Park are last public amenities remaining on near northend of town.
That the Park Dist. is a city-wide entity and has to make decisions in the interest of the whole city, however, he asked Mel Carsen, city assessor, to determine the number of properties north of DeMers and approx. value - that 1/4 of the taxes paid by residential properties in contributed by those living north of DeMers.
This is a greenway anchor, a refurbished Riverside pool would anchor the northend of the greenway, a well used system of bike trails, walking trails and pedestrian bike/bridge from East Grand Forks all lead to Riverside Park.
That they should have two outdoor swimming venues, the consultant earlier reported that it takes 25,000 people to support an outdoor pool, that Elks pool is overcrowded, lacks diving board and is not situated in an attractive outdoor setting. If were to add another outdoor pool in the future, would cost $5-8 million and for much less keep options open to people of Grand Forks and visitors and give them a choice.
Preservation of historic facility, the bathhouse is historic property and will be preserved no matter what, however, the cost of bathhouse improvements is in the proposal of $1.1 million, and if isn't improved will continue to deteriorate with each flood, the pool is not historic but is a piece of living history, the bathhouse and the pool are historic icons and should be preserved.
Matter of decline and reason is that Elks heated and Riverside not and in proposal would heat Riverside which would increase usage, there was uncertainty about whether Riverside would have a future and with uncertainty get reduced usage, and that they anticipate somewhere between 9,000 and 12,000 uses.
Importance because of location in the greenway, new bike/pedestrian bridge, that EGF pool needs major work and interest there for different location for an indoor pool - younger families moving into northend, and that Riverside Park is a multi-use park, will have basketball and tennis courts, roller rink, shelters and family picnic sites, and pool is a major access and magnet to increase usage. Benefits are great and the cost is quite small.

Several residents of the Riverside stated support of the pool - that economically makes lot of sense in trying to figure out what to do on the northend to make people live there, make it attractive place to live - low cost to do that. In favor of putting it up for a public vote - and why opposed to letting the public have their say on it - that people living in that neighborhood have been waiting for an answer, resolution for long time and have final say and be done with it.

Christensen stated they make decisions, that none of them are against the Riverside pool, but there are other issues here that council has to address, we have one governmental entity that is in charge of parks and recreation and they have said they don't want anything to do with it.
The storage structure remains but no swimming pool, that he is in favor of a swimming pool but the problem is that the Park District doesn't want to run it and residents should be at the Park Board meetings - they don't want to pick up the shortfall, and City going beyond the $830,000 and lay up another $500,000 so have swimming pool, they don't want to run the pool, it will be short $35,000 - if it is a Park District function and provides parks and recreation, they should do it -

Glassheim stated the Chair asked the question of being in the pool business and that it is not very unusual, that we are in the entertainment business, in the hotel business, arts business, events business, airport and City has put money into these things but do it because have amenities that the town will grow on and citizens want, spending on things could save - that it is our business, and it is our business because we own the pool because of the flood and we have some part in decision making of what will happen to it - that it has always been about money, not that the Park District doesn't want to operate the pool, they don't want to incur the losses and if we said we were willing to provide the money and contract with them, then we should leave it up to them to decide one more time whether they will do it as long as they don't incur the losses and question is do we want to incur the losses which amount to about $0.70/person year in operating and $1.50/year per person in capital and that is the choice before us. A resident stated that the Park District doesn't want to run the pool nor the City and asked if it matters what the community wants, that it wouldn't cost anything to put this on the ballot in June.

Hutchison stated the City owns the pool because of the dikeline but the City also owned Lincoln golf course, Lincoln Drive park and the idea at that time was that they would be leased back to the Park District because they wanted the Park District to run them, that he has said since 1998 when they set the dikeline that he didn't think they should have a pool on the wet side of the dike. At the time the Corps of Engineers said we couldn't have it, revived with the vote in 2003 when city council talked about taking the $830,000 and giving it to help build the water park. A lot of people are happy with what has happened on the greenway, that Lincoln Drive park doesn't have a pool, not a pool in the southend of town and has not affected values, values keep going up and intention has always been that Riverside would be as good or better a park as any we have - there is a gradual decline in usage over the years - Elks has also had a decline - that he would like to keep Riverside and their thought was depending on where the dikeline was, Riverside would stay open if on the dry side of the dike, and closed if on the wet side, and thinks that is the right decision - thinks it should be a Park District decision. That with declining usage of that type of facility, agrees should have two pools but one outdoor and one indoor - he stated that residents should have an answer. The City received a lot of money to recover from the flood and that we should be smart enough to put facilities where they are not in danger anymore.

The question was asked if a vote was taken what would it state. Glassheim stated it would be an advisory vote with a yes or no answer (re. his proposed motion which he submitted) and get information to council and/or public what we are talking about and include not to exceed $1.1 million from these sources -

Hutchison stated he didn't think they should have a pool on the wet side of the dike, would rather see the city have two pools, one indoor run by the Park District and one outdoor and service better than two outdoor pools, heating would increase usership but looking at 8,000 users, loss of about $45,000, cost $18,000/year to heat Elks and probably $23-24,000 to heat Riverside, and to spend $1 million to give you the opportunity to lose $50,000/year and outdoor pool - get about 50 nice days of usage - open first week of June and close end of August - 2 1/2 months; and should be a Park District decision.

Christensen asked if should advance funds to $1.1 million and authorize that money if the Park District wants to build a pool and run it. - they will make the decision and they will have to figure out how to cover the shortfall -make it simple. Glassheim stated he has been to many meetings and they don't want to lose $50,000/year on Riverside pool and they will say no.

Hutchison stated the Park District would have to sell bonds because can't increase taxes - and his thought is that they wouldn't try to pass a bond issue to build another outdoor pool - and stated that the Park District should run it if opened and pay for part of the subsidy - if goes to vote of the people, Park District should run it and pay for subsidy. Christensen stated the money is there to save the pool - and we have done our job as a city.

Motion by Glassheim to approve $1.1 for capital renovation of the Riverside pool contingent upon the Park District agreeing to operate the pool. Hutchison seconded the motion. Motion carried.

Duquette suggested that the matter be presented at a special committee of the whole meeting on Monday for discussion and then to the city council for action. The Park Board will be meeting on April 1, 2008.

Adjourn

The meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk